The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-12-05
INTERESTING X. OF H. CASE
CREDITORS MAY COME IN FOB THE
INSURANCE MONEY.
An Able Opinion OF Chanoeno, estes
Clearly Defining the Law Applicable
to Such Gases.

The following is the opinion Of Chancel-
lor b. NJ. Estes in the case OF the Supreme
Lodge Knights Of Honor against Fulmer,
Thornton d Co., ct al:
Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor w. Fulmer,
Thornton Co, ct ai
This is bill in the nature of bill of in
terpeader 10 have the court adjude which
of two claimants is entitled 20 collect and
receive from "the Supreme Lodge Knights
of Honor" the amount due from IL on the
facts shown by the record. On tho 18th of
December, 1878, one j. @. Grant was adj
mitted 10 beneficiary membership of q sub.
ordinate lodge located at Rossyile Tenn
and continued that membership in good
standing until November TO- 1887, when ho
died. In consequence of his membership
and death his beneficiary, IL is conceded
is entitled to s., COO 10 be paid out of the
widows and orphans fund Of tho order
The question for decision is whether the
defendants, Fulmer, Thornton 4 Co., or the
other defendant Willie o. Grant Ga minor
son Of the insuredl is legally entitled 10 the
fund. On the 9TH day of November, 1881,
complainant issued TO Grant a benefit certif-
cate for 5000, payable at his request TO
Estella Grant his wife, which was ON July
D. 1852, surrendered by him and another Is.
sued to him payable TO Fulmer, Thornton &
Co., who were his creditors. On the LIST day
OF November, 1851 Grant made his affidavit
10 the effect that he was unable TO surrender
the hast mentioned certificate because Il was
out Of his possession lin the hands Of Full
mer, Thornton Il Co., of Memphis, Tenn, by
transfer and requested the order 10 issue
him another benefit certificate payable TO
William Grant, his son, which WINS done
Thus two certificates are outstanding, one
held by Fulmor Thornton & Co., as credit.
ors of the insured and the other by his
minor son. The question for judgment is
which OF the two is entitled Go the fund, and
IL Is conceded by counsel that the superior
right Of Fulmer Thornton & Co depends
upon the question whether by law they OBJ
tanned vested rights In the certificate or
claim which could not be impaired by the
instance Of subsequent certificate 10 some
one else. In the brief discussion that will
bcstuW upon the question here involved GER
tain fundamental and well settled principles
viii be borne in mind. These arc
l. That while the complainant corpora.
ton X benevolent and nun-commcrcial In
It's character Green Bricc's ultra wires, d.
is, etc. \ II is nevertheless ON an equal foot.
Ing with natural persons and commercial
corporations before the law, and its contracts
and business powers and relations are gov
crncd by the general laws OF the land. lSae
Austin vs.. Scaying 10 n. v, ia
2 That under the Constitution the Legis.
laturc has not the power 20 impair the
Obligation OF contracts or divcst vested
rights, and fortiori, n private corporation
cannot do this by It's constitution and by
laws.
B. That the holder Of benefit certificate
Of one Of these benevolent orders under tho
direction OF "a member takes the shoes of
the member, although not himself mem.
Der % Ear us his contract rights at the date
Of the contract are concerned and enjoys no
aaass a. 4.
and regulations of the ordcr which may be
binding on the member
4. That when such party, not n member
receives n benefit certificate, the contract be.
tween him aud the order D. ordinarily sub.
jeCt 10 the terms of the constitution, by
laws and reasonable regulations Of the order,
which enter into aud form a part Of the con
tract
Under these principles II becomes ncccs.
sary % ascertain what rights Fulmcr. Thorn.
ton & Go. acquired by receiving the benefit
certificate la July. 1882 They we're creditors
81 Grant, aud, IN consideration OF the certin-
cate granted an indulgence to him on his
indebtedness, and have regularly paid the
assessments made upon them rs the order
They, therefore, bad nm insurabic Interest In
his lie. When the certificate was issued "a
them th, complainant was Operating under
Kentucky charter. which authorized Il 10
pay 81 the family OF n member "ur o. he
may direct" They gave the member the
right Ia direct payment 60 PARTY who was
not Il his family, or dependent ON him, and
even 20 aCrcditlr, and this seems 20 have been
The understanding OF the order itself, a. evil
dencod hy the issuance uf The certificate 20
lulmcr, Thornton a Co subsequently, la
1884 the order abandoned the kentucky
charter and was incorporated under the laws
al Missouri. II has since operated under the
new organization. This Missouri charter
made % mliral change In the powers of the
order, iu that the right of IT, members 10
direct payment Ia others than their families
or prra1ns dependent ON thvm, was abrD-
gated and The right restricted 10 the families
or dependents. ! take 10 that the change of
organization was effected mainly in order 10
c1nhnc the hOuciactions oi the members 10
their families or dependents aud 10 10 away
with the practice ~ allowing them 10 transfer
the Insurance 10 creditors. The orlcr was
operating under the Missouri charter when
10 Issued the CCriiuontcs g. Willie Grant |
think u b. clear that the rights Of Fulmcr
Thornton Go. cannot Boz impaired by the
provisions Of The new charter but must
stand or iall upon the original charter
which was in force when their rights
accrued. I do not think that the cond.
ton in The certificate, "that said member
lmCuug GmnO complies with the laws
ful,s aud regulations now governing
This order, or that may hereafter be- en-.
uctri for o. r0ygmmcut' can be NJ com
rifuci as 90 bind lulmrr, Thornton & Co.
Ny anv subsequent change Of law iu She or.
der 'hli would aIrCt co. destroy their urha
under ihc contract This condition clearly
has uu uUiyfuucD % such changes 10 these
The laNHul thu oulCl at thr luto ul this Ger.
th,ni' Nii, however mako cert .ucRtrs h..
sued subject t1 such future disposal uf tho
benefit ns the member may thereafter IA.
root 100 accordance with thU laws oi this
unlc- Tho laws. Ot tlp order prescribed
that change ul certificate mI.lt ho made
upon ihc surrender Ul The old certificate or
satisfactory puli of co. los. Ia July.
l'.l urW low was made WuI,h author.
itcl Pie mcmhcr ~ obtain now certificate
IL Che former ccIunclt1 was "lust or be-.
yuHl H. THUCr' nul under this law tho
lnst certificate 20 Willie Grant IVES i.sucd
twill 'IU. H1 seen that fuimcr Thornton
4 q. nt .Hr date Ul their contract and up
70 iuly 1885, WurD fully protected against
RE issuance ui urW certificate To- their
prejudice NF ih' requirement Of tho laws uf
throrlcr illi tha uUD h..I bF them .huuld
b. surrcndrrtd 0r satisfactory proUf uf .ta
los be made u could mot DO surrendered
without their cunsrus HuI as thr books of
The order showed thal ih., wore tho bold.
en-, no satisfactory pfuYl UI A. BOSE could
D. made without CousuIfU. urtEamuIr.
them Without notifying ouh0r feature, oI
the laws 81 che order ] avn ul opinion thHt
THE j. controlling and thlt t1u certificate
To While Grant was not Issued Boo ul.lfl.
nncc with tho laws uf che uplrr existing
prior iu July, issl. aud that thr law enacted
un that date did not control the t..hts ui
lulmrr Thornton a Co. because thpfo wnH
IN IHIf.w al ffslfr ...sFa.nf ff..f