The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-05-02
DISPOSAL OF DEATH BENEFIT.

Important Decision Regarding Secret
Society Beneficiary Certificates
A very important decision has Just been
rendered by the supreme court of Oregon
which affects all benevolent orders or So
cieties which provide payment of sums of
money at death. Frederick Freeman Joined
the Ancient Order of United Workmen in
1881, becoming a member of Blakeley
Lodge, No. 46. In the first beneficiary
certificate issued to him he designated his
wife, Anna Freeman, as his beneficiary.
In 1884 Freeman lost his wife, and he took
out a new certificate in which Philip Visit
was named as the beneficiary. There was
at that time no objection to this act, but
in 1888 the order changed its fundamental
law and included provision that ''each
member shall designate the person or per-
sons to whom the beneficiary fund at his
death shall be paid, who shall, in every in
stance, be one or more members of his
family, or some one related to him by
blood, or who shall be dependent upon
him."
Freeman had no family and no relative
that he knew OF, and no person was de-
pendent upon him, and when he died in
1890 his certificate was still for the benefit
of Wist, who was q member of Lincoln
Lodge No. IS. of the same order, located at
Port Madison. 1t came out in evidence
that Freeman owed Wist $3.50. and the in
ference is that the certificate was given as
security.
Tie Grand Lodge refused to pay the
$1,000, on the ground that Wist was not .
member of the family of deceased aud was
not blood relation as required by law.
Wist brought suit in the district court of
Multnomah county, Or, and obtained
judgment, the court holding that "the
society could not alter the provisions of its
charter, constitution and bylaws SO far as
they relate to the contract of insurance
pleaded, SO as to affect said contract with
out the consent of the assured member and
neither ne nor plaintiff was in anywise
bound by or affected by the change made
by the society in its law relating to bene-
fciaries."
The Grand Lodge appealed to the
supreme court of Oregon, and Attorney
W. S. Relic, of Seattle, was retained by
Visit to appear for him. The case was
argued, aud the supreme court has
affirmed the decision Of the lower court
and declared Wist entitled to the insur-
ance money.
The court says it il "a settled rule of
construction that laws will not be inter-
preted to be Retrospective unless by their
terms It is clearly intended to be so. They
are construed as operating only on
cases or facts which come into existence
after the laws were passed." Having
stated this fundamental rule, the court
proceeds to inquire whether the new law
was intended to cover this case. The
court says it referred IN terms only to
those "who shall designate" not to those
who had designated beneficiary.
Going still further the court holds that
the society could regulate the disposal of
benefit but could not defeat 1t entirely,
and this would have been the result in
Freeman's case as he had no blood rela-
tive or family to assign it to, and q con-
tract having been previously entered into
with Freeman, it would work great injus-
tice to admit that its purpose could be
thwarted entirely.
The terms of the decision are colloquially
rendered in this synopsis. but the point is