Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1899-09-13

hat change in beneficiary is the same
IN legal effect as an assignment. This
Is substantially true where the original
beneficiary must consent to the change
Of the assignment, but it is not the case
in respect to a mutual.benefit certificate
where the assured has the right to
change his beneficiary at will. Where a
beneficiary acquires vested rights those
rights are substantially the same as
those of An assignee of level premium
policy, but in the case of mutual benefit
societies the beneficiary's rights are
ususally dependent upon the will of the
In such case an assignment is
a very different thing and even where
the change is made to a beneficiary as
creditor, the assured does not part with
all his interest in the certificate. Where
an assignment is made for the purpose
of changing the beneficiary it amounts
in legal effect to change of beneficiary
and the same rules of law would govern,
but the character of assignment refer.
red to by learned counsel Is an absolute
assignment in payment of the debt.
The court is of the opinion that the
weight of authority sustains the follow
ing propositions
a. That where mutual benefit sOcie-
ties Issue certificates of membership
their constitutions and bylaws become
parts of the contract.
~ That contracts like the one in
controversy and entered into under sim.
liar circumstances are governed by the
laws of the state where executed, and
will be construed according to those
laws in the states where enforcement is
sought, unless the contract directly con-
travenes the laws of the latter state.
81 That state laws respecting the
organization and operation of domestic
insurance companies do not apply to
foreign companies licensed to do bust.
ness in this state, unless so expressly
provided by statute, the latter being
governed by their own organic laws and
the laws of the state where created.
This line of authority is based upon
comfy between the states and upon the
fact that it would be impracticable to
make the laws of the several states in
respect to such matters conform to any
fixed plan.
al That if the membership certifi.
cate in mutual benefit association
provides that the assured may change
his beneficiary at will, and such con.
tract be not unlawful at the time, the
rights to make such change cannot be
impaired by subsequent statute.
The court is of the opinion that for
the reasons herein stated it is unneces.
sary to decide some of the questions
presented by the very able argument OF
the learned counsel for plaintiff, but as
counsel have strenously and with mark
ed clearness and ability insisted upon
the soundness of all their reasoning, the
court will make full record of its find.
ings upon all the salient points suggest
ed. The findings of the court upon
questions of fact are:
| % The notes, ETC., evidencing the
alleged indebtedness of James T.. Bel.
KNAPP to Ellen G. Johnston are evidence
of the actual bona fide Indebtedness OF
James l.. Belknap. No part of the same
represented settlement of any criminal
intimacy between Belknap and Mrs
Johnston. No such criminal relations
have been proven.
~ There is no evidence warrantine
finding of any fraud practiced or
Johnston or Ellen 9. Johnston. The
certificate in controversy was voluntari
| ly applied for by James L. Belknap anG
| tu0 uVoIShuIlOa VI MID DOullSlOu al
beneficiary was the voluntary act oil
securing his creditor.
| 49, The contract marked Exhibit E
was drafted long prior to its execution
Its recital of an assumed fact relative
to an absolute assignment related to {
transaction that had been mutually
abandoned by the parties. The agree
| Of 10
ments likewise referred to matter thai
had been abandoned. In other respects
the paper Exhibit E.) evidenced thu
understanding and agreement of thu
parties. And as to legal conclusions
the court finds:
a. That the instruments sued or
are Illinois contracts. That certificate
1856, together with the organic laws Of
the association vested in the assured
the right to change his beneficiary a
will. That the laws of Illinois and thu
organic law OF the ASSOCIATION, and no
the laws of Iowa in respect to the or
2anizatiOn of domestic mutual benefi
associations, will govern in the court
of this state in determining the rightt
| of the parties.
(5.) That the first twelve sections O
Chapter 65, Laws Twenty first Genera
Assembly do not apply to foreign mu
tual benefit associations.
/ 81 That sections thirteen, fourteen
i fifteen, seventeen. eighteen, nineteeI
and twenty of said Act do apply t,
reign mutual benefit associations.
az That under the provisions o
Section Twenty of said Act the con
tract certificate 858b) was expressl,
exempted from the operation thereof
even If Section Seven has any applica
ton to foreign associations.
49, That certificate 60,514 is n,
contrary to the policy of the laws o
Iowa and that the same is enforcible il
the courts of this State, according t,
the terms of the certificate, the organic
laws of the Association and the laws o
Illinois.
90 That the defendant Ellen c
Johnston is entitled to decree for III,
payment to her of the sum of $5OOOO
deposited in this court by the defendan
Association.
| uO) That plaintiff is not entitled tt
recover for assessments paid by Jame
L Belkn Up deceased. Such payments
having been made by him as debtor tt
keep in force the security he had give1
his creditor.
The decree of the court will he fol
the defendant, Ellen G. Johnston ant
against the plaintiff. The decree will
provide for the payment in twenty day.
from the filing thereof, to the defend
ant. Ellen G. Johnston, of the sum o.
S5000.00 and the cancellation and de
livery to plaintiff of all the evidences o.
Indebtedness held by her or which were
The costs will be taxed to plaintiff.
To each of which findings, order. ant
decree, plaintiff excerpts.
| FRANKLIN G. PLATT.