Maryland case law › Mathieu v. Mathieu

Mathieu v. Mathieu

112 Md. 625 (1910) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedSchmucker, J.✓ Good law
HoldingHarry C.

Schmucker, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a final decree of Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, in an interpleader case, disposing of the proceeds of a membership certificate in a mutual benefit association. It appears from the record that on June 13th, 1897, Harry C. Mathieu, late of Baltimore City, became a member of the Order of the Knights of Columbus, which is conceded to be a ’mutual benefit association. In exercise of the privilege accorded to members by the by-laws of the association at that time in force, he, being then unmarried, de°signated his mother Mary A. Mathieu as his beneficiary and the usual benefit certificate was issued to him bearing her name as beneficiary.

On June 14th, 1899, Mathieu was married to Elizabeth Deupert, and on September 27th, 1908, he died, 627 leaving her surviving as his widow. He never changed the designation of his beneficiary, and the certificate remained in his possession until his death. On August 9th, 1907, the association, in pursuance of an amendment to its charter made June 27th, 1907, by a statute of the State of Connecticut the place of its incorporation, adopted certain new by-laws of which sec. IV is as follows: “When an unmarried man or widower names or designates as his beneficiary or beneficiaries a person or persons other than his own children, or one or more of them and subsequently mames, the subsequent marriage of such member will have the effect of rendering such designation void.

But it shall be lawful for such member to redesignate the same beneficiary or beneficiaries. Should such member die without making a new designation or redesignation, then the benefit shall be paid in accordance with the classification in section II, and in the order of precedence therein set forth.” Section II provided that upon the death of a member, if he had failed to designate a beneficiary or the person designated had died, or if the designation should fail “for illegality or otherwise” the benefit should be paid “to the person or persons in the following classifications and in the order of precedence as herein set forth: first to the member’s wife,” second to his children, etc. Upon the death of Mathieu, the association being unable to determine whether his wife or his mother was entitled to the benefits, amounting to $1,000, due under the certificate, instituted the present interpleader suit against them and paid the money into Court. The defendants having duly inter-pleaded and the case having come regularly to a hearing the Court below passed a decree awarding' the money, less the costs of the ease, to Elizabeth Deupert Mathieu, the widow of the decedent. Erom that decree Mary A. Mathieu, his mother, took the present appeal.

It being admitted that the designation by Mathieu of his mother as his beneficiary was valid and in accordance with the by-laws of the association when made in 1897, the single 628 issue raised by tbe appeal is whether that designation was avoided by the changes which we have mentioned, subsequently made in the by-laws. There can be ho doubt that he was .subject to the legitimate operation of the by-laws of the association. That liability on his part was not only inherent in his relation of membership but he specifically stipulated in signing the required application for membership, a copy of which appears in the record, to conform to and abide by the constitution, by-laws and regulations of the association and of any council thereof of which he might at any time be a member, “which may now be in force or which may at any time hereafter be adopted by the proper authorities.” He thereby consented in advance to all reasonable changes to be properly made in those laws and regulations. The precise question which we are called upon to consider is whether sections IV and II of the by-laws adopted in August, 1908, had such retroactive operation as to invalidate or

This is a preview of Mathieu v. Mathieu. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.