Opinion
No. 3055
Decided March 7, 1939
If on a bill of interpleader one defendant submits the case without questioning the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a decree in favor of the other defendants, his motion to set it aside presents no question of law.
The beneficiary in a certificate of insurance issued by a beneficial association cannot be changed except by the method prescribed by the regulations of the association.
BILL OF INTERPLEADER, to ascertain the beneficiaries of a certificate of insurance issued by the plaintiff upon October 12, 1904, to Louise Marquis. Trial by the court; decree awarding the proceeds of said certificate to the brothers and sisters of the said Louise Marquis. There was evidence tending to prove the following facts:
The beneficiary named in the certificate is Arthur Marquis, the husband of Louise Marquis. The said Arthur Marquis died about the year 1915 and Louise Marquis died December 24, 1937. The defendant Emile Marquis is the son of Arthur Marquis by a former marriage. By the terms of the certificate the obligations of the assured member and the association are in terms made subject to the rules and regulations of the association. The regulations of the association provide that "The beneficiary and his or her relationship to the member shall be named in the benefit certificate," and the possible beneficiaries are limited to persons having certain family relationships to the member or to persons dependent upon the member. Another regulation provides that a member may change the beneficiary named in his certificate upon complying with certain conditions, which require that "he pay his assessments and dues to date, sign the form for change of beneficiary which appears on the back of the certificate, and cause it to be countersigned by . . . two witnesses, return the original certificate to the General Secretary, and pay to the Secretary-treasurer a fee of fifty cents." It is also provided that "In case of the death of the beneficiary or beneficiaries named in the certificate and the failure to designate other beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of the present article . . . the amount of the certificate shall be payable" in the first instance to certain relatives by blood and "3. If the husband or wife, child or children of the deceased member are dead, to the relatives by blood or adoption of the deceased in the order in which they would inherit under the laws of the state governing inheritance under similar conditions." There is a further provision that "No testamentary disposition shall affect the rights of the beneficiaries named in the certificate."
After the death of Arthur Marquis no attempt was made to name a new beneficiary of the certificate in question until July 3, 1937, when Louise Marquis signed, by her mark, upon the back of the certificate a "form for change in benefits" which reads as follows: "To Mr. Adolphe Robert, Secretary General of the High Court of the Association Canado-Americaine, I return herewith to the High Court of the Association Canado-Americaine the enclosed benefit certificate No. 7440 and ask that in place thereof a new certificate be issued to me payable to Emile E. Marquis." The certificate, however, was never returned to the office of the association and no notice of the attempted change of beneficiary was given to the association until after the death of Louise Marquis.
Upon this showing, the court (Johnston, J.) made the following findings and decree. "Decree. The Court finds and rules that subsequent to the death of her husband, the insured did not name a new beneficiary in accordance with the requirements of the plaintiff fraternal benefit society. Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the proceeds due and payable under the said insurance certificate be paid to the insured's brothers and sisters, to wit: H. Rousseau, Marie Goyette, Philippe Guilbault, Joseph Guilbault, Bertha Leroux and Willie Guilbault. F. W. Johnston, Justice."
Thereafter the defendant Emile Marquis moved that the findings and decree be set aside upon the ground that they are (1) contrary to the law, and (2) contrary to the evidence. This motion was denied and the defendant Marquis excepted.
Saidel, Lemelin, Hurley and Betley, for the plaintiff.
John D. Warren, for the defendant Marquis.
Edward J. Lampron, for the other defendants.
The case having been submitted by the defendant Marquis without questioning the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a decree in favor of the other defendants, the motion to set aside the decree apparently presents no question of law, Bacon v. Thompson, 87 N.H. 270; Erisman Co. v. Company, 87 N.H. 483, and the defendant's exceptions are therefore overruled.
If, however, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decree were properly before us, the same result would follow, since it is plain, in view of the facts above stated, that the defendant Emile Marquis was never named as beneficiary of the certificate in question according to the regulations of the association, and the decree of the court awarding the proceeds thereof to the brothers and sisters of the assured is strictly in accordance with said regulations.
Exceptions overruled.