368 HAYDEL.V. WIDOW 'S FUND OF* SAHARA' TEMPLE.: [187 AAYDEL V. WIDOW!S FUND bi? SAHARA TEMPLE. " • 4-,3001 OpiniOn doliVe'red 'May '1, 1 4 i33" . '•'" INSURANCE—CHANGE , OF BENEFICIARY:—Where a mutual benefit certifiCate ,gaVe ,to insured full power to Change the benefiCiarY, the beneficiarY named ' therein had 'no vested , right' therein. 2.' 114suRANDEATH " OF BENEFICIARY. j —Whei& 'the' beneficiary named in a benefit Certificate died before insured,,the proeeeds • were payable to the..latter's estate on his death without haying • ch • anged the beneficiary. - INSURANCE---CHANGE OF i; , ; , BENEFICIARY.—A wili executed by a member Of a benefit ns'sociatiOn in tiie liresene of the asocia'tion's secretary held riew designation of a.' beneficiary in 'the 'benefit certificate , within a bylaw authorizing a change' Tof beneficiary by notifying the secretary in writing. Appeal frOni'JeffersOn Chancery COurt;"'Hardey R. Lucas, Chancellor ; , affirmed.. , A. M. Coate's,lor Coleman ce Gantt, for aPPellee. I -MCHAiv.EY-,.J; M. L: Case -was a -Member :of Sahara TemPle,. an Orkanization of Shriners in Pine-Bluff; Ark-ansas. He Was lalso a member bf.the Widow's Fund, 'a beneficiary organization open to'members,'of. the Shrine. As Such member, -he was issued a certificate, and, undet the bylaws, it' was provided tbat upon-his death in good standing.the sum of $1,000 should be paid io the beneficiary named in .said certificate. Charles E. Case, the
ARK.] HAYDEL V. WIDO* I s FUND OF SAHARA TEMPLE. ■369 only child 'of Case,. was . nanied 'his beneficiary therein and . died , Septethber 6, 1931, leaving .surViving hith the appellant as-his only-child and heir by law.. M. L. Case died, April. 4, 1932, but, prier thereto and subsequent to- the death of his son, Chas. E., he made a will leaving all his property to appellant - and to his sister, Mrs. Er-minnie Loetzerich, share 'and share alike.. - Under the bylaws of the Widow's Fund, a member might change his beneficiary at will, and, • although •.Mr. Case discussed the matter. of -change of- :beneficiary with the . secretary of the Widow's Fund, he riever actually did so, unless his will executed in the presence of. said secretary may be said to , be a change':Of the beneficiary: Under . • the , Mrs. Loetzerich was appointed executrix, but, after ha y-ing qualified, .she resigned,• : and the: appellee, Simmons NationalS Bank, was, -appointed exocutor in snccession. On the. death• of. Mr. Case the- Widow's . Fund of Sahara Temple was uncertain as to . whom the . $1,000 .should be paid, arid therefore brought its interpleader suit- in the Jefferson Chancery Court, paid the fund into court and prayed that the true owner be ascertained, the fund paid to such , owner and it , be discharged : Both appellant and the-. Natithial Bank ariswered the interplea claiming the fund, and the court entered decree awarding the fund to the executor. We think the Widow's Fund of Sahara TeMple must be considered as a Mutual benefit association 'and the rights' under the certificate . a8 if it were a 'beneficiary certificate, issued by . such association. In - 7 Cooley's Briefs on Insurance 6410, it is .stated : "The beneficiary in the certificate issued by a mutual benefit 'association, in which the member is given . full. power to direct the dis-pesition of the benefit and to change the benefiCiary, has no vested right in the contraCt of insurance evidenced thereby, as .the contract is ,between the association and the member to whom the certificate is issued, and not between the association and the .beneficiary named in the certificate." . . • • Charles E; Case therefore did not take any vested interest -in the -Cer.tificate, arid whatever, expectancy he had in the Certificate terminated at his .death. Therefore,
unless a new beneficiary had been' designated by the mem= ber, M. L. Case, the . proceeds of the certifiCate were payable to his estate ' on his death and therefore to his administrator. We have many times held that "when the beneficiary in a pOlicy of life insurance unlaWfully kills the insured, public policy prohibits a recovery by him, and that the amount of the insurance automatically becomes an asset of the deceased's estate, to be recovered by the administrator for the payment of debts and distribu-ti'on to the heirs." Cooper v;Krisch, 179 Ark. 952, 18 S. W. (2d) 909, and cases there cited. •Moreover the will executed in the . presence of the secretary of the WidoW's Fund Might be said to be a new designation of beneficiary, as under § 4 of the . bylaWs of . the Widow's Fimd it is provided that "such beneficiary may be changed by notifying the secretary, in writing, of the new beneficiary." The secretaty was so notified in writing bY the Will to which he was a witness. .Affitmed.'
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.