A failure to apportion the proceeds of a benefit certificate between the beneficiaries entitles one to the entire sum upon the oth er proving ineligible ; Cunat v. Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur, 249 Ill. 448, 94 N. E. 925, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1192, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 213.
For most purposes mutual benefit associa tions are insurance companies and certifi cates issued by them are policies of life in surance. There are, however, some essen tial differences, one of which is the power on the part of the assured in mutual benefit associations to change the beneficiary; 'Hol land v. Taylor, 111 Ind. 121, 12 N. E. 116. In a policy of life insurance, the beneficiary has a vested right. In a benevolent society the beneficiary has no vested right in the certificate before the death of the member; Masonic Benevolent Ass'n v. Bundh, 109 Mo. 560, 19 S. W. 25. The certificates of such associations are said to partake of the na ture of testamentary dispositions of prop erty; Woodruff v. Tilman, 112 Mich. 188, 70 N. W. 420. They may be disposed of by will unless the rules of the society prohibit it; Woodruff v. Tilman, 112 Mich. 188, 70 N. W. 420 ; Catholic Ben. Ass'n v. Priest, 46 Mich. 429, 9 N. W. 481; High Court Catholic Order of Foresters v. Malloy, 169 III. 58, 48 N. E. 392. The member may change the beneficiary without the latter's consent; Ma sonic Ben. Ass'n v. Bunch, 109 Mo. 560, 19 S. W. 25 ; he may change as to a portion of the insurance ; Woodruff v. Tilman, 112 Mich. 188, 70 N. W. 420; contra, McClure v. Johnson, 56 Ia. 620, 10 N. W. 217.
If the by-laws point out the mode in which the beneficiary may be changed, another beneficiary can be substituted only in the manner provided, and an attempt of the member to dispose of the fund by will is held ineffectual; Stewart v. Trustees of Col lege, 2 Den. (N. Y.) 409 (where the objection was raised by the society); Holland v. Tay lor, 111 Ind. 121, 12 N. E. 116; Stephenson v. Stephenson, 64 Ia. 534, 21 N. W. 19; Mc Carthy v. New England Order of Protection, 153 Mass. 314, 26 N. E. 866, 11 L. R. A. 144, 25 Am. St. Rep. 637; Fink v. Fink, 171 N. Y. 616, 64 N. E. 506. Opposing this rule, it is held that such a provision was for the benefit of the association which might waive it or insist upon it, and if waived by the association, the member might change his beneficiary by will; Splawn v. Chew, 60 Tex. 532 ; Kepler v. Supreme Lodge, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 274.
Where no method of changing the bene ficiary is provided, a letter mailed to the company directing the payment to a new beneficiary completes the change; Hirschl v. Clark, 81 Ia. 200, 47 N. W. 78, 9 L. R. A. 841; Fink v. Mutual Aid Society, 57 App. Div. 507, 68 N. Y. Supp. 80.
Such association has power to amend its by-laws so as to increase the assessments on its members, where the existing rate has proved inadequate, under charter au thority to provide for the payment of a cer tain death benefit to be secured by assess ment ; Reynolds v. Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum, 192 Mass. 150, 78 N. E. 129, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1154, 7 Ann. Cas. 776; Gaut v.
Life Ass'n, 121 Fed. 403 ; Miller v. National Council of Knights & Ladies of Security, 69 Kan. 234, 76 Pac. 830 ; contra, unless there was an express agreement that a member should be bound by future by-laws, varying or modifying his contract; Covenant Mut. Life Ass'n of Illinois v. Kentner, 188 Ill. 431, 58 N. E. 966; Pearson v. Indemnity Co., 114 Mo. App. 283, 83 S. W. 588; Wright v. Knights of Maccabees of the World, 48 Misc. 558, 95 N. Y. Supp. 996 (though the proposed increase was necessary to keep the associa tion solvent). A member cannot be assessed for losses that occurred prior to his mem bership unless he had so agreed; Clark v. Traveling Men's Ass'n (Ia.) 135 N. W. 1114, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 631; or for the creation of an emergency fund; id.
If at the time one becomes a member of a beneficial order, its constitution and by-laws expressly reserve the right to make amend ments thereto, he is bound by a subsequent amendment injuriously affecting him ; Rob inson v. Templar Lodge, 117 Cal. 370, 49 Pac. 170, 59 Am. St. Rep. 193. Such an amend ment must be reasonable ; Knights Templars' & Masons' Life Indemnity Co. v. Jarman, 104 Fed. 638, 44 C. C. A. 93 ; Modern Woodmen of America v. Wieland, 109 Ill. App. 340; Smith v. Supreme Lodge, 83 Mo. App. 512 ; O'Neill v. Supreme Council, 70 N. J. L. 410, 57 Atl. 463, 1 Ann. Cas. 422. The power to make it, not being a power to destroy the contract rights of the members ; Parish v. Produce Exchange, 169 N. Y. 34, 61 N. E. 977, 56 L. R. A. 149; but where it makes so radical a change as to amount to a repudia tion of a contract it will be void ; Beach v. Supreme Tent, 177 N. Y. 100, 69 N. E. 281. The voluntary acceptance of by laws pro viding for the imposition of coercive fines does not make such fines legal and the standing threat of their imposition may prop erly be classed with the ordinary threat of suits upon groundless claims; Boutwell v. Marr, 71 Vt. 1, 42 Atl. 607, 43 L. R. A. 803, 76 Am. St. Rep. 746.
A discussion of the effect of an erroneous description of the beneficiary in a certificate by Cyrus J. Wood, 57 Cent. L. J. 383,, reaches the conclusion that the courts are inclined to take into consideration the benevolent charac ter and purpose of these societies and, in or der to effectuate this purpose, liberally con strue by-laws and statutes, giving a broad interpretation to such terms as relatives, families and dependents, so that one wrong fully described as a relative may obtain the benefit on proving dependency, and if the beneficiary cannot be brought within the pre scribed limits, those who are within the rules may receive the benefit as against both, the insured and the society since a misde scription seems to be ignored and the rights of all concerned are decided according to the benevolent purpose of the society with regard to the real relation of the appointed beneficiary to the deceased. See 17 Harv. L. Rev. 211.
See In re Harton's Estate, 213 Pa. 499, 62 Atl. 1058, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 939 ; RAILROAD