Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929

Hall v. Grand Lodge, K. of P. of S.C.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided January 30, 1929 · Stabeer, Chiee, Watts, Messrs, Cothran, Brease, Carter

146 S.E. 416; 148 S.C. 506; 1929 S.C. LEXIS 59 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. N.J. Frederick , for appellant, cites: Judicial admission once made is binding except as to matters of law: 22 C.J., 330, Par. 370. Where there is a conflict between a provision of a policy and the law, the law must prevail: 135 S.C. 89 ; 128 S.E., 4 ; Sec. 4151 Code. "Children:" 7 C. J., 954; Sec. 5334 Code; 141 S.E., 726 . Mr. George Warren , for respondent, cites: Cases distinguished: 128 S.E., 4 . Beneficiary properly named here: Sec. 4151 Code.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Stabeer.

Under the facts of this case, as stated in the order of the Circuit Court, the trial Judge correctly held that the plaintiff, Beatrice Hall, is a person dependent upon the member of a fraternal association within the meaning of Section 4151 Vol. 3, Code, 1922, and could be lawfully designated as beneficiary, and was so designated.

The Section of the Code provides:

“The payment of death benefits shall be confined to wife, husband, relative by blood to the fourth degree, ascending or descending, stepfather, stepmother, stepchildren, children by *509 legal adoption, or to a person or persons dependent upon the member. * * * Within the above restrictions each member shall have the right to designate his beneficiary, and from time to time have the same changed in accordance with the laws, rules or regulations of the association. * * * Provided, That any association may, by its laws, limit the scope of beneficiaries within the above classes.”

If the beneficiary named is a member of one of the classes mentioned in the statute, the designation is valid. Under the terms of the statute, the person designated need not be a relative of the member in order to fall within the “dependent” class; and so an illegitimate child may be eligible as a “dependent,” if the facts of the case bring it within that class. In the case at bar, the designated beneficiary, Beatrice Hall, was recognized by the member, and was kept in his own home by him as one of the family, and was living with him at the time of his death, and dependent upon him for support.

With respect to the words “person or persons dependent upon the member,” as used in a statute pertaining to beneficiaries, it has been held that one who is partially and regularly dependent on such member for support comes within the statute. The designation “dependent,” however, is sometimes given a strict construction, and in such case, to come within the class, one must be dependent upon the member in a material degree. Even under a strict construction of the term, however, the plaintiff in this case, under the admitted facts, was eligible as a dependent, and could be lawfully designated as beneficiary. That the member so designated her cannot be doubted.

On this ground the order of the trial Judge is affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Watts and Messrs. Justices Cothran, Brease, and Carter, concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.