On principles not very easy to formulate the certificates of fraternal associations nave been distinguished in this matter from insurance policies. In a decision of the United -States Supreme Court9 Mr. Justice Brandeis, speaking for the court said:
"The difference between ordinary life insurance and that furnished by the fraternal benefit societies has been universally recognized in legislation and is a matter of common knowledge. The differences in the legal incidents of these different forms of protection have been illustrated by numerous decisions. The difference in respect to the insured's right to change the beneficiary has been frequently commented on and is firmly established. In the absence of a special provision of law or of a rule of the association to the contrary, the naming of a person as beneficiary in the benefit certificate of a fraternal benefit association confers not a vested right, but an expectancy merely which may be defeated at any time by act of the insured member.10 deprive her of her right in the policy. Marquet v. Ętna. L. I. Co., 128 Tenn. 213, 169 S. W. 733, L. R. A. 1915 B. 749; Filley v. Illinois L. I. Co., 91 Kan. 220, 137 Pro. 793, L. R, A. 1915 D. 130. Therefore the trustee in bankruptcy of the insured does not take a policy payable to a beneficiary, Loveland on Bankruptcy, Sec.398; and the cases make no inquiry as to whether the beneficiary was aware of the existence of the policy. Of comae if the policy reserves the right to change the beneficiary, any interest of a beneficiary is wholly defeasible. In re Hogan, 194 Fed. 846, 114 C. C. A. 634; Town-send v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 163 Ia. 713, 144 N. W. 574, L. R. A. 1915 A. 109; Jacobs v. Strumwasaer, 84 N. Y. Misc. 28, 145 N. Y. S. 916; John Hancock Mut. L. I. Co. v. Bedford, 36 R. I. 116, 80 Atl. 154. Cf. Scary v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. (Conn.), 103 Atl. 661. In Wisconsin even without any reservation of the right in the policy, an insured person who pays the premium may at any time dispose of the policy or will it away without the consent of the beneficiary. - Clark v. Dur-and, 12 Wis. 223; Armstrongu.Blanch-ard, 150 Wis. 31,136 N. W. 145. This local rule has, however, been changed by statute so far as concerns insurance effected by a husband for the benefit of his wife. Boehmer p. Kalk, 155 Wis. 156,144 N. W. 182,49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 487.
9 Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. Behrend, 247 U. S. 394, 38 S. Ct. 522, 524, 62 L. Ed. 1182.
10 Citing: Slaughter v. Grand Lodge, 192 Ala. 301, 68 So. 367; Jory v. Supreme Council A. L. H., 105 Cal. 20, 38 Pac 624, 28 L. R. A. 733, 46 Am. St. Rep. 17; Masonic Mutual Benefit Assn. v. Tolles, 70 Conn. 537, 544, 40 Atl. 448; Smith v. Locomotive Engineers Mutual Life, etc., Ins. Assn., 138 Ga. 717, 76 S. E. 44; Delany v. Delaney, 175 11l. 187, 51 N. E. 961;
The right of a member of a fraternal benefit society to change the beneficiary has been denied in a few cases which have failed to distinguish between benefit certificates and ordinary life policies.11 A different case is presented where the insured has contracted with the beneficiary that he shall remain such. A contract of that nature may be enforced by appropriate proceeding if consistent with the general law and with the laws of the association." 12
Sec. 398b. Distinction between sole beneficiary cases and others often not observed. In most jurisdictions the distinction has not been clearly stated in the decisions between cases of sole beneficiary and cases of debtor and creditor. Most of the cases have been of the latter sort, and it has generally been laid down broadly as true of all cases that prior to the assent or acting upon the promise by the third party but not afterwards, a rescission or release is operative.13
Masonic Mutual Benefit v. Burkhart, 110 Lad. 189, 194-195, 10 N. W. 79, 11 N. W. 449; Carpenter v. Knapp, 101 Iowa, 712, 70 N. W. 764, 38 L. R. A. 128; Titsworth v. Titsworth, 40 Kan. 571, 20 Pac. 213; Marsh v. American Legion of Honor, 149 Mass. 612, 21 N. E. 1070, 4LR.A, 382; Schawiau v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 86 Minn. 349, 88 N. W. 999; Carson v. Vicksburg Bank, 75 Miss. 167, 22 So. 1,37 L. R, A. 559,66 Am. St. Rep. 696; Masonic Benevolent Assoc, v. Bunch, 109 Mo. 660, 19 S. W. 25; Knights of Maccabees v. Sackett, 34 Mont. 367, 363, 86 Pac. 423,115 Am. St. Rep. 532; Ogden v. Sovereign Camp, W. 0. W., 78 Neb. 804, 111 N. W. 797; Barton v. Provident Mutual Relief Assoc., 63 N. H. 536, 3 Atl. 627; Spengler v. Spengler, 65 N. J. Eq. 176, 55 Atl. 285; Lahey v. Lahey, 174 N. Y. 148,66 N. E. 670, 61 L. R. A. 701, 95 Am. St. Rep. 554; Pollock v. Household of Ruth, 160 N. C. 211, 63 S. E. 940; Lents, Ex'r, v. Fritter, 92 Ohio St. 186, 110 N. E. 637; Noble v. Polios Beneficiary means to pay his debts. Even though insolvent, however, he has a right to change the form of his assets. Consequently to a rescission or release for adequate consideration paid to the debtor, the creditor should never have a right to object. A release or rescission by an insolvent debtor, without any consideration, or without adequate consideration, however, is a fraudulent conveyance. It is a gift of property by one whose circumstances do not justify giving, and the creditor may disregard the gift. Here, too, the knowledge of the promise by the third person or his assent thereto should make no difference. A promise to a debtor to pay his debt is a valuable asset whether the creditor knows of it or not, and the debtor, if insolvent, has no right to dispose of it without receiving an adequate price for it.14 Where the contract to pay the debt is executory on both sides there can be no objection on this theory to mutual rescission.15
Assoc., 224 Pa. 298, 73 Atl. 336, 132 Am. St. Rep. 783; Catholic Knighte of America p. Morrison, 16 R. I. 468, 17 Atl. 67; Christenson v. El Riad Temple, 37 8. D. 68, 71, 156 N. W. 581; Alfsen v. Crouch, 115 Term. 352, 89 S. W. 329; Byrne v. Casey, 70 Tax. 247, 8 S. W. 38; Cade v. Head Camp, W. O. W., 27 Wash. 218, 67 Pac. 603; Supreme Conclave, Royal Adolphia p. Cappella (C. C), 41 Fed. 1.
11Citing Pittinger v. Pittinger. 28 Colo. 308, 64 Pac. 195, 89 Am. St. Rep. 193.
12Citing Grimblcy v. Harrold, 125' Cal. 24, 57 Pac. 668, 73 Am. St. Rep. 19; McGrew v. McGrew, 190 111. 604, 60 N. £. 861; In re Reid's Estate, 170 Mich. 476, 136 N. W. 476; Catholic Benevolent Legion v. Murphy, 65 N. J. Eq. 60, 55 Atl. 497; Strongs v. Knights of Pythias, 189 N. Y. 346, 82 N. E. 433, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1206, 121 Am. St. Rep. 902,12 Ann. Cas. 941; Supreme Lodge Knights and Ladies of Honor v. Ulanowaky, 246 Pa. 691, 92 Atl. 711.