
    Caroline Wheeler vs. Odd Fellows’ Mutual Aid & Accident Association.
    November 22, 1890.
    Mutual-Benefit Insurance — Construction of Certificate — Assent of Beneficiary. — -Plaintiff’s husband took from defendant a policy insuring his life in the sum of $1,000, payable to her. Afterwards, for the purpose of increasing the insurance to $3,000, he took from defendant a second policy in the sum of $3,000, payable to her. The application for it, referred to in, and expressly declared a part of, the second policy, showed that the purpose was not to make additional insurance to the amount of $3,000, but to increase the former insurance to that amount. After the husband’s death, she claimed and received from defendant the amount of the second policy. Reid, that she was chargeable with notice of the contents of that policy, and of the application for it, and, by accepting its benefits, she consented to it having the effect intended, — that of superseding the first policy.
    Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Henne-pin county, refusing a new trial after a trial before Hooker, J., (a jury being waived,) and judgment ordered for defendant.
    
      S. L. Pattee and W. H. Adams, for appellant.
    
      Thomas Canty, for respondent.
   Gtlfillan, C. J.

October 8, 1885, W. C. Wheeler took .from the defendant a policy of insurance, No. 2,049, insuring his life in the sum of $1,000, payable upon his death to this plaintiff, his wife. In June, 1888, he applied for a policy, insuring his life in the sum of $3,000, payable to plaintiff. In the application were these questions and answers: “What amount of insurance do you want to carry in this association? $3,000. Is this application made for increased insurance? Yes; from $1,000 to $3,000. What is the number of your old certificate? 2,049.” On this application, defendant’s policy, No. 8,969, insuring the life of the applicant in the sum of $3,000, payable to plaintiff, issued. The policy referred to the application, and declared it to be a part of the policy. In October, 1888, Wheeler died. The plaintiff made proofs of death and application for pay-menfc under both policies.. The defendant paid the $3,000 policy, but refused to pay the other. The action is to recover on the first, or $1,000, policy. The statement of the case really determines it. It is beyond question that the second policy was intended, not as additional insurance to its full amount, but as an increase of the insurance from $1,000 to $3,000; that it was not intended that both policies should remain in force, but that the second should be in lieu of and as a substitute for the first. It is true the husband and the defendant could not, without the consent of plaintiff, the beneficiary, cancel or make any arrangement affecting her interest in the first policy. With notice of what they attempted to do she might ratify or repudiate their acts. ■ But she could not do both, nor affirm in part and disaffirm in part. As soon as she asserted a claim under the second policy, she became charged with notice of its contents, and its contents apprised her of the purpose with which it was executed, — that it was intended to supersede the former policy; and by accepting the benefit of the second policy, she consented to its having the effect which, as she knew, was its purpose, to wit, to supersede the first.

Order affirmed.  