Poulier V. Public Service Mutual Provident Association

Present: Wood Renton J.

POULIER v. PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL PROVIDENT
ASSOCIATION.

236-C. R. Colombo, 22,419.

Public Service Mutual Provident Association-Ordinance, No. 5 of 1891. s. 14 (rule 8)-Legally constituted heirs-Next of kin.

Rule 8 made under section 14 of Ordinance No. 5 of 1891 contemplates the determination of who are a member's " legally constituted heirs " and " next of kin " according to the law to which he is subject.

" As the primary object of the association is to make provision for widows and children, it is not surprising that a, special order for distribution should be established in their case, while the rights of the other relatives are left to be determined by the ordinary law of succession."

Rule 11 protects the association only against the consequences of payments made in error to wrong persons, or of other bona fide mistakes of fact.

THE facts are fully set out in the judgment of the learned Commissioner of Requests (R. N. Thaine, Esq.): -

The facts in this case are these. One D. E. Poulier, who was a member of the Public Service Mutual Provident Association, died in October, 1909, with the sum of Rs. 1,046.76 to his credit in the books of the association. He left no issue, and his heirs were his full brothers or their children, his half brothers or sisters and their children.

Shortly after his death the plaintiff, one of his full brothers, wrote to the secretary of the association and gave him a statement showing the names of the heirs, brothers and half brothers, &c. The object of the statement was to assist the association " in arriving at a correct distribution of the amount standing to the credit of the deceased member." The defendant association admits having received these particulars, but the committee of management, when they came to distribute the available sum amongst the heirs, ignored the information given to them by the plaintiff, and decided to treat the heirs, whether full or half brothers and sisters, as each entitled to an equal share of the sum.

The plaintiff contends that this distribution is wrong, and not according to law. He says he is entitled to one-third of one-half plus one-seventh of one-half, according to the provisions of section 31 of Ordinance No. 15 of 1876, by which calculation he will receive a much larger amount than that apportioned to him by the association. When the plaintiff demanded this amount from the defendant through his legal advisers, the defendant association denied its liability to pay, on the grounds that payments according to their scheme of distribution had already been made. They plead the benefit and protection of rules 8 and 11 of the rules made under section 14 of Ordinance No. 5 of 1891, which is the Ordinance relating to this association.

 

Rule 8 sets out the persons to whom money lying to the credit of a deceased member is to be paid. Rule 11 declared as follows: " Whenever the committee of management, after the decease of any member, makes any payment under rules 8 and 9 to any person or persons who at the time appear to the committee to be entitled to the same, such payment shall be valid and effectual against any demand made upon the association or committee by any other person or persons."

Now, to entitle them to the protection of this rule, it seems to me the association must show that they have strictly complied with the provisions of rule 8. It is strictly laid down in rule 11 that only if payments are made to persons " who appear to the committee to be entitled to the same " will the association be able to claim the protection of this rule.

Therefore, the question first to consider is whether the distribution sanctioned by the committee is in accordance with rule 8. The portion of this rule which has to be applied in the present distribution is the following, viz., " failing widow and children, the amount shall be paid to his legally constituted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document