INSURABLE INTEREST   239

In determining the meaning of the word "dependent," as used in the benefit certificates issued by fraternal societies, the general object and controlling purpose of such organizations should be considered. Prominent among these objects is to provide a fund for the use and maintenance of the families of its deceased members. For the purpose of having the class of persons who may enjoy this benefit clearly defined—that the benefit may be broad enough to cover all persons in whose support and maintenance a deceased member would naturally be interested, and at the same time the class be so restricted that its beneficent purposes will be protected from abuse—the class has been limited by statute and the rules of the orders to include only the "families, heirs, blood-relatives, affianced husband or affianced wife of, or to persons dependent upon, the member." The word "dependent" is here used in such relation to the preceding words as to indicate that the character of dependence intended should, in a general sense, be similar to the dependence which usually exists between parent and child, husband and wife, or such as obtains generally in the family relation. It has been held that, where there is no blood-relationship, the member to whom the benefit certificate is issued must be under some recognized obligation to support the beneficiary, and the beneficiary must be dependent upon such member for such maintenance. * * *

The undisputed evidence fails to establish, and does not even tend to show, that the plaintiff was dependent upon Carl W. David for anything. He was simply a hotel-keeper furnishing a home to the deceased for hire. The finding of the court upon this question is, in our view, without any evidence to sustain it. * * *

The judgment of the district court is reversed, with direction to enter a judgment in favor of the defendant for costs.2

2 Accord: Rollins v. Independent Order Brothers & Sisters (1927) 124 Kans. 166, 257 Pac. 754.

An uncle of the insured is related to the insured by blood and may therefore be a beneficiary of a mutual benefit certificate. Kloss v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen (1919) 105 Kans. 711, 185 Pac. 1058, 10 A. L. R. 862. A divorced wife drawing alimony is a dependent of her former husband and may therefore take under his mutual benefit certificate. Rose v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Fnginemen (1926) 80 Colo. 344, 251 Pac. 537, 52 A. L. R. 381, Comment (1927) 25 Mich. L. Rev. 805. For other cases see 10 A. L. R. 864.

Where neither the statute nor the by-laws of the society limit the power of the member in naming a beneficiary the same rules apply as in other types of insurance. See e. g. Harden v. Harden (1921) 191 Ky. 331, 230 S. W. 307, 17 A. L. R. 576.