Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/241

 WORLEY V. NOETHWESTERN MASONIO AID ASSOCIATION. 229 �could not be alleged or shown, because the plaintiff bas himself stated tbat there are no devisees in existence. The breaeh upon which the plaintiff must rely is the non-payment of the moaey to him as admin- istrator of the decedent's estate. But is this a breaeh of the stipula- tions of the contract? The contract is not that the defendant Com- pany shall pay to the decedent in bis life-time, or to the administrator of bis estate at bis death. The contract could not have made such a provision, since it would have been utterly repugnant to the whole purpose, scope, and design of the association, as provided in the very law of its existence. Would a contract by the defendant to pay money to the decedent during bis life, or to the administrator of bis estate at bis death, have been valid under the second article of incor- poration, providing that the business and object of the association is to secure pecuniary aid to the "widows or orphans, heirs and devisees of deceased members of the association?" In the present case the contract is by its express terms to pay to the devisees. Was it any breaeh of this contract not to pay to the administrator of the estate ? Would it have been a breaeh to have refused payment to the widow, orphans, or heirs of the deceased ? �The stipulation entered into by the members of this bene volent or charitable association was to pay money in certain proportions to the devisees of the decedent ; that is, to such person or persons as he should appoint by bis will to receive the money. It so happens that he died without appointing any beneficiary of bis bounty. Is it any breaeh of the stipulation not to pay to the widow or the orphans or the heirs, or to the creditors of the decedent ? Neither the decedent nor the defendant corporation intended by this contract to provide for the widow, heirs, orphans, or creditors of the decedent. The expression of one thing excludes other and different things. The designation of devisees in the contract excludes the other classes — the heirs, widow, orphans, and creditors. Who will undertake, with- out violence to the known meaning of words, to say that the word "devisees" in this contract can be construed to mean directly or indi- rectly the widow, or orphans, or creditors ? But if the administrator shall receive the money due upon this contract it will go through bis hands to one or all of these classes of benefioiaries. Indeed, I see no escape from the conclusion that if the administrator shall collect the money it must go primarily to the decedent's creditors. The only ground upon which the administrator can enforce payment is that the money belongs as assets to the decedent's estate. He surely can- not collect the money as representative of the widow, orphans, or heirs ��� �