Dessauer v. Supreme Tent of Knights of Maccabees of World
| Decision Date | 04 May 1915 |
| Citation | 176 S.W. 461,191 Mo.App. 76 |
| Parties | HANNAH DESSAUER, Respondent, v. SUPREME TENT OF THE KNIGHTS OF MACCABEES OF THE WORLD, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Argued and Submitted April 9, 1915.
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. J. Hugo Grimm Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions). CERTIFIED TO SUPREME COURT.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded. Cause certified to the Supreme Court.
D. D Aitken and R. P. & C. B. Williams for appellant.
(1) The defendant is a co-operative society founded upon the mutual relations of its members, one to the other. The relationship of the members is two-fold--that is, as individuals they are the insured, and collectively they are the insurers. Korn v. Mutual Assurance Society, 3 L.Ed. 6 Cranch, 195; Haydell v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association, 98 F. 204; Supreme Commandery v. Ainsworth, 71 Ala 451; Fullenweider v. Royal League, 73 Ill.App. 335; Miller v. National Council, 69 Kan. 240; Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. Taylor, 99 Va. 219; Reynolds v. Royal Arcanum, 192 Mass. 155; Hall v. Western Travelers' Accident Association, 69 Neb 601; Wright v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, 48 L.Ed. 193 U.S. 832; Barrows v. Mutual Fund Life Association, 151 F. 461; Westerman v Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 670. (2) The defendant is not an insurance company, but is a fraternal beneficiary association, organized under the laws of the State of Michigan, authorized to do business in this State, and is by statute exempt from the operation of the insurance laws of this State and is exempt from the suicide statute applying to insurance companies. Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 738; Tice v. Supreme Lodge, 204 Mo. 349; Scorr v. Royal League, 223 Ill. 32; Cavanaugh v. Royal League, 158 Mo.App. 234. (3) There is no law or public policy prohibiting a member of a benefit society from contracting in advance that future laws may be passed by societies changing and modifying the indemnity in the original certificate, and if such stipulation is made, the by-law will be enforced. Shipman v. Protected Home Circle, 174 N.Y. 398; Richmond v. Supreme Lodge, 100 Mo.App. 8; Morton v. Royal Tribe, 93 Mo.App. 78; Lewine v. Supreme Lodge, 122 Mo.App. 547; Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 738; Ellerbe v. Faust, 119 Mo. 653. (4) The certificate, application, and by-laws of a mutual benefit society constitute the contract with the member, and all must be read together in order to see all the terms and conditions of the contract. Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 738; Richmond v. Supreme Lodge, 100 Mo.App. 8; Slater v. Supreme Lodge, 76 Mo.App. 387; Laker v. Royal Union, 95 Mo.App. 353; Shipman v. Protected Home Circle, 174 N.Y. 398. (5) A by-law restricting and entirely excluding liability for death by suicide is reasonable. The following are suicide cases and sustain this doctrine: Tice v. Supreme Lodge, 204 Mo. 349; Morton v. Royal Tribe, 93 Mo.App. 78; Supreme Commandery v. Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 436; Fraternal Union v. Ziegler, 145 Ala. 286; Knights of Pythias v. Kirtchmar, 179 Ill. 341; Knights of Pythias v. Trebbe, 179 Ill. 348; Scow v. Royal League, 223 Ill. 342; Knights of Maccabees v. Hammers, 81 Ill.App. 560; Knights of Maccabees v. Steinland, 206 Ill. 124; Knights of Maccabees v. Nelson, 77 Kan. 629; Daugherty v. Knights of Pythias, 48 La. Ann. 1203; Dorns v. Knights of Pythias, 75 Miss. 466; Lang v. Royal Highlanders, 75 Neb. 188; Shipman v. Protected Home Circle, 174 N.Y. 398; Tiesch v. Protected Home Circle, 72 O. St. 233; Chambers v. Knights of Maccabees, 200 Pa. 244; Knights of Pythias v. Lamalta, 95 Tenn. 157; Eversburg v. Knights of Maccabees, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 549; Hughes v. Wisconsin Odd Fellows, 98 Wis. 292; Tice v. Supreme Lodge, 123 Mo.App. 85. (6) There is no vested interest in a benefit certificate issued by a fraternal beneficiary association, and therefore its subsequent by-laws changing the contract or reducing its obligations does not disturb any vested rights. Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 737; Masonic Benefit Association v. Bunch, 109 Mo. 560; Wells v. Mutual Benefit Association, 126 Mo. 630; Richmond v. Supreme Lodge, 100 Mo.App. 8; Morton v. Royal Tribe, 93 Mo.App. 78; Shipman v. Protected Home Circle, 174 N.Y. 368; Casualty Co. v. Kucer, 169 Mo. 314; Grand Lodge v. McFadden, 213 Mo. 284; Hofman v. Grand Lodge, 73 Mo.App. 47; Grand Lodge v. Reman, 75 Mo.App. 402; 1 Bacon Benefit Societies, sec. 291a; Golden Star Fraternity v. Martin, 59 N.J.L. 207; Ables v. Ackley, 133 Mo.App. 603. (7) The defendant has the inherent power to adopt, modify, add to and amend by-laws. This is a power possessed by all corporations. 1 Thompson on Corporations (1 Ed.), sec. 955; 1 Bacon on Benefit Societies (3 Ed.), sec. 79; Niblack on Benefit Societies, sec. 16, p. 30; Schrick v. St. Louis Mut. Co., 34 Mo. 423; Allen v. Life Assn., 8 Mo.App. 52; State ex rel. v. Grand Lodge, 70 Mo.App. 456; Supreme Com. v. Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 445; Supreme Lodge v. Knight, 117 Ind. 489; Angel & Ames on Corporations, sec. 325; Boisot on By-Laws, sec. 6. (8) Where the member either in the application or certificate, agrees to be bound by after-enacted by-laws or the obligation of the society to pay is made subject to or liable to forfeiture, if the member shall not comply with laws, rules and regulations that may be subsequently adopted, as well as those in force at the time he joined, such afterenacted by-laws are valid and binding. Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 738; Ellerbe v. Faust, 119 Mo. 653; Schrick v. St. Louis Mut. Co., 34 Mo. 423; Allen v. Life Ins. Co., 8 Mo.App. 52; State ex rel. v. Grand Lodge, 70 Mo.App. 456; Richmond v. Supreme Lodge, 100 Mo.App. 8; Morton v. Royal Tribe, 93 Mo.App. 78; Supreme Com. v. Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 436, 46 A. R. 532; Fraternal Union v. Zeigler, 145 Ala. 287; Grand Lodge v. Burns, 84 Conn. 356; Masonic Benefit Assn. v. Severson, 71 Conn. 719; Gilmore v. Knights of Columbus, 77 Conn. 58; Bowie v. Grand Lodge, 99 Cal. 392; Stohr v. Musical Society, 82 Cal. 557; Brown v. Knights, 43 Colo. 286; Union Frat. League v. Johnson, 124 Ga. 902; Supreme Tent v. Hammers, 81 Ill.App. 560; Supreme Lodge v. Krutscher, 179 Ill. 340, 70 A. S. R. 120; Supreme Lodge v. Trebbe, 179 Ill. 348, 70 A. S. R. 120; Scow v. Royal League, 223 Ill. 32, 79 N.E. 42; Supreme Tent v. Steinhous, 206 Ill. 124, 68 N.E. 1090; Royal Arcanum v. McKnight, 238 Ill. 349, 87 N.E. 299; Baldwin v. Bigley, 185 Ill. 180; Throrell v. Supreme Ct. Honor, 115 Ill.App. 313; Murphy v. Norwolk, 223 Ill. 301; Garrity v. Order of Foresters, 148 Ill.App. 189; Ross v. Brotherhood, 120 Iowa 696; Norton v. Order of Foresters, 138 Iowa 464, 24 L.R.A. (U.S.) 1030; Ury v. Modern Brotherhood, 149 Iowa 709; Supreme Lodge v. Knight, 77 Kan. 629; Supreme Tent v. Nelson, 77 Kan. 629; Daugherty v. K. of P., 48 La. Ann. (part 11) 1203; Reynolds v. Royal Arcanum, 192 Mass. 150, 7 L.R.A. (U.S.) 1154; Paine v. Society, 172 Mass. 321, 52 N.E. 502; Mathieu v. Mathieu, 112 Md. 625; Borgards v. Ins. Co., 79 Mich. 440; Brinnell v. Supreme Council, 140 Mich. 220; Monger v. New Era Ass'n, 156 Mich. 645; Brown v. Great Camp, 167 Mich. 123; Supreme Lodge v. Stein, 75 Miss. 106; Dornes v. Supreme Lodge, 75 Miss. 466; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Kinney, 64 Neb. 808; Lang v. Royal Highlanders, 75 Neb. 188, 10 L.R.A. (U.S.) 666; Briggs v. Royal Highlanders, 84 Neb. 834; Supreme Council v. Adams, 68 N.H. 236; State ex rel. v. Camden Lodge, 73 N.J.L. 500; Shipman v. Home Circle, 174 N.Y. 398; Hutchinson v. Supreme Tent, 68 Hun, 355; Green v. Insurance Co., 139 N.C. 309; Tisch v. Protected Home Circle, 72 Ohio St. 233; Chambers v. Supreme Tent, 200 Pa. 244; Supreme Lodge v. La Malta, 95 Tenn. 157; West v. Grand Lodge, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 471; Eversberg v. Supreme Tent, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 549; Fugure v. Mutual Society, 46 Vt. 362; Plunkett v. Supreme Conclave, 107 Va. 643; Schmidt v. Supreme Tent, 97 Wis. 528; Hughes v. Wisconsin Odd Fellows, 98 Wis. 292; Laeffler v. Modern Woodmen, 100 Wis. 79; Langnicker v. A. O. U. W., 111 Wis. 279; Wright v. Mut. Life Ass'n, 193 U.S. 657; Korn v. Mutual Society, 3 L.Ed. (6 Cranch.) 195; Barrows v. Mut. Reserve, 151 F. 461; Order of Commercial Travelers v. Smith, 192 F. 102; Supreme Lodge v. Light, 195 F. 903; Lloyd v. Knights of Pythias, 98 F. 66. The following is a list of authorities by States passing on after-enacted suicide by-laws, as well as by-laws on kindred subjects, wherein the same principle is involved: Alabama--Supreme Commandery v. Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 436; suicide by-law; sustained; Fraternal Union of America v. Zeigler, 145 Ala. 287, 39 So. 751; suicide by-law; sustained. California--Stohr v. Musical Fund Society, 82 Cal. 557; sick and disability benefits by-law; sustained; Bowie v. Grand Lodge, 99 Cal. 392; endowment installments modified; sustained; Schmierer v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Assn., 153 Cal. 208; rates increase; sustained; Caldwell v. Grand Lodge, 148 Cal. 195; classification of beneficiaries; sustained. Colorado--Brown v. Knights of Protected Ark, 43 Colo. 289, 96 P. 450; forfeiture provision; nonpayment of assessments; sustained. Connecticut--Masonic Mut. Benefit Ass'n v. Severson, 71 Conn. 719; eligibility of beneficiaries; sustained; Gilmore v. Knights of Columbus, 77 Conn. 58; prohibited occupation sustained; Grand Lodge, Etc., v. Burns, 80 A. 157; prohibited occupation; liquor business; sustained. Georgia--Union Fraternal League of Boston v. Johnston, 124 Ga. 902; creating remedies and tribunals within the order sustained. Illinois--Supreme Tent K. O. T. M. v. Hammers, 81 Ill.App. 560; suicide by-law; sustained; Supreme Lodge K. of P. v. Kutscher, 179 Ill. 340; suicide by-law; sustained; Supreme Lodge K. of P. v. Trebbe, 179 Ill. 348; suicide by-law; sustained; Baldwin v. Begley...
To continue reading
Request your trial