Switchmen's Union of North America v. Colehouse

Citation227 Ill. 561,81 N.E. 696
PartiesSWITCHMEN'S UNION OF NORTH AMERICA v. COLEHOUSE.
Decision Date19 June 1907
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; R. W. Wright, Judge.

Action by Charles Colehouse against the Switchmen's Union of North America. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

James C. McShane, for appellant.

Kretzinger, Gallagher, Rooney & Rogers, for appellee.

FARMER, J.

Appellant is an organization of switchmen, having for one of its objects an insurance for the protection and relief of its members in case of their becoming totally disabled as defined in the laws and rules of the order, or of their families in case of death of the member. Appellee became a member of appellant, and on his application a beneficiary certificate or policy was issued to him, whereby appellant agreed, in consideration of the payment by appellee of all dues and assessments agreed to be paid for said insurance, in accordance with the laws, rules, and regulations of the organization, that it would pay to him, his conservator or assigns, in case of total disability as defined by the laws, rules, and regulations of the society, or to his mother in case of his death, $1,200. Appellee, while in good standing in the organization, and while switching cars for the Chicago, Lake Shore & Eastern Railway Company, received such an injury to one of his eyes that it became necessary to remove it. Section 16 of the laws of the appellant reads as follows: ‘Any member suffering, by means of physical separation, the loss of four fingers of one hand at or above the second joint, or of three fingers and thumb of one hand at or above the second joint, or the loss of one foot at or above the instep, or who shall become totally blind or totally deaf, shall be considered totally and permanently disabled and shall receive the full amount of his beneficiary certificate; likewise any physical disability that may permanently disqualify a member from performing the duties of a switchman, provided that such permanent disability occurred after he became a member of this department or was not caused improperly or through negligence.’ Appellee claimed that he was permanently disqualified by his injury from performing the duties of a switchman, and was therefore entitled to the $1,200. The proof supported his contention that his injury disqualified him from the performance of the duties of a switchman. Appellant denied liability, and this suit was brought by appellee to recover said sum. Appellant pleaded the general issue and two special pleas. Demurrers were sustained to both special pleas. A jury was waived, and the cause tried by the court, resulting in a judgment for appellee for the $1,200 and interest thereon, amounting in all to $1,345. The Appellate Court has affirmed that judgment, and a further appeal is prosecuted to this court.

It is first insisted by appellant that the first clause in section 16 of its laws, which provides that a member who becomes totally blind shall be considered totally disabled and entitled to receive the full amount of his beneficiary certificate, does not justify a recovery, for the reason that appellee is not totally blind; and that the second clause, viz., ‘likewise any physical disability that may permanently disqualify a member from performing the duties of a switchman,’ applies only to disabilities not included in the first clause; that it has no application to loss of sight or any of the other disabilities mentioned in the first clause, but refers only to such injuries and disabilities as internal injuries, fractures, etc., which are not mentioned and included in said first clause. In other words, the construction contended for by appellant is that, to entitle a member of the organization to recover on account of a disqualification from the performance of the duties of a switchman from loss of sight, such loss of sight must be total; that, even though the loss of one eye might disqualify the member from the performance of the duties of a switchman, there could be no recovery. It is apparent, from section 16 of the laws of appellant, the object of the indemnity is for the relief of members who become totally disabled from the performance of their duties. Some things that appellant specially declares shall constitute a total...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Supreme Council Catholic Benevolent Legion v. Grove
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 24, 1911
    ......Ins. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind. 92, 50 Am. Rep. 769;Union Life Ins. Co. v. Jameson, 31 Ind. App. 28, 67 N. E. ...200, 15 N. W. 82;Switchmen's Union v. Colehouse, 227 Ill. 561, 81 N. E. 696. The declared objects of the ......
  • Supreme Council Catholic Benevolent Legion v. Grove
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 24, 1911
    ...... v. Wiler . (1885), 100 Ind. 92, 50 Am. Rep. 769; Union Life Ins. Co. v. Jameson (1903), 31 Ind.App. 28, 67 ...82; Switchmen's Union,. etc., v. Colehouse" (1907), 227 Ill. 561, 81. N.E. 696. . .       \xC2"......
  • Dinnie v. United Commercial Travelers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • November 18, 1918
    ...... TRAVELERS, a Corporation, Appellant Supreme Court of North Dakota November 18, 1918 . .           Appeal. ... by the insured. Switchmen's Union v. Colehouse, . 227 Ill. 561, 81 N.E. 696; Cook v. N. P. ......
  • Jones v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • February 27, 1934
    ...... illustrated by the cases of Switchmen's Union v. Colehouse, 227 Ill. 561, 81 N.E. 696; Dunlap v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT