Little v. Grand Lodge K. P. of South Carolina

• Decision Date: 18 March 1914
• Citation: 81 S.E. 152,96 S.C. 448
• Parties: LITTLE ET AL. v. GRAND LODGE K. P. OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

81 S.E. 152

96 S.C. 448

LITTLE ET AL. v. GRAND LODGE K. P. OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 18, 1914

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Ernest Gary, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Robert Little, administrator of the estate of W. A. Key deceased, and another against the Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias of South Carolina , Subordinate to the Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias of North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals Affirmed.

Shand Benet, Shand & McGowan and Logan & Edmunds, all of Columbia for appellant.

Robt. Moorman, Hunter A. Gibbes, and W. Hampton Cobb, all of Columbia, for respondent.

GARY C.J.

This is an action upon a policy of insurance.

The complaint alleges that on or about the ______ day of January 1905, the defendant issued its policy of insurance on the life of W. A. Key, whereby it agreed to pay to his widow, legal heirs or representatives, the sum of $300, should his death occur during his fourth year's membership; that W. A. Key died on the 25th of October, 1908, in good standing; that the plaintiff, Susan Duncan Key, is the widow of the said W. A. Key, and is entitled as such to the sum of $300. The defendant, in its answer, denied the allegation that W. A. Key died in good standing in said lodge during his fourth year's membership therein, and, by way of defense, alleged that section 7 of the Endowment Law provides that "any member living in a state of concubinage at the time of death, shall not be entitled to any of the benefits herein mentioned," and that the deceased, at the time of his death, was living in a state of concubinage with a woman whom he represented as his wife, although he then had a lawful wife. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $300, interest and costs, and the defendant appealed upon exceptions, which will be reported.

The first question that will be considered is whether there was error in refusing the motion for nonsuit.

The grounds of the motion and the reasons assigned by his honor, the presiding judge, for refusing it are as follows:

"Mr. Edmunds: We move for a nonsuit. The undisputed testimony shows but one conclusion; that is, that the party through whom the benefit is claimed, W. A. Key, was, at the time of his death, living in a state of concubinage in violation of section 7 of the Endowment Law, which we have put in evidence.

The Court: Here is a letter from Henry, office of Grand Chancellor, Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias, to Mr. Cobb 'Dear Sir: Replying to yours of the...