Arold v. Supreme Conclave, Improved Order of Heptasophs
| Decision Date | 26 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | 41. |
| Citation | 91 A. 829,123 Md. 675 |
| Parties | AROLD v. SUPREME CONCLAVE, IMPROVED ORDER OF HEPTASOPHS. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore Court of Common Pleas; John J. Dobler, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Mary Arold against the Supreme Conclave, Improved Order of Heptasophs. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.
George Washington Williams and John Holt Richardson, both of Baltimore, for appellant. John C. Tolson, of Baltimore, and Olin Bryan, of Philadelphia (Albert C. Tolson, of Baltimore on the brief), for appellee.
George J. Arold became a member of the Improved Order of Heptasophs on the 12th of March, 1895, and received a certificate of membership by which, upon his death, his wife, Mary, was entitled to receive as beneficiary the sum of $1,000. The application for membership contained, among other matters this provision:
"I agree to make punctual payment of all dues and assessments for which I may become liable, and to conform in all respects to the laws, rules and usages of the order now in force, or which may hereafter be adopted by the same."
Two years later, in 1897, the order adopted the following by-law:
No question is presented of the regularity of the adoption of section 329 of the by-laws just quoted.
On November 26, 1908, George Arold met his death as the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Proofs of death were promptly made out and forwarded to the order. Then ensued a correspondence between Mr. Arold and the general counsel of the order, in which the latter took the ground that the beneficiary, Mrs. Arold, by reason of a by-law relating to suicide, was not entitled to the $1,000 named in the certificate, but only the sum of $487. This correspondence continued until the latter part of February, 1909, and was concluded by the payment on March 15, 1909, to Mrs. Arold of the $487. There the matter rested until January 28, 1913 when this suit was brought to recover the difference between $1,000 and the amount actually paid. The defendant filed various pleas, among them one setting up as a bar the limitation of time within which suit might be brought as provided in section 329. At the trial, on conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the defendant offered a prayer to direct a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that the suit had not been brought within the time provided by the by-laws of the order, and the action of the court in granting this prayer is the sole ground of appeal in this case.
It was alleged that the long inaction of the appellant was induced by the fraud and deceit of the appellee, but there is no evidence whatever tending in the slightest degree to sustain this allegation. The contention of the plaintiff is that the rights of the parties were fixed as of the time when the deceased became a member of the order, that certain vested rights then attached, which could not be in any manner affected by the subsequently adopted by-laws, and that the by-law as adopted contained nothing to show any intent that it should have a retroactive effect, and so could only be applicable to those who joined the order after the date of its passage. The case was argued with great earnestness on both sides and very voluminous citation of authorities, but in view of two recent decisions of this court the law of...
To continue reading
Request your trial