Clardy v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W.
Citation | 8 S.E.2d 748,193 S.C. 444 |
Decision Date | 10 April 1940 |
Docket Number | 15061. |
Parties | CLARDY v. SOVEREIGN CAMP, W. O. W. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Wright & Burroughs, of Conway, for appellant.
E S. C. Baker, of Conway, for respondent.
William Bryan Clardy was a member of the fraternal order known as the Woodmen of the World. His certificate of membership in Camp No. 522 was for the sum of $1000, payable to his wife, Mrs Evie V. Clardy, upon satisfactory proof of his death provided he was in good standing at the time. He died on or about September 10, 1933. Respondent brought this action under date of August 21, 1937, setting forth the facts above set out, and alleging that William Bryan Clardy had performed all of the conditions of his membership, as set out in his certificate and as required by the Constitution, Rules and By-laws of the Order; that payment had been demanded and refused and liability denied.
For answer, the defendant admitted the allegation that William Bryan Clardy was a member of the Order, and that he had been insured in the sum of $1000 with his wife, the plaintiff, as beneficiary as alleged, but that he was suspended for the nonpayment of his assessments, his certificate of insurance rendered null and void, and was of no effect at the time of his death.
The plaintiff had anticipated this defense by alleging in her complaint "* * that the said certificate and contract of insurance was valid and in full force and effect at the time of the death of the said William Bryan Clardy, ***; that the said William Bryan Clardy has not done any act or thing rendering the same void, ***". These allegations of the pleadings constitute the fundamental issues upon which the case was tried. The plaintiff introduced testimony tending to prove that the defendant, in its treatment of its members had acquiesced in the practice of accepting the dues of suspended members and reinstating them without requiring them to furnish a statement or certificate of good health, and it was urged that this custom prevailed in the Clardy case.
At the proper time, defendant made a motion for a directed verdict in its favor. The presiding Judge did not rule on the motion but stated that he would prefer to wait a verdict by the jury, after which he would rule on the motion if it should be necessary. Counsel for both sides seem to have agreed to this, but this Court takes occasion to say that it does not look with favor upon this practice. The movant, indeed, both parties, are entitled to have the Court act upon the motion when made. The jury is liable to be influenced to the opinion that the Court does not think there is merit in the motion. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
The controlling issue made by the exceptions is that of waiver. Did the defendant waive the requirement of its constitution and by-laws, which required that before William Bryan Clardy could be reinstated he show that he was in good health, and would remain in good health for thirty days?
By the terms of its membership, and the provisions of its certificate of insurance, the insured, William Bryan Clardy, is bound by the constitution and by-laws of the Order. The following provisions of the constitution and by-laws are pertinent:
If it be admitted that there is some evidence of waiver as to some of the members of Camp 522, the question arises, does that evidence apply to and control the case of William Bryan Clardy?
He was a member of this Order from the date of the organization of Camp 522 in 1909. He had filled practically all of the offices of the Camp and in 1932 he was Clerk of the Camp, or Financial Secretary as it was formerly called. It was his duty to collect the dues and mail them to the Sovereign Camp, and, if a member failed to pay his dues when due, it was his duty to mark him suspended and report the fact to the Sovereign Camp. He failed to pay his dues for September, 1932, on or before the last day of September, 1932, and in making his report for that month he marked himself suspended. He attempted to reinstate himself by sending in his dues for September along with those for October, 1932. The Sovereign Camp returned these funds on the ground that his payments were not accompanied by the necessary proof that he was in good health. Plaintiff contends that the Sovereign Camp had misled him by its practice of accepting these payments without requiring the proof of good health. Was William Bryan Clardy in a position to claim that he was so misled? There is no proof that he had sent in the name of any suspended members who were known to the Sovereign Camp to be not of "good health". The Sovereign Camp did know that he was not of "good health". On April 28, 1931, he wrote the following letter to the Sovereign Camp:
To continue reading
Request your trial