Dessauer v. Supreme Tent, Knights of Maccabees of World

• Decision Date: 07 April 1919
• Citation: 210 S.W. 896,278 Mo. 57
• Parties: HANNA DESSAUER v. SUPREME TENT, KNIGHTS OF THE MACCABEES OF THE WORLD, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

210 S.W. 896

278 Mo. 57

HANNA DESSAUER v. SUPREME TENT, KNIGHTS OF THE MACCABEES OF THE WORLD, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 7, 1919

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. Hugo Grimm Judge.

Affirmed.

R. P. & C. B. Williams for appellant; D. D. Aitken, of counsel.

(1) 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. Claudy v. Royal League, 259 Mo. 92; 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. Kacer, 169 Mo. 314; Grand Lodge v. McFadden, 213 Mo. 284; Hofman v. Grand Lodge, 73 Mo.App. 47; Grand Lodge v. Reneau, 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. (4) Where the member either in the application or certificate, agrees to be bound by afterenacted 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 after-enacted by-laws are valid and binding. Claudy v. Royal League, 259 Mo. 92; Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 738; Ellerbe v. Faust, 119 Mo. 653; Shrick 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. The following is a list of authorities by states passing on after-enacted suicide by-laws, as well as after-enacted by-laws on kindred subjects, wherein the same principle is involved, sustaining such by-laws: Supreme Commandery v. Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 436; Fraternal Union of America v. Zeigler, 145 Ala. 287; Stohr v. Musical Fund Society, 82 Cal. 557; Bowie v. Grand Lodge, 99 Cal. 392; Schmierer v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Assn., 153 Cal. 208; Caldwell v. Grand Lodge, 148 Cal. 195; Brown v. Knights of the Protected Ark, 43 Colo. 289; Masonic Mut. Benefit Assn. v. Severson, 71 Conn. 719; Gilmore v. Knights of Columbus, 77 Conn. 58; Union Fraternal League of Boston v. Johnston, 124 Ga. 902; Supreme Tent, K. O. T. M. v. Hammers, 81 Ill.App. 560; Supreme Lodge K. of P. v. Kutscher, 179 Ill. 340; Supreme Lodge, K. of P. v. Trebbe, 179 Ill. 348; Baldwin v. Begley, 185 Ill. 180; Theorell v. Supreme Court of Honor, 115 Ill.App. 313; Murphy v. Nowak, 223 Ill. 301; Scow v. Royal League, 223 Ill. 32; Royal Arcanum v. McKnight, 238 Ill. 349; Garrety v. Catholic Order of Foresters, 148 Ill.App. 189; Ross v. Brotherhood of America, 120 Iowa 692; Norton v. Order of Foresters, 138 Iowa 464; Ury v. M. W. A., 127 N.W. 665; K. O. T. M. v. Nelson, 77 Kan. 629; Daughtry v. K. of P., 49 La. Ann. (Part II) 1203; Mathieu v. Mathieu, 112 Md. 625; Paine v. Society, 172 Mass. 321; Borgards v. Ins. Co., 79 Mich. 440; Brinnen v. Supreme Council C. M. B. A., 140 Mich. 220; Monger v. New Era Assn., 156 Mich. 645; Brown v. K. O. T. M., 167 Mich. 123; Ledy v. National Council, 129 Minn. 137; Supreme Lodge v. Stein, 75 Miss. 106; Dornes v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., Miss. 466; Schrick v. Mutual Co., 34 Mo. 423; Richmond v. Supreme Lodge, 100 Mo.App. 8; Morton v. Royal Tribe, 100 Mo.App. 78; Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 739; Ellerbe v. Faust, 119 Mo. 653; Allen v. Life Assn., 8 Mo.App. 52; State ex rel. v. Grand Lodge, 70 Mo.App. 466; Claudy v. Royal League, 259 Mo. 92; Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kinney, 64 Neb. 808, 90 N.W. 926; 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; Poultney v. Bachman, 31 Hun, 49; Hutchinson v. K. O. T. M., 68 Hun, 355; Shipman v. Protected Home Circle, 174 N.Y. 398, 63 L.R.A. 347; Green v. Ins. 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, 30 L.R.A. 838; West v. Grand Lodge, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 471; Eversberg v. K. O. T. M., 33 Tex. Civ. App. 549; Fugure v. Mut. Soc., 46 Vt. 362; Plunkett v. Supreme Conclave, 105 Va. 643; Kline v. Knights & Ladies, 140 P. 72; Thomas v. Maccabees, 85 Wash. 665; Schmidt v. Supreme Tent, 97 Wis. 528; Hughes v. Wis. Odd Fellows, 98 Wis. 292; Loeffler v. Modern Woodmen, 100 Wis. 79; Curtis v. Modern Woodmen, 159 Wis. 303; Barrows v. Mut. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 151 F. 461; Order of U. C. T. v. Smith, 192 F. 102; Supreme Lodge v. Light, 195 F. 903; Wright v. Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 193 U.S. 657; Supreme Lodge v. Minn., 240 U.S. 574; Holt v. Supreme Lodge, 235 F. 885.

William S. Campbell for respondent.

(1) Subsequent by-laws undertaking to reduce the amount to be paid under certain contingencies, such as death by suicide, do not take effect on previous contracts, and stipulations in the application and certificate of insurance that the member will comply with future regulations, means the members will comply with such as relate to his duty as a member, but it does not mean that the association may interfere with the essential purpose of the contract, namely, the indemnity covenanted to be paid. Zimmermann v. Supreme Tent, 122 Mo.App. 591; Mathews v. Modern Woodmen, 236 Mo. 349; Dietrich v. Modern Woodmen, 161 Mo.App. 101; Morton v. Supreme Council, 100 Mo.App. 92; Smail v. Court of Honor, 136 Mo.App. 434; Kavanaugh v. Royal League, 158 Mo.App. 243; Lewine v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 122 Mo.App. 547; Pearson v. Knights Templar, 114 Mo.App. 288; Wilcox v. Court of Honor, 134 Mo.App. 547; Sisson v. Supreme Court of Honor, 104 Mo.App. 61; Young v. Railway Mail Assn., 126 Mo.App. 325; Campbell v. American Benefit Club, 100 Mo.App. 249; Smith v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 83 Mo.App. 526; Grand Lodge v. Sater, 44 Mo.App. 453; Hysinger v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 42 Mo.App. 635; Dowdall v. Catholic Mutual Benefit Assn., 196 New York 408; Weber v. Maccabees, 172 N.Y. 493; Beach v. Supreme Tent of Maccabees, 177 N.Y. 100; Evans v. Southern Tier Masonic Relief Assn., 182 N.Y. 453; Ayers v. Order of United Workmen, 188 N.Y. 280; Olson v. Court of Honor, 100 Minn. 117; Ruder v. National Council, 124 Minn. 431; Smyth v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 198 F. 989; Knights Templar & Masons Indemnity Co. v. Jarman, 44 C. C. A. 93, 104 F. 638; Parks v. Supreme Circle Brotherhood of America, 89 A. 1042; Newhall v. American Legion of Honor, 181 Mass. 117; Pokrefky v. Fireman's Fund Assn., 121 Mich. 456; Heptasophs v. Rehan, 119 Md. 92. (2) It has been repeatedly held that the provision in the application of the member to comply with future by-laws and regulations means the member will comply with such by-laws, rules and regulations as relate to his duties as a member of the association, and that the order is powerless, by by-laws or otherwise, to change or modify the essentials of the contract of insurance without the express consent of the member. Zimmermann v. Supreme Tent, 122 Mo.App. 591; Kavanaugh v. Royal League, 158 Mo.App. 243; Morton v. Supreme Council, 100 Mo.App. 92; Campbell v. American Benefit Club, 100 Mo.App. 249; Sisson v. Supreme Court of Honor, 104 Mo.App. 61. (3) An after enacted by-law which has the effect of materially changing the contract between the insured and the society, by greatly reducing the amount which his beneficiary would receive at his death, is an unreasonable change, and not biding upon the insured or his beneficiary. Kavanaugh v. Royal League, 158 Mo.App. 234; Lewine v. Supreme Lodge, 122 Mo.App. 547.

WOODSON, J. Bond, C. J., and Walker, J., concur; Graves, J., concurs in separate opinion, in which Blair, Faris and Williams, JJ., concur.

OPINION

In Banc

WOODSON J. --

The plaintiff brought this suit in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis against the defendant on a fraternal benefit policy to recover the sum of three thousand dollars alleged to be due her thereon. Judgment was rendered in the pleading in her favor for the sum sued for and interest.

In due time and in proper form the defendant appealed the cause of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment and directed the circuit court to render judgment for the plaintiff for $ 744, the amount tendered by the defendant before the suit was instituted. One of the judges of the Court of Appeals dissented from the opinion therein rendered and the cause was duly certified to this court.

The policy is dated August 14, 1900, and the material parts thereof are as follows:

"This certifies that Sir Knight Emmanuel Dessauer has been regularly admitted as a member...