Dinan v. Supreme Council of Catholic Mutual Benefit Ass'n
| Decision Date | 31 December 1904 |
| Docket Number | 194 |
| Parties | Dinan, Appellant, v. Supreme Council of the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 1, 1904
Appeal, No. 194, Oct. T., 1904, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March Term, 1900, No. 213, on verdict for defendant in case of Andrew A. Dinan and Mary G Dinan, his wife, v. Supreme Council of the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association. Reversed.
Assumpsit to recover a death benefit. Before COLLIER, P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for defendant.
The first and second assignments of error are sustained, the judgment is reversed and a venire de novo is awarded.
G. W Williams, with him A. J. Edwards, for appellants. -- The case was for the jury: Holland v. Kindregan, 155 Pa. 156; Piedmon, etc., Life Ins. Co. v. Ewing, 92 U.S. 378; Dinan v. Mut. Ben. Assoc., 201 Pa. 363; Corcoran v. Life Ins. Co., 183 Pa. 443.
A. B. Reid, with him A. V. D. Watterson, for appellee. -- If the evidence is direct, certain, presenting no question of credibility and having no sufficient ground for inconsistent inferences of fact the court may be asked to instruct the jury as to its legal effect: Lonzer v. Lehigh V.R.R. Co., 196 Pa. 610; Wells v. Insurance Co., 191 Pa. 207; Holland v. Kindregan, 155 Pa. 156; Hoag & Alger v. Lake Shore, etc., R.R. Co., 85 Pa. 293; Raby v. Cell, 85 Pa. 80.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., DEAN, FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER and THOMPSON, JJ.
This action is based upon a beneficiary certificate issued to the father of Mary G. Dinan, one of the appellants, and in her favor, by the appellee, a mutual beneficial association. The requirements under its constitution were that no one above the age of fifty years should be entitled to a certificate of membership. Appellee's contention was that the appellants were not entitled to recover because at the time of the application and initiation the applicant, since deceased, was over fifty years of age and therefore was not entitled to initiation and membership, while that of appellants was that he was at the time within the limitation of the age required. The question was distinctively one of fact and as the learned trial judge gave binding instructions for the appellee, such instruction is assigned for error for the reason that the facts were so disputed that the appellants were entitled to have a jury pass upon them. Whatever the weight of the evidence may be and whatever the action of the trial judge might be upon a motion for a new trial, if there be a substantial controversy as to the facts and if its determination depends upon the credibility of witnesses, the question of appellee's liability became one for the jury and appellants were entitled to have it submitted to the jury for its determination.
The application of appellant's father for membership was acted upon by appellee July 2, 1891, and his initiation in pursuance thereof took place in the following August. Prima facie the beneficiary certificate established that the age of the applicant at the time of the application was forty-eight years and further proof was not upon appellants to show affirmatively that such was the fact.
Such the case appellee, the defendant below, undertook to show that at the date of his application and initiation, the decedent was upwards of fifty years of age and, therefore under the requirements of the association not entitled to membership and the certificate therefor. In support of this contention the appellee called the priest of St. Paul's cathedral, who produced the record of that church showing the marriage of one Charles Coll and Ann Quinn, on date of September 23, 1855, and that the marriage was performed by the Rev. Thomas Malone. James White, a witness called on behalf of the appellee to identify the parties represented in the church register as then married, was asked whether he knew Charles Coll and whether this Charles Coll thus married was the father of the appellant and he stated that he thought so to the best of his knowledge and added: "I was present at the marriage but I do not know that there was a wedding." When asked whether the marriage ceremony took place at the cathedral he answered that it was performed there and that he (Coll) went to Father Garland's church. Upon cross-examination he was asked whether upon a former trial he had not testified that he did not know that this Coll was appellant's father and whether he did not know appellant and whether he replied He was also asked whether or not the marriage took place at the cathedral and whether or not at a former trial he had testified that the Charles referred to was not married in St. Patrick's church by Father Garland, or rather that he was married at Fathe...
To continue reading
Request your trial