District Grand Lodge No. 11, Endowment of Grand United Order of Odd Fellows v. Pratt
Decision Date | 05 December 1910 |
Citation | 132 S.W. 998,96 Ark. 614 |
Parties | DISTRICT GRAND LODGE NO. 11, ENDOWMENT OF THE GRAND UNITED ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS v. PRATT |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Appellant was a benefit society organized under the laws of Arkansas. It issued to its members a benefit certificate which entitled the beneficiaries to the amount named therein within ninety days after proof of the death of the member in good standing. Appellee was a beneficiary under a policy issued to her sister, Victoria Pratt, who was a member of the society. The latter died August 8, 1908, and appellee brought this suit alleging that her sister had complied with all the conditions of the policy, and that appellee was therefore entitled to recover the amount named therein ($ 250), for which she prayed judgment and also for penalty and attorney's fees. The answer denied that Victoria Pratt had complied with the conditions of the policy, and denied liability. The policy required as a condition of recovery that the member shall have "complied with all the rules and regulations" of the "Benefit Association," that he shall have been in "good standing at the time of his death," and shall have paid all fines, dues and assessments imposed by the order at the time same became due."
Members were "unfinancial" when they owed an amount in excess of $ 1.50 "for fines, dues or any assessments." A law of the society provided that "a member who is financial and taken sick cannot, while he remains sick, become non-financial," as it is the duty of the lodge to deduct his or her indebtedness from his or her sick benefits. The quarters were known as January, April July and October. The regulations required the quarterly dues to "be paid promptly and regularly." The quarterly dues had to be "in the hands of the endowment secretary within thirty days after the beginning of the quarter." A general law of the society provided: "The secretary of every lodge is hereby required to notify every non-financial or forfeit member of his being nonfinancial or forfeit, with the amount of his or her indebtedness, adding to each notice a fine of twenty-five cents;" and "provided further that no fines, taxes or assessments shall be considered as being due and collectable until after the expiration of one calendar month from their imposition, and the secretary shall give to each member a notice of the imposition of such fine special tax or assessments at least twenty days before the same shall become due."
On behalf of appellant there was testimony tending to prove that Victoria Pratt was "unfinancial" before she became sick on July 4, 1908; that she owed in dues, fine, assessment and penalty an amount equal to $ 2.50; that notice was given her of the delinquency June 22, 1908.
On behalf of appellee there was testimony tending to prove that Victoria Pratt was in good standing with the lodge at the time of her death. At that time she was the treasurer of the society. She had not been suspended or excluded for misconduct or non-payment of dues, etc. A card signed by the secretary was held by each of the members showing when their dues, etc., were paid. Victoria Pratt at the time she was taken sick held such a card showing that she was financial. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether the card reflected the truth as to the standing of Victoria Pratt. The appellant contended, and its evidence tended to prove, that the indorsements on the card showing that Victoria Pratt had paid her dues, etc., were forgeries. The testimony on behalf of appellee tended to show to the contrary. The testimony on behalf of appellee also tended to prove that no notice was given Victoria Pratt of any delinquency.
The court at the request of appellee granted the following among other prayers:
Exceptions were duly saved to the ruling of the court in granting the above prayers. A verdict was returned in favor of appellee for $ 250. Judgment was entered against appellant for that sum, and it duly prosecutes this appeal.
Judgment reversed cause remanded for new trial.
Scipio A. Jones and W. R. Donham, for appellee.
1. The first instruction should not have been given because there was no evidence on which to base it. It was abstract. 63 Ark 177; 76 Ark. 567; Id. 348; Id. 599; 77 Ark. 20; 65 Ark. 222.
2. However true it may be that "technical defenses in actions on insurance policies are not regarded with favor by the court," there was no occasion in this case for such a charge, and its giving was prejudicial.
3. The third instruction is misleading. There is no evidence that at the time the insured's arrearages became due she had any sick benefits due her from the lodge. Her failure to pay had already worked a forfeiture before she became sick. 86...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Edgar Lumber Co. v. Denton
...486; 88 Ark. 292. It is error to give conflicting instructions. 83 Ark. 202; 110 Ark. 198. Instruction No. 4 was abstract and misleading. 96 Ark. 614. It was a question for the jury. 87 Ark. 321; 103 Ark. 104 Ark. 236; 113 Ark. 160; 14 Ark. 520; 24 Ark. 540; 33 Ark. 350; 89 Ark. 522; 14 Ark......
-
Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Leinen
... ... 458] piles in order that they ... might again be loaded with the ... the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States ... in the case of Pedersen v. D. L. & ... ...
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company And Virginia Bridge & Iron Company v. Yates
... ... made in order to make a covering for the pit. That there was ... 597, 130 S.W ... 538; District ... 597, 130 S.W ... 538; District Grand ... 597, 130 S.W ... 538; District Grand Lodge ... 538; District Grand Lodge No. 11 Endowment ... 11 Endowment, ... etc. v. Pratt ... ...
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Kimbrell
...and misleading. Especially No. 6. There is no evidence on which to base it. 63 Ark. 177; 77 Ark. 20; 80 Ark. 261; 88 Ark. 176; Id. 231; 96 Ark. 614; 90 Ark. S. Brundidge and J. W. House, for appellee. 1. There was sufficient substantial evidence to send the case to the jury, and the evidenc......