Drobney v. Lukens Iron & Steel Co.
Decision Date | 10 March 1913 |
Docket Number | 129. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Parties | DROBNEY v. LUKENS IRON & STEEL CO. |
Rufus M. Overlander, of New York City (H. C. Smyth, of New York City, of counsel, and M. F. Tompkins, of New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Wingate & Cullen, of New York City (G. W. Wingate, of New York City of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
This is an action by the plaintiff as widow of Martin Drobney to recover damages for his death, under the statute of the state of Pennsylvania. He was a member of the Wawasset Beneficial Society composed of defendant's employes. The form of application for membership is as follows:
Article 7, section 1, of the constitution, provides:
Article 7, section 6 (a), of the by-laws, provides:
'Sec. 6(a): In consideration of the agreement and guarantee of the company as set forth in article 7 of the constitution, the acceptance by the member of benefits for permanent disability resulting from accident occurring in their service shall operate as satisfaction of all claims against the company for damages arising from or growing out of such disability unless before payment of any such benefits notice is given to the president of the society of intention to seek indemnity from the company, and, further, in the event of the disability or death of a member resulting from accident occurring in the company's service, no part of the benefits for death or permanent disability shall be due or payable unless and until good and sufficient releases shall be delivered to the president of the society of all claims against the society and to an executive officer of the company as against the company, arising from or growing out of the death or permanent disability of the member, said releases having been duly executed by the member or by all who might legally assert such claims or by those legally competent to release for them, and, further, if any suit shall be brought against the company for damages arising from or growing out of permanent disability or death occurring to a member, or if the member or his legal representative shall elect to sue at law and refuse or fail to execute and deliver the releases as above specified the benefits otherwise payable and all obligations of the society and of the company, created by the membership of such member in the society, shall thereupon be forfeited without any declaration or other act by the society or the company, but the president of the society may, in conjunction with an executive officer of the company, at their discretion, waive such forfeiture upon condition that all pending suits shall first be dismissed and the specified releases executed and delivered.'
The plaintiff, an illiterate woman unable to speak English or to read or write, executed the following document:
her
'Mrs. M. her X mark Drobi (L.S.)'
mark
Upon executing the above she received two checks which she deposited in bank and has collected, one for the sum of $1 and the other for the sum of $1,000. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant. There was testimony that the plaintiff was told before signing the above that it was merely a receipt for insurance money, and that the $1 mentioned was a present to the baby. This we think presented a question of fact for the jury who, if they found the allegations to be true, might have treated the document so far as it was a release as never having had any legal existence because of fraudulent representations to the plaintiff as to its purport in this respect. It would not be a case of fraudulent collateral representations by which the plaintiff was induced to sign what she knew to be a release, which could only be corrected in equity, but direct fraud in the execution of the document...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pringle v. Storrow
...De Lamar v. Herdeley, 167 F. 530, 93 C. C. A. 239; Un. Pac. R. Co. v. Whitney, 198 F. 784, 117 C. C. A. 392; Drobney v. Lukens Iron & Steel Co., 204 F. 11, 122 C. C. A. 325; Standard Portland Cement Corp. v. Evans, 205 F. 1, 125 C. C. A. 1; Am. Sign Co. v. Electro-Lens Co. (D. C.) 211 F. 19......
-
Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Carmody
... ... A. Midland R. Co., 144 Ala. 246, 40 So ... 394, 6 Ann.Cas. 804; Drobney v. Lukins, etc., 204 F ... 11; Pennsylvania Co. v. Reager's Adm'r, 152 ... ...
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Prescott
... ... on all such issues. Drobney v. Lukens Iron & Steel Co ... (C.C.A.2d Circuit) 204 F. 11.' ... ...
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Prescott
... ... all such issues. Drobney v. Lukens Iron & Steel Co. (C ... C. A.2d Circuit) 204 F. 11.' ... ...