Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. of Conn. v. Burns

Decision Date15 June 1911
Citation84 Conn. 356,80 A. 157
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesGRAND LODGE A. O. U. W. OF CONNECTICUT v. BURNS et al.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; William H. Williams, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by the Grand Lodge of the Ancient Order of United Workmen of Connecticut to determine the validity of a benefit certificate insuring the life of John W. Burns for the benefit of Mary E. Burns. From a decree holding the certificate invalid, claimant, Mary E. Burns, appeals. Affirmed.

The Ancient Order of United Workmen of Connecticut is an incorporated fraternal insurance organization composed of duly elected representatives of subordinate lodges, certain officers of the Grand Lodge, members of certain committees of the Grand Lodge, and Past Grand Master Workmen, who are members in good standing of subordinate lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts originally represented and had jurisdiction over the members of said order in all the New England states.

John W. Burns, late of Waterbury, deceased, who was the husband of Mary E. Burns, received, between 1890 and 1897, through his membership of and upon his written application to a subordinate lodge of Waterbury, known as America Lodge No. 44, three successive certificates entitling him to participate in the benefit fund to the amount of $2,000. The first and second certificates were surrendered by Burns for the purpose of changing the beneficiary, and the third, which is the certificate in question in this action, and in which his wife, Mary E. Burns, was made the sole beneficiary, was issued October 7, 1897. These certificates were issued by authority by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and were signed by its Grand Master Workman, with its seal attached, and were countersigned by the Master Workman and the Recorder of America Lodge No. 44, with its seal attached, "rendering," as stated therein, "this certificate valid and in full force."

The application of Burns to America Lodge No. 44, upon which said certificates were issued, contained the following language: "I * * * hereby make application for the Workman degree in America Lodge 44 of Waterbury under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of the Ancient Order of United Workmen of Massachusetts, and I hereby agree that compliance on my part with all the laws, regulations and requirements which are or may be enacted by said order, is the express condition upon which I am to be entitled to participate in the beneficiary fund, and have and enjoy all the other benefits and privileges of said order." Each of the three certificates states that Burns, "a Workman degree member of America Lodge No. 44 of said order, * * * is entitled to all the rights and privileges of membership in the Ancient Order of United Workmen, and to participate in the beneficiary fund of the order to the amount of $2,000," and that it "is issued upon the express condition that said John W. Burns shall in every particular while a member of said order comply with all the laws, rules and requirements thereof."

By the constitution and general laws of the order, it is provided that the territory comprising a grand lodge jurisdiction, having jurisdiction over more than one state, may be divided by the Supreme Lodge at a stated meeting into two or more Grand Lodge jurisdictions.

In 1901 the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was divided into the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and the members of said order within the state of Connecticut were placed under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, and the obligations of the members residing in Connecticut transferred to the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, and Burns became a member of the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, which, in 1902, was incorporated under the laws of this state.

When Burns became a member of the order in 1890, there was no law or rule of the order prohibiting a member from engaging in the business of selling Intoxicating liquors as a beverage. After the issuing of the certificate of membership to Burns, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts adopted a law providing that any officer or member tried and convicted of certain offenses, among which was entering Into the business of selling, by retail, intoxicating liquors as a beverage, should be fined, suspended, or expelled.

In 1891, soon after Burns became a member of the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, it provided by its constitution that no person should be admitted to membership in the order who was engaged in the sale, by retail, of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, and adopted the following general law: "Any member of the order who shall enter into the business or occupation of selling, by retail, Intoxicating liquors as a beverage, shall stand suspended from any and all rights to participate in the beneficiary fund of the order, and his beneficiary certificate shall become null and void from and after the date of his so engaging in said occupation, and no action of the lodge of which he is a member, or of the Grand Lodge or any officer thereof, shall be necessary or a condition precedent of any such suspension. In case any assessment shall be received from a member who has thus engaged in such occupation, the receipt thereof shall not continue the beneficiary certificate of such member in force, nor shall it be a waiver of his so engaging in such occupation."

In September, 1907, Burns engaged in the business, at Waterbury, of selling at retail intoxicating liquors as a beverage, and continued said business until his death on the 2d of October, 1910. In a conversation with one Reynolds, the recorder of America Lodge No. 44, Burns said that he had gone into the liquor business, and had dropped the order. Reynolds made no report or record of such information until after the death of Burns, when he sent to Stroh, the Grand Recorder of the Grand Lodge, the notice of Burns' death, and in the same letter Informed Stroh that Burns had been engaged in the saloon business. By the report sent by Reynolds to the Recorder of the Grand Lodge, a short time before Burns' death, his name appeared upon the list of members of the lodge.

Reynolds was called as a witness by counsel for Mrs. Burns, and on cross-examination was shown his letter to Stroh, and his attention called to a statement therein that Burns had told him (Reynolds) that he knew that his conduct in engaging in the liquor business was contrary to the laws of the order, and Reynolds testified that he would not be positive that Burns told him he knew it was contrary to the laws of the order. The letter was only admitted for the purpose of fixing the date when Reynolds gave the first notice to the Grand Lodge.

From the time he became a member of the order until his death in 1910, Burns paid to the financier of America Lodge No. 44 the assessments as they were made by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and as afterwards made by the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, and said financier of America Lodge No. 44 paid the same to the receiver of America Lodge No. 44, who transmitted them to the proper officer of the Grand Lodge, as they were required by that lodge. In collecting and transmitting said funds, neither the financier nor the receiver of America Lodge No. 44 knew of the fact that Burns was engaged in the liquor business until after his death, nor did the officers of the Grand Lodge, unless the knowledge of Reynolds, the recorder of America Lodge No. 44, of such fact, as before stated, is to be regarded as the knowledge of the Grand Lodge, or the Grand Recorder.

The payments made by Burns to the financier of America Lodge No. 44, after Burns engaged in the liquor business, amounted to $122. After the death of Burns, the further sum of $4.40, paid by him September 25, 1910, and transmitted to the Grand Recorder of the Grand Lodge by the receiver of the America Lodge, with a letter stating that Burns, at the time of his death, was engaged in the liquor business, was repaid to the administrator of Burns.

The evidence before us shows that Recorder Reynolds was an officer of and elected by the subordinate America Lodge No. 44. It was his duty, on or before the 1st day of each month, to notify the Grand Recorder of all "expulsions of members"; of "the suspending, annulling, or canceling of beneficiary certificates"; to make due and proper record of all "suspensions" and "expulsions," upon the beneficiary certificate register of the lodge, and to see that the same were recorded at the proper time in the monthly report of the lodge, and to mail to the Grand Recorder, on or before the 5th day of each month, the monthly report of the lodge. It was the duty of the financier to make out the monthly report of the lodge upon the form provided by the Grand Lodge, and deliver...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Dessauer v. Supreme Tent of Knights of Maccabees of World
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 4, 1915
    ...v. Royal Tribe, 93 Mo.App. 78; Supreme Com. v. Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 436, 46 A. R. 532; Fraternal Union v. Zeigler, 145 Ala. 287; Grand Lodge v. Burns, 84 Conn. 356; Benefit Assn. v. Severson, 71 Conn. 719; Gilmore v. Knights of Columbus, 77 Conn. 58; Bowie v. Grand Lodge, 99 Cal. 392; Stohr v......
  • Claudy v. The Royal League
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1914
    ... ... Life ... Ass'n, 164 Mo. 675; Toomey v. Supreme ... Lodge, 147 Mo. 139; Trenton v. Humel, 134 ... Mo.App. 595; Herzberg v ... 635; Smith v. Supreme Lodge, ... 83 Mo.App. 512; Grand Lodge v. Sater, 46 Mo.App ... 452; Indemnity Co. v. Jarman, 44 C. C ... Zeigler, 145 Ala. 287; Grand Lodge v. Burns, 84 ... Conn. 356; Masonic Benefit Assn. v. Severson, 71 ... Conn ... ...
  • Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Peaugh
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1921
    ...1915 E 152; 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 421; 183 U.S. 308, note; 180 P. 2; 40 S.W. 553; 174 Mo.App. 250; 186 Cal. 204; 69 N.E. 718; 141 S.W. 1055; 84 Conn. 356; 151 Mo. 552; 153 Wis. 225; 93 Kan. 485; 87 Minn. 417; S.W. 941; 60 Col. 585; 42 Okla. 25; 181 N.W. 819; 230 S.W. 540. The appellant has pow......
  • Trikona Advisers Ltd. v. Haida Invs. Ltd.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 1, 2015
    ...interpleader appropriate. Commercial Discount Co. v. Plainfield, 120 Conn. 274, 278–79, 180 A. 311 (1935), citing Grand Lodge v. Burns, 84 Conn. 356, 363, 80 A. 157 (1911). “A complaint in an interpleader action should allege only such facts as show that there are adverse claims to the fund......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT