Harrison v. The Masonic Mutual Benefit Society
| Decision Date | 08 January 1898 |
| Docket Number | 10356 |
| Citation | 51 P. 893,59 Kan. 29 |
| Parties | MARTHA HARRISON et al. v. THE MASONIC MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1898.
Error from Shawnee District Court. Z. T. Hazen, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
H. C Root and D. R. Hite, for plaintiffs in error.
George W. Clark, for defendant in error.
OPINION
The plaintiffs in error, as the widow and children of James Harrison, brought this suit on a certificate of membership in the Masonic Mutual Benefit Society issued to him on the twenty-ninth of October, 1879. It is alleged in the amended petition that all dues and assessments payable by the terms of the certificate for and including the year 1883 were duly paid; that in the year 1883, and prior to the fifth of November, James Harrison came to his death in some manner unknown to the plaintiffs; and that they were unable to furnish proofs of his death until the sixth of June, 1894, when such proof was duly made. It appears from the testimony that James Harrison, with his family, consisting of his wife and several children, resided on a farm near Holton, in Jackson county; that he was a master mason in good standing; that his domestic relations were pleasant, and that he had no serious financial embarrassments. Early in March, 1883, he left his home with a team of horses, wagon, and harness, in search of work. He informed his family that he intended to go to work on a railroad, and that it would be about fifty miles from Topeka, but that he might have to go farther. He stated to his wife that he would write in three days. On his way, he stopped at Topeka and paid two assessments on his certificate, a current one then due and one in advance, which continued his membership until sometime in October following. He was never seen or heard from after that. About ten days after he went away, the plaintiffs commenced to make inquiries about him, but were not able to get any trace of him, or of the team and wagon with which he started out. At the request of the plaintiffs, Mr. Nellis, the secretary of the society, made inquiries without success. The certificate of membership provides that the amount due thereunder shall be paid "within thirty days after due notice and satisfactory evidence of the death of said James Harrison." While the secretary of the society was notified of the disappearance of Harrison, no formal proof was presented until the fifth of July, 1894. The answer denied liability, and alleged that the policy had become inoperative by reason of the failure of Harrison to pay assessments thereon and that the plaintiff's action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. At the conclusion of the testimony in the case, the court directed a verdict for the defendant. The correctness of this ruling is now before us for determination.
It is contended that it was impossible for the plaintiffs to furnish due proofs of the death of James Harrison until aided by the presumption arising from his unexplained absence for seven years; and that this is a sufficient excuse for the delay of the plaintiffs in presenting their proof. It is said that the court held that the testimony established the fact of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westphal v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
...A.L.R. 1321; Gaffney v. Royal Neighbors, 31 Idaho 549, 174 P. 1014; Seeds v. Grand Lodge, 93 Iowa 175, 61 N.W. 411; Harrison v. Masonic Mut. Ben. Soc., 59 Kan. 29, 51 P. 893; Behlmer v. Grand Lodge, 109 Minn. 305, 123 N.W. 1071, 26 L.R. A.,N.S., 305; Eklund v. Supreme Council, 152 Minn. 20,......
-
United States v. Willhite
...laws. In that case the Court said: "In support of the plea of the statute of limitations appellant has cited Harrison v. Masonic Mutual Benefit Society, 59 Kan. 29, 51 P. 893, and Kauz v. Great Council, I.O. R.M., 13 Mo.App. 341. The reasoning of these cases is not convincing. The sounder v......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bancroft
...reason will be given no consideration. In support of the plea of the statute of limitations appellant has cited Harrison v. Masonic Mutual Benefit Society, 59 Kan. 29, 51 P. 893, and Kauz v. Great Council, I. O. R. M., 13 Mo. App. 341. The reasoning of these cases is not convincing. The sou......
-
Bonslett v. New York Life Ins. Co.
...after the date the jury found Kimmel died and after proofs of loss were made. The Kauz Case is not in point. In Harrison v. Masonic Mut. Ben. Soc., 59 Kan. 29, 51 Pac. 893, plaintiff alleged and proved the insured died in 1883. No payments were made after that time. Proof of death was not m......