Hellman v. Nat. Council, Knights and Ladies of Security

Citation198 Mo. App. 308,200 S.W. 698
Decision Date05 February 1918
Docket NumberNo. 14796.,14796.
PartiesHELLMAN v. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF SECURITY.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Karl Kimmel, Judge.

Action by Peter Hellman against the National Council of the Knights and Ladies of Security. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

W. Paul Mobley, of St. Louis, for appellant. George D. Little, of St. Louis, for respondent.

ALLEN, J.

Defendant is a fraternal beneficiary society, and on or about June 3, 1907, plaintiff became a member of such society, and defendant issued to him a benefit certificate in consideration of certain monthly premiums to be paid thereon. On or about March, 1913, defendant refused to receive further payments on the certificate, declaring it null and void, upon the ground that plaintiff had obtained the issuance thereof by fraud. Plaintiff thereupon instituted this action, before a justice of the peace, for a recovery of the premiums paid, as for money had and received. The cause reached the circuit court on appeal, where a trial before the court, a jury having been waived, resulted in a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $230.10, being the total amount of premiums paid by plaintiff on the certificate, to wit, $212.52, with interest thereon. From this judgment defendant prosecutes the appeal before us.

To sustain the issues on his part, plaintiff introduced in evidence the benefit certificate. Among other things, it provided that if the member holding the certificate should be or become engaged in any of the prohibited occupations, "as provided in the laws of the order," then the certificate should be null and void, and that all money which had been "paid into reserve fund, beneficiary fund, or National Council general fund" should be forfeited. Thereupon plaintiff's counsel made the following statement, viz.:

"It is stipulated by and between the attorneys for the plaintiff and the defendant that the insurance policy, or fraternal benefit certificate * * * was duly issued by the defendant to plaintiff, Peter Hellman; that the plaintiff paid the premiums on said policy up to the premium for March, 1913; that the plaintiff, in March, 1913, tendered the premium due to defendant, and that the premium due in that month was refused by defendant on the ground that the policy had been secured by the plaintiff by fraud, said fraud consisting of a misrepresentation as to his occupation at the time of the issuance of said policy, and that from the date of the certificate up to the time of the refusal to accept the premium the plaintiff was engaged in the occupation of a saloon keeper and bartender, which is one of the prohibited occupations of the society, prohibited by the terms of the policy, and also by the constitution and by-laws of the defendant society.

"It is further stipulated and agreed that the plaintiff, from the time of the issuance of said policy up to the time of the refusal of defendant to accept premiums on said policy, had paid to defendant company the premium called for by said policy, namely $2.65 per month, the said payments having been made from the month of June, 1907, until the month of March, 1913.

"It is further stipulated and agreed that the plaintiff, at the time of the application and issuance of the policy introduced in evidence, was engaged in the business of saloon keeper and bartender, and continued in that occupation up to the time of the refusal of defendant to accept further premiums on said policy."

Thereupon defendant's counsel made the following statement, viz.:

"It is further agreed and stipulated between the parties hereto that the defendant society is now, and was at all times mentioned in the plaintiff's petition, a fraternal beneficiary society organized and incorporated under the laws of the state of Kansas, and authorized and licensed to do business as such fraternal beneficiary society in the state of Missouri under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Missouri in such cases made and provided.

"It is further stipulated and agreed that the plaintiff stated and warranted in his written application for membership in the defendant society that at said time he was engaged in the occupation of grocery clerk; that in said written application plaintiff agreed and warranted that all of the answers made by him in said application were fair and true and constituted a strict warranty; that in said written application plaintiff agreed to be governed by the constitution and by-laws of defendant society then in force, and thereafter enacted."

Plaintiff's counsel thereupon announced that he would rest upon the stipulation. Thereupon defendant requested the court to declare as a matter of law that plaintiff was not entitled to recover, which declaration the court refused to give. Defendant then introduced in evidence the "constitution and laws" of defendant society in force at the date of the application of plaintiff for membership in the society, and likewise introduced defendant's constitution and laws in force in March, 1913. The constitution and laws in force at the time of plaintiff's application for membership, in making provision regarding "prohibited occupations," provided, among other things, that persons should not be received or retained in the beneficiary or social membership of any subordinate council who were engaged in certain occupations, among these being "persons engaged * * * as saloon owner, saloon keeper or bartender engaged in the sale of spirituous, malt, or vinous liquors as a beverage"; and severe penalties were imposed upon the "financier" of any council who should receive assessments from any member whose certificate had been canceled on such ground, or who should reinstate such member. Such in substance, were likewise the provisions of defendant's constitution and laws in force in March, 1913.

It is argued for defendant, appellant here, that under the evidence and the stipulation submitted to the trial court plaintiff was not entitled in law to the return of the premiums paid by him, and that the court erred in refusing to so declare and in entering judgment for plaintiff. This is the only question before us.

The rule of law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Brink v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1946
    ... ... St. Louis, 187 Mo. 367, 86 S.W. 129; Security ... Sav. Bank v. Kellems, 274 S.W. 112; Freund ... 621, 108 S.W. 641; ... Hellman v. National Council, 198 Mo.App. 308, 200 ... ...
  • Jones v. Peterson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1934
    ... ... illegal or unconscionable. Hellman v. Natl. KLS., ... 198 Mo.App. 308; Fehlig v ... ...
  • Jones v. Peterson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1934
    ...The maxim operates so as to exclude aid to deny relief to or from conduct which is fraudulent, illegal or unconscionable. Hellman v. Natl. KLS., 198 Mo. App. 308; Fehlig v. Busch, 165 Mo. 144. The contract between plaintiff and defendant guardian and curator as testified to by plaintiff him......
  • Fraternal Aid Union v. Whitehead
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1921
    ... ... of P., 70 So. 241; Thomas v ... Knights of the Maccabees, 149 P. 7; Royal Arcanum v ... 911; Hartman v. National ... Council, etc., 175 S.W. 212 (Mo. App.); Thompson v ... ...
  • 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