Mills v. Rebstock
| Citation | 13 N.W. 162,29 Minn. 380 |
| Parties | Sarah Mills and others v. E. W. Rebstock and others |
| Decision Date | 18 August 1882 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Young, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
Order affirmed.
Benton Benton & Roberts, for appellants.
F. B Dodge, for respondents.
The United Ancient Order of Druids is a mutual-benefit association in this state, including several subordinate organizations or groves, under the jurisdiction of a grand grove, in which the groves are represented, and which are subject to a constitution and laws regulating their government, and defining the rights and duties of the members. Connected with the organization is a department for life insurance, styled "The Widows' and Orphans' Fund," for the sole benefit of the heirs of deceased members of the order. It is required, in article 10 of the constitution, that every person who shall become a member of the order shall join "The Widows' and Orphans' Fund." It is also provided that "on the death of a member in good standing, the widow, children, or heirs (as defined in section 6) are to be paid the sum of $ 1,000 within 60 days after due notice is given to the grand secretary." This insurance fund is derived, it appears from death assessments and dues paid by the members. Certain officers of the grand grove and subordinate groves constitute a board of directors for the management of this "fund." By article 5 of the constitution it is provided that every member shall make regular payments to the grove fund, and "shall pay his quarterly dues on or before the first meeting in each quarter in advance, * * * and until such dues are paid, * * * he shall not be in good standing," etc.
This action is brought by the heirs of Charles H. Richmond, deceased, who was at his death a member of the order, against the defendants, as directors of this fund, to recover the sum of $ 1,000, claimed to be due them in accordance with the provisions of the constitution above mentioned. Richmond died by his own hand about August 12, 1880. At the trial the plaintiffs proved that, prior to his death, he had paid all assessments due to the "Widows' and Orphans' Fund," but they offered no evidence to show that his quarterly dues to the grove fund had also been paid, so as to establish his "good standing" in the order, as required by article 5, above referred to. For the want of such proof the defendants moved to dismiss the action, which motion was overruled by the court.
The contention of the plaintiffs is that it was only necessary to be shown that the deceased was a member of the order, and not suspended, (which did appear,) and that he was in good standing in the "Widows' and Orphans' Fund," through the payment of the assessments specially made for that "fund" upon the death of members. The plaintiffs, however, also insist that if it were necessary to be shown that he was also in good standing in the order, as required by article 5, this proof was afterwards so far supplied by the evidence introduced by the defendants, as, prima facie at least, to raise the presumption of such good standing of the deceased.
The defense is rested upon the ground (1) that he was in default in the payment of the dues to his grove for the quarter commencing August 1st, prior to his decease, and that it was essential to his "good standing" that such payments should have been made when due; and (2) that his death was caused by his own act of suicide.
In reference to the first point, which is the principal one in the case, we think the construction of the constitution and laws is not free from doubt. They appear to be inartificially drawn, and the evidence in the case is too meager to give a clear understanding of their practical application. We are of the opinion, however, that to entitle his heirs to the benefit of the fund, the member must, at his death, have kept up his good standing in the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial