Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, No. 308
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HOLMES |
| Citation | 41 A.L.R. 1384,267 U.S. 544,69 L.Ed. 783,45 S.Ct. 389 |
| Parties | MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA v. MIXER |
| Docket Number | No. 308 |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1925 |
v.
MIXER.
Mr. Nelson C. Pratt, of Omaha, Neb., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 544-548 intentionally omitted]
Page 548
Messrs. J. J. McCarthy, of Ponca, Neb., and Geo. W. Leamer, of South Sioux City, Neb., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 548-550 intentionally omitted]
Page 550
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit by the beneficiary of a certificate issued by a fraternal beneficiary society incorporated in Illinois. The member to whom the certificate was issued was the plaintiff's husband and the ground of recovery is that the husband had disappeared and had not been heard of for ten years before this suit was brought. His expectancy of life according to the tables had not expired and the defense is a by-law of the Corporation to the effect that:
'Long continued absence of any member unheard of shall not * * * give any right to recover on any benefit certificate * * * until the full term of the member's expectancy of life, according to the National Fraternal Congress Table of Mortality, has expired, * * * and this law shall be in full force and effect any statute of any state or country or rule of common law of any state or country to the contrary notwithstanding.'
The only facts that need be mentioned are that the certificate seems to have been issued in South Dakota, although there was no allegation or proof concerning the law of that State, and that it was issued in 1901, while the by-law relied upon was not adopted until 1908. But the by-law has been held valid and binding upon the members of the Corporation by the Supreme Court of Illinois, although they had become members before the change. Steen v. Modern Woodmen of America, 296 Ill. 104, 129 N. E. 546, 17 A. L. R. 406. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff, seemingly, from the cases cited, on the ground either that the rule of evidence must be determined by the lex fori, or, more probably, that the by-law was unreasonable. Mixer v. Modern Woodmen of America, 197 N. W. 129. The result is that if the validity of the by-law ought to be determined by the laws of Illinois, the plaintiff is allowed to recover upon a state of facts which the contract expressly stipulates
Page 551
shall not give her that right. A writ of certiorari was issued by this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yeats v. Dodson, No. 35597.
...Kan. 808, 284 Pac. 594; Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 59 L. Ed. 1089; Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544, 69 L. Ed. 783. (2) The court erred in failing to hold the policy in question to be an Oklahoma contract and in failing to interpret the cont......
-
Gieseking v. Litchfield & Madison Ry. Co., No. 33850.
...of the United States. Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 35 Sup. Ct. 724, 59 L. Ed. 1089; Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544, 45 Sup. Ct. 389, 69 L. Ed. 783. (4) Plaintiff failed to prove the specific negligence pleaded. Pointer v. Mountain Ry. Const. Co., 269 Mo. 104, 189 ......
-
Robertson v. Security Benefit Assn., No. 35030.
...v. Farnum, 176 U.S. 640, 20 Sup. Ct. 506, 44 L. Ed. 69; Parker v. Stoughton Mill Co., 91 Wis. 174; Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544, 45 Sup. Ct. 389; Sov. Camp W.O.W. v. Shelton, 270 U.S. 628, 46 Sup. Ct. 207; Fowler v. Sov. Camp W.O.W., 106 Neb. 192, 183 N.W. 550; Broderick......
-
Hood v. Guar. Trust Co. of New York
...Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 35 S.Ct. 724, 59 L.Ed. 1089, L.R.A.1916A, 771;Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544, 45 S.Ct. 389, 69 L.Ed. 783, 41 A.L.R. 1384;Southworth v. Morgan, 205 N.Y. 293, 98 N.E. 490,51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 56. 2 Beale on Conflict of Laws......
-
Yeats v. Dodson, No. 35597.
...Kan. 808, 284 Pac. 594; Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 59 L. Ed. 1089; Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544, 69 L. Ed. 783. (2) The court erred in failing to hold the policy in question to be an Oklahoma contract and in failing to interpret the cont......
-
Gieseking v. Litchfield & Madison Ry. Co., No. 33850.
...of the United States. Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 35 Sup. Ct. 724, 59 L. Ed. 1089; Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544, 45 Sup. Ct. 389, 69 L. Ed. 783. (4) Plaintiff failed to prove the specific negligence pleaded. Pointer v. Mountain Ry. Const. Co., 269 Mo. 104, 189 ......
-
Robertson v. Security Benefit Assn., No. 35030.
...v. Farnum, 176 U.S. 640, 20 Sup. Ct. 506, 44 L. Ed. 69; Parker v. Stoughton Mill Co., 91 Wis. 174; Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544, 45 Sup. Ct. 389; Sov. Camp W.O.W. v. Shelton, 270 U.S. 628, 46 Sup. Ct. 207; Fowler v. Sov. Camp W.O.W., 106 Neb. 192, 183 N.W. 550; Broderick......
-
Hood v. Guar. Trust Co. of New York
...Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 35 S.Ct. 724, 59 L.Ed. 1089, L.R.A.1916A, 771;Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544, 45 S.Ct. 389, 69 L.Ed. 783, 41 A.L.R. 1384;Southworth v. Morgan, 205 N.Y. 293, 98 N.E. 490,51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 56. 2 Beale on Conflict of Laws......