Norton v. Catholic Order of Foresters

• Decision Date: 11 February 1908
• Citation: 138 Iowa 464,114 N.W. 893
• Parties: NORTON ET AL. v. CATHOLIC ORDER OF FORESTERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

138 Iowa 464

114 N.W. 893

NORTON ET AL.

v.CATHOLIC ORDER OF FORESTERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 11, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Clinton County; James W. Bollinger, Judge.

Suit on a benefit certificate of insurance issued by the defendant on the life of John F. Norton. There was a trial to the court and a finding and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.Wolfe & Wolfe, for appellants.

Ellis & McCoy, for appellee.

SHERWIN, J.

The certificate sued on was issued in 1901 and named the plaintiffs as beneficiaries. At the time he became a member of the order, John F. Norton was a railroad brakeman, which occupation, together with that of yard switching and the switching incident to the work of a brakeman, were permitted by the laws of the defendant, but were classed as hazardous risks. The certificate expressly provided that it was issued “upon condition that said member complies in the future with the laws, rules and regulations now governing the said order, or that may hereafter be enacted by the said high court.” In 1903 the laws of the order were changed by an enactment which provided that “persons engaged in any of the following occupations shall not be eligible to regular membership in the order, * * * railroad switchman in yards; switchmen, except in towers, in cities of 10,000 population and upwards * * *. Any member of the order who changes his occupation from either the ordinary or hazardous class to the prohibited class, shall by that fact lose his membership in the order.” This change became effective on the 1st of January, 1904. When the new law became effective, and for more than a year thereafter John F. Norton was employed as a brakeman, as he was when the certificate issued. He went to California in 1905, and was killed in Sacramento while engaged in the occupation of switchman in the railroad yards in that city. The trial court held that the change in the constitution and by-laws placing yard switchmen in the prohibited class was reasonable and did not impair any vested right under the certificate.

It is settled by our own cases that a contract whereby the insured agrees to be bound by the constitution and by-laws then in force or which may thereafter be enacted is valid and binding. Ross v. Brotherhood of America, 120 Iowa, 692, 95 N. W. 207, and cases therein cited; Field v. Association, 117 Iowa, 185, 90 N. W. 717. It is also the rule in this state that the members of mutual associations are bound to take notice of and be governed by the by-laws of such associations, and that, where the contract of insurance makes by-laws adopted after the contract is made a part thereof, the insured is bound to take notice of them and be governed thereby. Fitzgerald v. Ass'n, 106 Iowa, 457, 76 N. W. 809;Hobbs v. Ass'n, 82 Iowa, 107, 47 N. W. 983, 11 L. R. A. 299, 31 Am. St. Rep. 466; Ross v. Ass'n, supra.

The appellants urge that the placing of switchmen in yards in the prohibited class was unreasonable, because the occupations of brakemen and switchmen are so closely allied that no just and reasonable distinction between them can be made; and that the change affected the value of the contract and impaired vested rights. Of these contentions in their order.

We do not think it can be said that the occupation of brakeman on a freight train is as dangerous to human life as that of a switchman in a railroad yard. While it is true that the former is called upon to do a certain amount of switching while his train is out on the road, such switching is occasional only, and is usually done in a way that is not particularly dangerous. On the other hand, the work of a yard switchman is or may be attended with constant danger because of the multiplicity of tracks, cars, and moving trains. There may be two or more switch engines at work in the yard at the same time, and all of the tracks therein may be alive with moving cars and engines. The work of a yard switchman in such a place must of necessity be more dangerous than switching on a single side track where but the one engine or train is involved. So far, then, as the classification alone is concerned, we think it must be held reasonable, and one which the association might make, having in view the general welfare of the order. See Ross v. Ass'n, supra.

If the change was a reasonable one, considered apart from its effect on the contract in question, it seems to us that it must be held reasonable in relation thereto. When the insured became a member of the order, he was engaged in an occupation which, while...