Ragsdale v. Brotherhood of Ry. Trainmen
| Decision Date | 14 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | 37176 |
| Citation | 147 S.W.2d 601 |
| Parties | RAGSDALE v. BROTHERHOOD OF RY. TRAINMEN |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Richard Chamier and Hunter & Chamier, all of Moberly, for appellant.
Thomas J. Tydings and William M. Stringer, both of Moberly, for respondent.
Action on a beneficial certificate for total and permanent disability caused by tuberculosis. The certificate was issued to plaintiff by the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, a voluntary and unincorporated fraternal association, domiciled in Ohio. Plaintiff, a member of the local lodge of railway trainmen located at Coffeyville, Kansas, executed the certificate in that city. Both plaintiff and defendant pleaded both the Kansas and Ohio law. Trial without a jury. The court gave a declaration that he ruled the case under the law of Ohio. Judgment for $ 1,350. Defendant association appealed.
Defendant contends that a construction of the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution (Sec. 1, Art. IV) is involved in this case, and for that reason this court has appellate jurisdiction.
In substance the petition alleged that defendant contracted to pay plaintiff a certain sum if he became totally and permanently disabled.
In substance the answer alleged that defendant contracted only to pay plaintiff said sum if he became totally and permanently disabled, as defined and limited in Sec. 68 of the constitution of the association, which section did not provide payment for disability caused by tuberculosis.
It is not contended that under the law of Ohio the defendant was not authorized to contract to pay for total and permanent disability caused by tuberculosis. The defendant was authorized to define and limit total and permanent disability, as provided in Sec. 68 of the constitution. Even so, plaintiff contends that said section is no part of the agreement under consideration for reasons alleged in the pleadings. The trial court sustained this contention of the plaintiff. The ruling of the question did not call for a construction of the full faith and credit clause by the trial court. Likewise, a review of that ruling on appeal does not call for a construction of said clause. Zach v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 302 Mo. 1, 257 S.W. 124; Early v Knights of the Maccabees, Mo.Sup., 48 S.W.2d 890; Esmar v. Haeussler et al., 341 Mo. 33, 106 S.W.2d 412; Huckshold v. United Railways Co., 285 Mo. 497, 226 S.W. 852.
Defendant ...
To continue reading
Request your trial