Richardson v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen

• Decision Date: 03 September 1912
• Citation: 70 Wash. 76,126 P. 82
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN.

126 P. 82

70 Wash. 76

RICHARDSON v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 3, 1912

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Henry L Kennan, Judge.

Action by Dewitt C. Richardson against the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. L Dickson and Barnes & Pearson, for appellant.

D. R Glasgow and Cannon, Ferris & Swan, all of Spokane, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The appellant is a fraternal beneficiary society operating on the lodge system. The respondent became a member of one of the appellant's local lodges, known as Sprague Lodge No. 133 located at Spokane, and on October 8, 1909, took out a beneficiary certificate in the appellant lodge, entitling him to share in the lodge's beneficiary fund to the extent of $1,500 in case he received certain enumerated physical injuries or bodily ailments while a member thereof in good standing. On November 2, 1910, the respondent met with a serious physical injury of a nature entitling him to share in the beneficiary fund to the amount of his certificate, and in due season presented his claim to the appellant therefor. The claim was disallowed, whereupon the present action was brought to recover the amount claimed to be due. After issue joined the action was tried by the court sitting without a jury, and resulted in findings and a judgment in favor of the respondent for the full amount claimed. This appeal is from the judgment so entered.

The appellant makes some question as to the sufficiency of the pleadings, contending specially that the reply contained both a denial of the defendant's answer and an affirmative allegation in confession and avoidance thereof, not separately stated. But, even if the objection was technically well taken when interposed in the court below, it is of but little moment as the case now stands. The case was tried in the court below on its merits, and each of the parties was given the same opportunity to introduce evidence in support of his cause of action or defense as he would have been given had the pleadings been technically perfect. No prejudice, therefore, resulted to either party by reason of the defect complained of, and it is not the policy of the law nor the practice of the courts to retry causes for the mere purpose of correcting nonprejudicial errors. Moreover, this court is required by statute to disregard any error in the proceedings or defect in the pleadings which does not affect a substantial right of the adverse party, and to determine all causes upon the merits thereof, disregarding all technicalities, and to consider all amendments which could have been made as made. Rem. & Bal. Code,§§ 307, 1752. This statute requires us to disregard defects such as are here complained of, and such has been our practice. Green v. Tidball, 26 Wash. 338, 67 P. 84, 55 L. R. A. 879; Richardson v. Moore, 30 Wash. 406, 71 P. 18; Irby v. Phillips, 40 Wash. 618, 82 P. 931; Hester v. Stine, 46 Wash. 469, 90 P. 594; Peterson v. Barry, 50 Wash. 361, 97 P. 239; State ex rel. Merriam v. Superior Court, 55 Wash. 64, 104 P. 148.

On the merits of the controversy it is contended that the evidence fails to support the judgment. It appears that the respondent failed to pay his assessment for the month of July, 1910, and was suspended because thereof. That subsequently he applied through the local lodge in the usual manner for reinstatement, and from thence on until the time of his injury paid regularly into his local lodge the assessments as they were levied, being told, shortly after making his application, that he had been reinstated. It seems, however, that he was not in fact reinstated by the appellant lodge; that, while that body retained the sums remitted to it by the local lodge as dues from the respondent, it refused to credit them on such dues, but credited them to the local lodge's general account, returning the respondent as standing suspended. No information was given the respondent of this condition of the matter until after he received his injury. On the contrary, he was...