Roberson v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen

• Citation: 114 S.W.2d 136,233 Mo.App. 159
• Parties: HARRISON L. ROBERSON, RESPONDENT, v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN, APPELLANT
• Decision Date: 15 November 1937
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

114 S.W.2d 136

233 Mo.App. 159

HARRISON L. ROBERSON, RESPONDENT, v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN, APPELLANT

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

November 15, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court of Linn County.--Hon. Paul Van Osdol Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Cause reversed and remanded.

Harold C. Heiss, Edward E. Naber and Samuel M. Carmean for appellant.

(1) The court erred in refusing to make the following findings of fact requested by the defendant: (a) Defendant's requested finding of fact No. 1. (b) Defendant's requested finding of fact No. 2. Sections 5990-5991-5992-5993 and 6021, R. S. Mo. 1929; Bennett v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (Mo. App.), 106 S.W.2d 25, l. c. 26; Elliott v. The Grand Lodge, Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen (Mo. App.), 95 S.W.2d 829, l. c. 832; Clark v. Grand Lodge, Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen (Mo.), 43 S.W.2d 404, l. c. 409; Biggs v. Modern Woodmen of America (Mo.), 82 S.W.2d 898, l. c. 904. (2) The court also erred in giving the following conclusions of law requested by plaintiff: "The court declares the law to be that the contract sued on in question is not governed by the laws of Missouri relating to fraternal beneficiary societies. "The court declares the law to be that the provisions of Article 13 of Chapter 37 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1929, do not govern the contract sued on and the failure of defendant to comply with the provisions of Article 13, Chapter 37 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1929, make the contract sued on governed by the insurance laws of the State of Missouri." Section 6021, R. S. Mo 1929; Elliott v. Grand Lodge, Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, supra; Ruggles v. International Association etc. Iron Workers, 331 Mo. 20, 52 S.W.2d 860, l. c. 863; Clark v. Grand Lodge, Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen (Mo.), 43 S.W.2d 404, l. c. 406; Bennett v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, supra; Section 952, R S. Mo., 1929; Korneman v. Davis et al. (Mo.), 219 S.W. 904, l. c. 908; Peniscot County State Bank et al. v. Tower Grove Bank of St. Louis, 204 Mo.App. 441, 223 S.W.2d 115, l. c. 122; Bailey et al. v. Emerson, 87 Mo.App. 220, l. c. 225; Fahy v. Springfield Grocery Co., 57 Mo.App. 73, l. c. 75, 76; Rains v. Moulder et al. (Mo.), 90 S.W.2d 81, l. c. 84. (3, 4) The court erred in refusing to make the findings of fact, requested by the defendant, Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, mentioned in Assignment of Error No. III. The court erred in refusing to give the conclusions of law, requested by defendant, set forth under Assignment of Error No. III. The court erred in making the findings of fact, requested by the plaintiff, set out under Assignment of Error No. IV, and in giving the declaration of law, requested by the plaintiff, set forth under the same assignment. Bennett v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 106 S.W.2d 25, l. c. 27; Smith v. Mystic Workers of the World (Mo. App.), 196 S.W. 62, l. c. 63; Claudy v. Royal League, 259 Mo. 92, 168 S.W. 593, l. c. 595, 596; Loyd v. Modern Woodmen of America, 113 Mo.App. 19, l. c. 39; Daffron v. Modern Woodmen of America, 193 Mo.App. 303, 176 S.W. 498, l. c. 502; McMahon v. Supreme Council, Order of Chosen Friends, 54 Mo.App. 468, l. c. 470, 471, 472; Crutcher v. Order of Railway Conductors, 151 Mo.App. 622, l. c. 627, 630; Easter v. Yeomen, 172 Mo.App. 292, l. c. 294, 295, 299; State ex rel. Onion v. Supreme Temple Pythian Sisters (Mo. App.), 54 S.W.2d 468, l. c. 470; State ex rel. Camann v. Tower Grove Turn Verein et al. (Mo. App.), 206 S.W. 242, l. c. 243; Skrivanek v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (Minn.), 269 N.W. 111. Full opinion appended. Dewar v. Minneapolis Lodge, 155 Minn. 98, 192 N.W. 358, 32 A. L. R. 1012; Martin on Modern Law of Labor Unions, page 408, sec. 338; Myers et al. v. Jenkins, 63 Ohio State, 101, 57 N.E. 1089, Syl. 4; Boling v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. (N. S.), 30 Ohio 47, Syl. 2; Grafe v. Fidelity Mutual Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 84 S.W.2d 400, l. c. 404. (5) The court erred in excluding from the evidence on plaintiff's objection defendant's Exhibit 9, being the medical report made by Dr. R. J. Brennan to the defendant showing plaintiff's physical condition on November 18, 1933. (6) The court erred in refusing to grant defendant's declaration of law in the nature of a demurrer requested at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and in refusing a like declaration requested by defendant at the close of all the evidence, and also defendant's requested conclusion of law No. 1, all declaring that under the law and evidence plaintiff was not entitled to recover. (a) (b) (c) --Feary v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 162 Mo. 75, l. c. 105; Steele v. K. C. So. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 175 S.W. 177; Steinberg v. Merchants Bank of Kansas City, 334 Mo. 305, 67 S.W.2d 63, l. c. 66; Weil v. Posten, 77 Mo. 284, l. c. 287; Rankin v. Wyatt, 335 Mo. 628, 73 S.W.2d 764, l. c. 766; State ex rel. Boatman's National Bank of St. Louis v. Webster Grove Sewer Dist. No. 1, 327 Mo. 594, 37 S.W.2d 905, l. c. 908. (d) Mobley v. New York Life Ins. Co., 295 U.S. 632, 55 S.Ct. 876, 79 L.Ed. 1621, 99 A. L. R. 1166 (1935); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Viglas, 297 U.S. 672, 56 S.Ct. 615, 80 L.Ed. 971 (1936).

(1) This court reviewed and decided the case on a theory different from that on which it was tried below. (2) The plaintiff is bound by the theory upon which he tried the case and this court could not decide it upon a theory not submitted to and considered by the trial court. Degonia v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 123 S.W. 807, l. c. 816; Bentz et al. v. Powell et al. (Mo.), 93 S.W.2d 877, l. c. 879; Rankin v. Wyatt, 335 Mo. 628, 73 S.W.2d 764, l. c. 766; Pienieng v. Wells (Mo.), 271 S.W. 62, l. c. 66; Snyder v. American Car & Foundry Co. (Mo.), 14 S.W.2d 603, l. c. 606; Kincaid v. Brit (Mo.), 29 S.W.2d 97, l. c. 98. (3) The defendant being a fraternal beneficiary association, defendant's constitution was an integral and vital part of the contract between plaintiff and defendant, and must be so considered. Sec. 5997, R. S. Mo., 1929; Claudy v. Royal League, 168 S.W. 593. (4) The provisions of defendant's constitution, requiring plaintiff to appeal from the decision of defendant's general secretary and treasurer in refusing further disability benefits to the international president of defendant and exhaust the remedies provided by the constitution before resorting to court for redress, are binding upon plaintiff, and this court's opinion holding that such provisions were unreasonable and not binding, disregards the terms of the contract between plaintiff and defendant and is in conflict with the following laws, decisions of the Supreme and Appellate Courts and well-established principles of law. McMahon v. Supreme Order of Chosen Friends, 54 Mo.App. 468, 471; Crutcher v. Order of Railway Conductors, 151 Mo.App. 622, 627, 630; Easter v. Yeomen, 172 Mo.App. 292, 294, 295; Skrivanek v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (Minn.), 269 N.W. 111; Bennett v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 106 S.W.2d 25, l. c. 27; Ferry v. Metropolitan Street Railway, 162 Mo. 75, l. c. 105; Steele v. K. C. So. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 175 S.W. 177; Steinberg v. Merchant's Bank of Kansas City, 334 Mo. 305, 67 S.W.2d 63, l. c. 66; Rankin v. Wyatt, 335 Mo. 628, 73 S.W.2d 764, 766; Phillips v. Thompson (Mo. App.), 35 S.W.2d 382, 385. (5) The holding of the court that notwithstanding the case was tried and submitted on an erroneous theory, the judgment being for the right party, should be affirmed, is contrary to the theory upon which the case was tried and is in conflict with the laws of Missouri, the decisions of the Supreme and Appellate Courts of this State, and well-established principles of law. Isen v. John Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co. (Mo.), 91 S.W. 81, 88; Holland Banking Co. v. Republic National Bank (Mo.), 41 S.W.2d 815, l. c. 819; Hancock v. West Plains Lbr. Co. et al. (Mo. App.), 30 S.W.2d 650, 651.

C. B Burns for respondent.

(1) The court did not err in refusing to make the findings of fact requested by the defendant. Willhelm v. Security Benefit Association, 104 S.W.2d 1042; Aloe v. Fidelity Mutual Life Ass'n, 164 Mo. 675, l. c. 700, 55 S.W 993; Toomey v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 147 Mo. 129, 48 S.W. 936; Sec. 1062, R. S. (Mo.) 1929. (2) The court did not err in giving the conclusion of law requested by plaintiff. Sec. 1062, R. S. (Mo.), 1929; Willhelm v. Security Benefit Association, 104 S.W.2d 1042; Aloe v. Fidelity Mutual Life Ass'n, 164 Mo. 675, l. c. 700, 55 S.W. 993; Toomey v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 147 Mo. 129, 48 S.W. 936. (3, 4) The court did not err in refusing to make the findings of fact requested by the defendant. The court did not err in refusing to make the conclusion of law requested by defendant. The court did not err in making the findings of fact requested by the plaintiff and giving the declaration of law requested by the plaintiff. Potievska v. Independent Western Star Order, 134 Mo.App. 471; McMahon v. Maccabees, 151 Mo. 522; Easter v. Brotherhood, 154 Mo.App. 456, 461; Harris v. Wilson, 86 Mo.App. 406, 421; Eminent Household v. Payne (Ala.), 88 So. 454; Eminent Household v. Ramsey (Miss.), 79 So. 350; Kelly v. Trimont Lodge (N. C.), 52 L.R.A. 823; Employers Benefit Ass'n v. Johns (Ariz.), 249 P. 764; Sandor v. Verhovey Aid Ass'n, 199 Ill.App. l. c. 205; Shaw v. American Ins. Union (Mo. App.), 33 S.W.2d 1052, 1056; Risinger v. Independent Order, 158 Mo.App. 226; Kane v. Lodge, 113 Mo.App. 104, 117; Edwards v. American Patriots, 162 Mo.App. 231, 237; Nikolich v. Slovenska, etc. (N. M.), 260 P. 853; Dotlich v. Slovene, etc. (Mich.), 228 N.W. 608; National Council v. Hill (Ala. ), 93 So. 812; Hartman v. C. & Q. R. R. Co., 192 Mo.App. 271. (...