Simmons v. Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World
| Decision Date | 26 October 1916 |
| Citation | 188 S.W. 941 |
| Parties | SIMMONS v. SOVEREIGN CAMP, WOODMEN OF THE WORLD. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Suit by C. Simmons against the Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and bill of complaint dismissed.
Cornick, Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, of Knoxville, and Cassell & Harris, of Harriman, for appellant. J. M. Davis, of Wartburg, and W. Y. Boswell, of Oakdale, for appellee.
This is a suit on a beneficiary certificate brought by the widow of Horace G. Simmons, as beneficiary. The association defends on the ground that the deceased joined the order in the state of Arkansas at a time when he was engaged in farming, and paid throughout after life the premium sums assessed against farmer members, and that on his removal to this state he had changed his occupation to that of locomotive fireman, without giving the notice within 30 days required by the laws of the order, and without thereafter paying the increase in the premium required from those engaged in the more hazardous employment. Simmons was killed while working as a fireman.
The constitution and laws of the order contained a provision that any member, failing to notify the clerk of his camp of such change and to make such additional payments, "shall stand suspended, and his beneficiary certificate be null and void."
The case was tried before the chancellor and a jury, and on an issue submitted the jury found that notice had been given by Simmons of his change of occupation from farmer to fireman, to the clerk of the local camp in Arkansas, within 30 days; but we find no testimony which supports the finding.
Another issue submitted was: Did the local camp, with full knowledge of Simmons' change of occupation, accept the dues of a farmer from him with the intent to waive the forfeiture provided for in his certificate, and lead him to believe that no forfeiture was claimed on account of his change of occupation?
To this issue the jury responded in the affirmative.
There is some evidence tending to show that, about six months after the lapse of the 30-day period, notice was given to the clerk of the local camp of the change in occupation; but knowledge or acquiescence on the part of the sovereign officials of the order was negatived.
We think it is manifest that there can be no recovery; and that the motion for peremptory instructions interposed by the order should have been sustained, on the ground that it was not within the power of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Peaugh
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Allen
...Nat. Councilmen, etc., 76 Or. 153, 147 P. 931, L.R.A.1915E, 152; Royal Highlanders v. Scovill, 66 Neb. 213, 92 N.W. 206, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 421; Sov. Camp, W.O.W., v. Rothschild, 15 463, 40 S.W. 553; Day v. Supreme Forest, etc., 174 Mo.App. 260, 156 S.W. 721; Mod. Woodmen of Am. v. Tevis, 117 ......
-
Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Garner
...of Oregon in case of Hartman v. National Council, 147 P. 931. The supreme court of the state of Tennessee in case of Simmons v. Sovereign Camp, etc., 188, S.W. 941, holds that no waiver can be effected by the officers. We are not unmindful of the court's decision in the Fraternal Aid Union ......
-
Hale v. Sovereign Camp W. O. W.
...benefit certificate issued and an estoppel or waiver, under our authorities, must be held to arise. The case of Simmons v. Sovereign Camp W. O. W., 136 Tenn. 233, 188 S. W. 941, is not in point at all. There was an effort there to predicate an estoppel or waiver on the acts of one of defend......