Sisson v. Supreme Court of Honor
| Decision Date | 19 January 1904 |
| Citation | 78 S.W. 297,104 Mo.App. 54 |
| Parties | SISSON, Respondent, v. SUPREME COURT OF HONOR, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.--Hon. David H. Eby, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
James W. Reynolds for appellant.
(1) Plaintiff's application for membership is a part of the insurance contract in this cause. State ex rel. v. Temple Benevolence Ass'n, 42 Mo.App. 485. (2) The application, the certificate and the constitution all make up the contract in this case. Richardson v. Supreme Lodge of Order of Mutual Protection, St. Louis Court of Appeals Jan. 20, 1903; Morton v. Royal Tribe of Joseph, 93 Mo.App. 78; Grand Lodge v. Elsner, 26 Mo.App 108; Stater v. Grand Lodge, 76 Mo.App. 387; Grand Lodge v. Stater, 44 Mo.App. 445. (3) The right to amend its constitution is inherent in a corporation of this kind and the members are bound by the amendments. State ex rel. v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 70 Mo.App 456; Ellerby v. Faust, 119 Mo. 653; St. Patricks' Society v. McVey, 92 Pa. St. 510; Poultney v. Bachman, 62 Howard Pr. 466; Bacon's Benefit Societies sections 91 and 92. Aside from the general doctrine that the right to bind members of such corporations by change in their constitutions, the plaintiff in this cause is especially bound by the change in the constitution because he consented to the change beforehand. State v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 70 Mo.App. 456; Hysinger v. Sup. Lodge K. & L. of H., 42 Mo.App. 627. (4) Where a member of a benefit society agrees in his application for membership therein to conform to or comply with the constitution then existing or as it may be thereafter amended, he is bound by any change made in the constitution, if such change is not unreasonable. Richmond v. Supreme Lodge Order of Mutual Protection, supra; Fullenwider v. Sup. Council Royal League, 54 N. E. (Ill.) 485; Sov. Camp. M. W. v. Farley et al., 59 S.W. 879; People ex rel. Goett v. Grand Lodge, 67 N.Y. 330; Chambers v. Sup. T. K. O. T. M., 49 A. 784; Lloyd v. Sup. L. K. of P., 98 F. 66; Sup. Council, etc. v. Adams, 44 A. 380; Theibert v. Sup. L. K. of H., 81 N.W. 220; Masonic Mutual Ben. Ass'n v. Severson, 43 A. 192; Sup. T. K. O. T. M. v. Hammers, 81 Ill.App. 560; Niblack, Ben. Societies, p. 50 and 59, sec. 26; Covenant Mut. v. Tuttle, 87 Ill.App. 309; Duer v. Council Chosen Friends, 52 S.W. 109; Loefler v. M. W. A., N. W. 1012; 1 Bacon, Benefit Societies, New Ed., section 91a. Where the constitution--as in this case--specifically reserves the right to alter, change and amend any of its provisions the member who becomes a member under it is bound by any change subsequently made, provided the change is not unreasonable. Niblack, Ben. Soc. (2 Ed.), p. 237; Pain v. Soc. St. Jean Baptist, 52 N.E. 502; Ontario Ins. v. Sup. K. Canada, 19 Canadian Law Times 316; Lawson v. Howell et al., 50 P. 763; Hughs v. Ins. Co., 73 N.W. 1015; Bacon's Ben. Societies, New Ed., pp. 185 and 186.
Geo. W. Emerson for respondent.
If the by-laws of 1897 by the terms "loss of hand or foot" meant loss by amputation or dissection of the hand or foot why the necessity of the by-laws of 1900 which reads for the loss of a "hand or foot by amputation at or above the ankle or wrist," etc.? The position here taken is well sustained by the following authority: Sneck v. Ins. Co., (Sup.) 34 N.Y.S. 545, 88 Hun 94. If respondent had not lost by physical amputation any portion of his hand, yet, if he lost the use of it in the meaning of the by-laws in question, his hand was lost. Sheanon v. Life Ins. Co., 77 Wis. 618, 46 N.W. 799, Am. St. Rep. 151, 9 L. R. A. 685. Sheanon v. Ins. Co., 83 Wis. 507, 53 N.W. 878. Respondent is not affected nor bound by the amendment made to appellant's by-laws in July, 1900, his certificate having been issued in June, 1897. Hysinger v. Supreme Lodge Knights and Ladies of Honor, 42 Mo.App. 627; Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. v. Sater, 44 Mo.App. 445-452; Lackberger v. Grand Lodge I. O. O. F., 73 Mo.App. 38-41; McMahon v. Maccabees, 151 Mo. 522. Even if respondent's application is a part of his contract, even if the certificate provides that insured shall be bound by any future changes in the law, etc., of the company and even if respondent expressly agreed that he would accept all future changes that might be made in the appellant's laws, etc., yet respondent is not bound by the amendment shown to have been made in this case because the same is a "radical departure from the fundamental plan, and is not a reasonable exercise of the reserved power of amendment. Smith v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 83 Mo.App. 512; Brown v. Same, 83 Mo.App. 633; Knights Templar's & Mason's Life Indemnity Co. v. Jarman, U. S. Court Reports, 187-190, 47 Law. Ed., page 139.
The defendant is a mutual benefit association organized under the laws of Illinois and is doing an insurance business on the assessment plan. On June 2, 1897, plaintiff became a member of the defendant association and received a certificate of membership therein, which contains a contract whereby the defendant insured the life of plaintiff in favor of his wife in the sum of two thousand dollars. The certificate of insurance also provides that if plaintiff should become disabled the association will pay him such an amount as should be provided by its constitution and by-laws. At the time the certificate was issued, section 1, article 2, of the constitution and by-laws of the association provided as follows:
"If a member lose a foot or hand by accident, he shall receive one-fourth of the amount of his certificate of membership in cash and the other three-fourths at death."
The certificate states that it was issued upon the express condition that the insured should comply with the constitution, laws, rules and regulations of the order then in force or that might thereafter be enacted. In May, 1900, the defendant association amended its constitution by enacting section 106, article 13, which reads as follows:
"If a member lose a foot or hand by accident, resulting in amputation or severance at or above the ankle or wrist, he shall receive one-fourth of the amount of his certificate of membership in cash."
On October 24, 1901, plaintiff, while pursuing his usual avocation (operating a brick plant) accidentally caught his left hand under a brick press and it was severely lacerated and injured. The suit was to recover for the loss of the left hand. Plaintiff recovered a judgment of $ 500 from which the defendant appealed.
There are but two questions presented by the briefs and arguments of counsel (all other questions arising at the trial are conceded to have been correctly resolved in favor of the plaintiff). The first question is, does the evidence show that plaintiff lost his hand within the meaning of the certificate of insurance? The evidence is that the brick press came down on plaintiff's left hand and mashed off the two middle fingers at the knuckle joint and the index finger above the second joint.
Dr. T. E. Walter testified that he was called to treat the injury at the time it happened and that he found the hand pretty badly mashed up, but not so badly injured as to require an amputation of the entire hand in his judgment; that he and Dr. Love amputated the second and third fingers at the knuckle joint and the index finger at the second joint; that for all practical purposes the hand is lost; that the stub of the index finger is stiff and can not be used for any purpose and it would have been better if it had been amputated at the knuckle; that there was still a partial action of the little finger and thumb but their action was impaired by the injury to the leaders in the back of the hand.
Plaintiff testified that the circulation in his hand was bad; that his hand got cold and even in hot weather he had to keep it in his pocket or hold it in his right hand to keep it warm; that it was weak and got tired very soon when he attempted to use it; that he used it all he could but found it was practically useless as a hand; that he was keeping a small general store and assisted his wife in selling goods but could not use his left hand to tie up packages; that he could lift light articles for a little while with it but in trying to handle queensware, such as cups and saucers and...
To continue reading
Request your trial