Sovereign Camp, W.O.W., v. Burrell
Decision Date | 22 April 1920 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 33 |
Citation | 204 Ala. 210,85 So. 762 |
Parties | SOVEREIGN CAMP, W.O.W., v. BURRELL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; H.A. Sharpe, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Mattie Burrell against the Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World, upon a benefit insurance ticket issued to Jesse R Burrell. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
C.H Roquemore, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Beddow & Oberdorfer, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Action by Mattie Burrell, the beneficiary named in the insurance certificate alleged to have been issued to Jesse R. Burrell as a member of "Cherry Camp, No. 1065, located at Adamsville."
The defendant interposed the plea of general issue, a plea of non est factum, pleas setting up a condition indorsed on the certificate that:
"There shall be no liability of the Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World, under this certificate until the member named herein shall have paid all entrance fees, one advance assessment, or installment of assessment of Sovereign Camp fund or camp general fund for the month, signed his beneficiary certificate, and the acceptance slip attached thereto, paid the physician's fee for examination, been obligated or introduced by a camp, or authorized deputy in due form and had manually delivered into his hands, in person, this beneficiary certificate while in good health"
--and averring that said Burrell had not been so obligated by a camp or authorized deputy in due form, and therefore had not become a member of said order, together with pleas setting up the provisions of the constitution and by-laws, not indorsed on the beneficiary certificate, requiring the certificate to be signed by the clerk and consul commander of the local camp before its delivery; and averring that the certificate sued on was delivered to Burrell by the camp clerk without the signature of Miller, the consul commander, in violation of the constitution and by-laws of the order.
After the plaintiff had adduced evidence and closed, the defendant interposed a demurrer to the evidence, which was overruled, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant (appellant here) now contends that the overruling of the demurrer to the evidence constitutes reversible error.
The plaintiff offered in evidence the certificate of insurance, the foundation of the action, which had been surrendered to the defendant as a part of the proof of death, and produced in court--and by order of the court delivered to the plaintiff on the trial--embodying the following, among other recitals:
Immediately following this last recital appears what is purported to be the signatures of J.T. Yates, "sovereign clerk" and W.A. Frazier, "sovereign commander," and to the left of such signatures the seal. Immediately after such signatures follows the recital:
Then follows:
The evidence adduced shows that Yates and Frazier were, respectively, "sovereign clerk" and "sovereign commander" of the Sovereign Camp, and that the signatures appearing on the certificate were printed facsimiles of their signatures, and placed thereon in the manner usually adopted by the defendant in executing beneficiary certificates, and attested by the corporate seal.
While there was evidence tending to show that the signature purporting to be that of Burrell, to the acceptance on the certificate, was not his signature, and that it was signed by Peter Sampson, yet there was also evidence tending to show that the signature to the acceptance was the genuine signature of Burrell, and also showing that the signatures of Sampson, as clerk, and Miller, as consul commander, were genuine. It was also shown that the seal impression on the certificate opposite the attestation of the signature of Burrell by Sampson, as clerk, was the camp seal.
There was also evidence tending to show that after Burrell had signed the acceptance of the certificate, and his signature had been duly attested by the camp clerk and the camp seal affixed, and after the certificate to the effect that Burrell had made all the payments required, and had been introduced as a member of the camp, had been signed by Peter Sampson, as clerk of the camp--but without the signature of Miller, as consul commander--the certificate was delivered into the hands of Burrell while he was apparently in good health.
The plaintiff also offered in evidence the proof of death, prepared, signed, and verified before a notary, by Charles R. Miller, consul commander, Hugh Hillhouse, banker, and Peter Sampson, clerk, containing the following recital:
The evidence further tended to show that Peter Sampson was the authorized deputy of the defendant to organize the camp at Adamsville, and that it was so organized some months before Burrell's death. Hillhouse, a witness offered by the plaintiff, testified that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Hoomes
... ... Co. v. Verneuille, ... 156 Ala. 592, 47 So. 72; Sovereign Camp v. Adams, ... 204 Ala. 667, 86 So. 737; Sovereign Camp v. Burrell, 204 Ala ... 210, 85 So. 762; ... [122 So. 688] Sovereign Camp v. Bass, 207 Ala. 558, 93 So. 537 ... Issue ... was joined on the ... ...
-
Watts v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
... ... within the period covered by the policy, being made ( ... Sov. Camp v. Ballard [Ala. App.] 97 So. 895), the ... burden was imposed on the ... Roquemore, 96 Ala. 236, 11 So ... 475; Sov. Camp, W. O. W., v. Burrell, 204 Ala. 210, ... 85 So. 762. In the cases of Scott v. State, 110 Ala ... ...
-
Woodmen of the World v. Alford
... ... Every member of this order shall pay to ... the clerk of his camp each month one assessment payment as ... required by section 56, which all be credited and known as ... Sovereign Camp fund, and he shall also pay such camp dues as ... may be required by ... of payment. W.O.W. v. Burrell, 204 Ala. 210, 85 So ... 762, 764; W.O.W. v. Adams, 204 Ala. 667, 86 ... ...
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W., v. Gay
...on the defendant, if it desired to avail of this defense, to show that proof of death was not made in accordance with the by-laws. Sovereign Camp, W.O.W., v. Burrell, Ala. 210, 85 So. 762. Under the averments of the complaint, the only burden in this respect assumed by the plaintiff was to ......