Sovereign Camp, W.O.W., v. Graham

Decision Date21 January 1926
Docket Number7 Div. 607
Citation107 So. 98,214 Ala. 239
PartiesSOVEREIGN CAMP, W.O.W., v. GRAHAM.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Talladega County; S.W. Tate, Judge.

Action on certificate or policy of insurance by Vera G. Graham against the Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

C.H Roquemore, of Montgomery, for appellant.

L.H Ellis, of Columbiana, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

Suit by appellee against appellant upon a death benefit certificate issued to James V. Graham, and in which plaintiff--his wife--was named as beneficiary.

The husband died September 15, 1922, and the defense to this action rested upon the theory that he had been automatically suspended under the Constitution and by-laws of this fraternal association for nonpayment of dues, particularly those of March, 1922, and also the subsequent months of April, May, June, July, and August, 1922.

In advance of the trial plaintiff propounded certain interrogatories to defendant, and called upon defendant to attach copies of correspondence passing between the parties relating to this claim. Defendant refused to do so, but upon the trial produced the original letters upon order of the court. This correspondence contained matter pertinent to the issues involved, and proper for inspection of plaintiff's counsel, and in this ruling there was no error. Argument of counsel for appellant seems to assume that all these letters were introduced in evidence by plaintiff, but our investigation of the record discloses that plaintiff offered only five of these letters, and the remaining letters were subsequently introduced by the defendant. Of the letters offered by plaintiff, one was written by her to defendant giving information of the death of her husband and her claim as the beneficiary named in his certificate or policy another was the reply received denying liability solely on the ground of suspension for nonpayment of dues; a third, a letter of defendant to plaintiff's counsel to like effect, but confining the ground to the dues of March, 1922; the fourth letter by defendant to counsel for plaintiff insisting on suspension for nonpayment of dues for the months subsequent to March; and the last letter, the reply by counsel to the first of these letters. Clearly the first four letters mentioned were relevant and admissible, and, should there exist any doubt as to the last letter, its admission in evidence could be of no possible injury in any event, as it was but a reiteration that the March dues were paid. Of course, as to the other letters which appear to have been offered in evidence by defendant, no complaint by appellant can here be made. Assignments of error 1 to 25, inclusive, are without merit.

The policy sued upon discloses on its face that it was issued in lieu of one issued in January, 1913, but it is a new policy issued and dated in 1921, and was properly sued upon as issued of that date. The objection to its introduction was properly overruled. What has been said above in regard to the introduction of the letters sufficiently answers assignments of error 27 to 47.

Numerous assignments of error are based upon the rulings of the court permitting plaintiff to offer in evidence certain receipts for dues purporting to have been issued by the local camp clerk, with particular reference to receipts for the months of March, May, and July, 1922, and also permitting plaintiff to testify as to the contents of other receipts of like character for different months, which plaintiff insisted had been lost. Plaintiff stated that she was familiar with the handwriting of Garrison, the local clerk; that the above-named receipts offered in evidence, together with other receipts of her husband, were brought to her by her husband, and she put them away in his trunk.

The receipts purported to be upon stationery of the order and from the local camp for dues from plaintiff's husband and signed by "S.R. Garrison,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Hoomes
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1929
    ...immaterial by whom the dues are paid, if those required by the law or rule of the association are paid. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Graham, 214 Ala. 239, 107 So. 98. is true the local clerk cannot waive the provisions of the constitution and by-laws of the order not fully complied with. So......
  • Grand Lodge, K. P. of North America v. Archibald
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 12, 1933
    ... ... v. Callier, 224 Ala. 364, 370, 140 So ... 557; Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Reed, 208 Ala ... 457, 94 So. 910 ... The ... Sup.) 149 ... So. 663; Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Graham, 214 ... Ala. 239, 107 So. 98; Frohlich v. Supreme Lodge, K ... P., 225 ... ...
  • Frohlich v. Supreme Lodge, K. P.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 6, 1932
    ...it is immaterial who pays the premium. When paid to the home office within time and there accepted, the policy was kept in force. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., Hoomes, 219 Ala. 560, 122 So. 686; Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Graham, 214 Ala. 239, 107 So. 98. But it is argued the policyholder did......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT