State v. Reynolds

• Citation: 229 S.W. 1057,287 Mo. 169
• Decision Date: 01 April 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22314.,22314.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BROTHERHOOD of AMERICAN YEOMEN v. REYNOLDS et al., Judges.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

229 S.W. 1057

287 Mo. 169

STATE ex rel. BROTHERHOOD of AMERICAN YEOMEN v. REYNOLDS et al., Judges.

No. 22314.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

April 1, 1921.

Certiorari by the State, on the relation of the Brotherhood of American Yeomen, against George D. Reynolds and others, judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, to quash the record in Wilson v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen, 223 S. W. 992. Record of Court of Appeals quashed for contravening Supreme Court's announced decisions.

John D. Denison, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Lehmann & Lehmann, of St. Louis, for relator.

Joseph Reilly, of St. Louis, for respondents.

WALKER, C. J.

Certiorari is here invoked to quash the record of the St. Louis Court of Appeals in Wilson v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen, 223 S. W. 992. In the original action the plaintiff had brought suit against the defendant, a fraternal beneficiary association, to recover for a disability; payment for same having been provided for in the policy or certificate of membership. At the trial defendant sought to interpose the defense of misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiff in securing the policy. Objections to this defense were sustained on the ground that the premiums received had not been returned or tendered to the plaintiff. There was a judgment for the plaintiff, which, upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, was affirmed. The character of the association is conceded. There is no dispute as to the facts. The only question involved is one of law, viz.: Is it a prerequisite to the right of the defendant to interpose the defense of misrepresentation that premiums received by it be returned or tendered to the plaintiff? The Court of Appeals so held.

Governed by elementary rules of construction with the relevant statutes before us, this question need not be difficult of solution. Under a general law it is provided that—

"In suits brought upon life policies, heretofore or hereafter issued, no defense based upon misrepresentation in obtaining or securing the same shall be valid, unless the defendant shall, at or before the trial, deposit in court for the `benefit of the plaintiffs, the premiums received on such policies." Section 6940, R. S. 1909; section 6145, R. S. 1919.

The regulation of the business of life insurance is, under our statute, variously subdivided in that each article authorizes the organization, defines the nature, and prescribes the manner of conducting the business of a certain class or kind of companies distinct from the others and subject, in many particulars, on account of their character, to the law of their creation alone. These separate statutes, however, do not prevent the application, in the absence of exceptions, of the above statute in regard to misrepresentations to any class of policies.

In ruling upon a statute (section 6937, It. S. 1909; section 6142, R. S. 1919) defining the materiality of misrepresentations as affecting the validity of policies, we have held that this section applied to all companies not specifically excepted and to all policies written since its enactment. Christian v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 143 Mo. 460, 45 S. W. 268. By parity of reasoning and in harmony with the canons of construction, the rule thus announced may be held applicable to the statute above quoted. Section 6145, supra. This ruling would, without more, render fraternal beneficiary associations subject to that section, or more specifically make it a prerequisite for a defendant to tender or return the premiums received to the plaintiff before being allowed to interpose the defense of misrepresentations. However, we find, upon an examination of article 15 of the Insurance Law, concerning fraternal beneficiary associations, the following section:

"Except as herein provided, such societies shall be governed by this act and shall be exempt from all provisions of the insurance laws of this state, not only in governmental relations with the state, but for every other purpose, and no law hereafter enacted shall apply to them, unless they be expressly designated therein."

Section 5, Laws 1911, p. 285; section 6401, R. S. 1919.

The language of this section is such that it would be difficult to employ words more comprehensive of the legislative purpose to exempt this class of associations from the provisions of the general insurance law, and to restrict their operations to the statute of their creation. In harmony, therefore, with the rules of construction which, in our opinion, are in accord with right reasoning, there is no escape from this conclusion. That the ruling of the Court of Appeals is in error in holding to the contrary there does not seem to be any question. But, as we said, in effect, in State ex rel. Peters v. Reynolds, 214 S. W. loc. cit. 122:

"This court is not to determine whether the St. Louis...