Steinert v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America

• Decision Date: 24 December 1903
• Docket Number: 13,723 - (140)
• Citation: 97 N.W. 668,91 Minn. 189
• Parties: AUGUSTA STEINERT v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

97 N.W. 668

91 Minn. 189

AUGUSTA STEINERT v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA

Nos. 13,723 - (140)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 24, 1903

Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis by plaintiff as administratrix of the estate of Ferdinand Steinert, deceased to recover $200, the amount of a "funeral benefit," to which it was alleged the estate of decedent was entitled by virtue of his membership in defendant labor organization. The case was tried before Dickinson, J., who found in favor of plaintiff for the sum demanded. From a judgment entered pursuant to the findings, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Beneficial Association.

In the constitution of a beneficial association was a provision that "no person who engages in the sale of intoxicating drinks can be admitted or retained as a member." Held taking into consideration other provisions referred to in the opinion, that the one above quoted was not self-executing, and that a member's rights under his certificate did not terminate ipso facto when he engaged in the sale of intoxicating drinks.

Herman F. Johnson, for appellant.

A. C. Middelstadt, for respondent.

OPINION

COLLINS, J.

The right of plaintiff, as administratrix, to recover from defendant association depends upon the construction to be placed upon certain provisions of its constitution, for the facts are undisputed. Mr. Steinert, the deceased, was a member of the organization in good standing for a number of years prior to his death, and he was then a member, unless he had ceased to be so because he had engaged in the sale of intoxicating drinks a short time before. The constitution provided that

"No person who engages in the sale of intoxicating drinks can be admitted or retained as a member."

There was another provision of the same general import. Another that

"Each member will be entitled to all the benefits, rights and privileges of this U.B. as prescribed in this constitution by strictly adhering to his obligation, and by him and his local union obeying the constitution and rules."

There were other provisions regulating the method of making charges against an offending member, and for his trial thereon, in a certain manner.

We have not been cited to any case directly in point, but probably the most favorable to defendant is Langnecker v. Trustees, 111 Wis. 279, 87 N.W. 293. But each case must be decided upon the language found in the constitution or by-laws under consideration, and unless we find one with precisely the same wording as defendant's the construction of language used is of little consequence.

The question is: Must charges...