Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle v. Knight
| Decision Date | 18 December 1913 |
| Citation | 64 So. 196,9 Ala.App. 428 |
| Parties | SUPREME FOREST WOODMEN CIRCLE v. KNIGHT. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.
Action by Mary E. Knight against the Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle on an insurance policy contract on the life of William L Knight, in which plaintiff was named as beneficiary. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
J.T. Lowry, of Ensley, and Arthur H. Burnett of Omaha, Neb., for appellant.
Estes Jones & Welch, of Bessemer, for appellee.
Unless a defendant to a suit on a contract of insurance is shown to be within one of the exceptions stated in section 4562 of the Code, evidence offered by it of an agreement as to the contract which is shown only by an application or other instrument separate and apart from the policy is not admissible, as the admission of such evidence plainly would contravene the provision of section 4579 of the Code that "no life, nor any other insurance company, nor any agent thereof, shall make any contract of insurance, or agreement as to the policy contract, other than is plainly expressed in the policy issued thereon." Under this statute nothing can be a part of the contract which the policy itself does not disclose. Hunt v. Preferred Accident Ins. Co. of New York, 172 Ala. 442, 55 So. 201; Manhattan Life Ins Co. v. Verneuille, 156 Ala. 592, 47 So. 72.
One of the effects of section 4562 of the Cede is to prevent the application of the above-quoted provision of section 4579 to "any secret benevolent society, such as Masons, Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias, Ancient Order of United Workmen National Union, or other orders of like kind." There was no evidence tending to prove that the defendant belongs to the class of organizations designated by this provision or by either of the other provisions of the section in which it is found. There was nothing before the court to indicate the purposes or objects of the defendant corporation or the activities in which it engages except what was disclosed by the terms of the contract sued on. That contract is one of insurance on the assessment plan. There is nothing in it to indicate that the defendant was undertaking to confer upon any one a benefit for which it did not receive an equivalent. That contract did not furnish any basis for an inference that the defendant is such an order, as for instance, the Masons, the sole purposes and objects of which in acquiring money or property beyond the current expenses of the society are for the bestowal of reliefs and charities to the needy. Burdine v. Grand Lodge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Birmingham Sand & Brick Co.
... ... repudiated by the Supreme Court of the United States, who ... reversed the former ... ...
-
North Carolina Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Martin
... ... LIFE INS. CO. v. MARTIN. 6 Div. 876.Supreme Court of AlabamaMay 21, 1931 ... Appeal ... 8371. Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle v. Knight, 9 Ala ... App. 428, 64 So. 196; ... ...
-
Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen v. Blackerby
...here sued on is such a contract or agreement as was held not to be within this section, there can be no doubt. If the Case of Knight, 9 Ala.App. 428, 64 So. 196, decided by the Court of Appeals, can be construed to hold the contrary, it is to that extent declared unsound, and is not to be f......