Supreme Lodge K.P. v. Lloyd

• Citation: 107 F. 70
• Decision Date: 09 April 1901
• Docket Number: 740.
• Parties: SUPREME LODGE KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS v. LLOYD.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

107 F. 70

SUPREME LODGE KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS v. LLOYD.

No. 740.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

April 9, 1901

Benson Landon, for plaintiff in error.

Howard E. Leach, for defendant in error.

Before WOODS, JENKINS, and GROSSCUP, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case is here the second time. 38 C.C.A. 654, 98 F. 66. In the opinion upon the first writ of error, speaking in reference to the power reserved by the association to change its by-laws, and in reference to the condition in the contract of insurance requiring 'full compliance with all the laws governing this rank now in force or that may hereafter be enacted,' it was said:

'No authority rests in the association under this reservation to repudiate obligations as insurer which have become vested under the contract, and the by-law which imposes a new condition, or exempts from liability for a cause of death previously within the insurance, cannot be made retroactive to impair or destroy liability for a pre-existing cause which arose under the contract.'

Upon an exception to the refusal of the court to give a special instruction, we are asked to review that ruling, and authorities are cited which it is contended demonstrate the right of the order under such a contract to adopt by-laws which shall exempt it from liability though the death result from a pre-existing cause. Reference is made to Pain v Societe St. Jean Baptiste, 172 Mass. 319, 52 N.E. 502; Stohr v. Society, 82 Cal. 557, 22 P. 1125; Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Knight, 117 Ind 497, 20 N.E. 479, 3 L.R.A. 409; Smith v. Galloway (1898) 1 Q.B. 71; Loeffler v Modern Woodmen (Wis.) 75 N.W. 1012; Fullenwider v. Royal League, 180 Ill. 621, 54 N.E. 485. If they had been brought to our attention upon a petition for a rehearing, we could have given these decisions their just weight, but now it is too late to consider them. The ruling made became, for this court and the circuit court, at least, the law of the case. If error was committed, it can be corrected in the case, if at all, only by the supreme court.

The refusal of the court to direct a verdict was not error. The by-law in question was valid, at least in respect to deaths caused or superinduced by the use of intoxicating liquors after its adoption; and whether the death of Lloyd, the assured, was so caused or superinduced was a question of fact, which on the evidence could not properly have been withdrawn...