The Supreme Lodge of The Order of Select Friends v. Raymond

• Decision Date: 08 January 1897
• Docket Number: 9290
• Citation: The Supreme Lodge of The Order of Select Friends v. Raymond, 47 P. 533, 57 Kan. 647 (Kan. 1897)
• Parties: THE SUPREME LODGE OF THE ORDER OF SELECT FRIENDS v. CHARLES RAYMOND
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

47 P. 533

57 Kan. 647

THE SUPREME LODGE OF THE ORDER OF SELECT FRIENDS v. CHARLES RAYMOND

No. 9290

Supreme Court of Kansas

January 8, 1897

Decided January, 1897.

Error from Anderson District CourtHon. A. W. Benson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

L. C Boyle, for plaintiff in error; J. L. Dennison, of counsel.

Oscar Foust & Son, for defendant in error.

JOHNSTON J.All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, J.

This was an action by Charles Raymond to recover $ 3,000 on an insurance or benefit certificate issued to him by the Supreme Lodge of the Order of Select Friends.The order is a fraternal one, and its objects are to advance the principles of friendship, hope and protection among those who are eligible to and do become members, and to aid members in business and in obtaining employment.A relief fund has been established, from which benefits not exceeding $ 3,000 are to be paid upon the death or total disability of members who have complied with the rules and regulations of the order.In the matter of benefits, a claim by a member on account of accident or disability is first made to the Supreme Medical Director; if he refuses to recommend payment, an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Executive Committee; and if the decision of that committee is adverse, the claimant may appeal to the Supreme Lodge, where the claim will be determined by a majority vote of all present and entitled to vote thereon.Raymond, a member of the order to whom a certificate had been issued, presented a claim under his certificate upon the ground that he had become totally and permanently disabled.His application for a benefit was regularly presented to the Supreme Medical Director, who rejected it.Appeal was taken from his decision to the Supreme Executive Committee, which also refused to allow his claim.He thereupon appealed to the Supreme Lodge, and that tribunal decided adversely to his claim.He then instituted the present action; and, a trial having been had before the Court and a jury, a verdict was rendered in his favor for the sum of $ 2,983.16.Raymond appears to have been a member of the order in good standing, whose assessments had been paid; and the disability of which he complained was organic disease of the heart and muscular rheumatism.There was testimony tending to sustain the claim of disability, and that the claim was properly presented and the appeals regularly taken is conceded; but it is contended that the claim having been rejected by the tribunals created by the order, and the decision of the Supreme Lodge of the order being adverse and standing unreversed and unmodified, it was a full and final adjudication of the plaintiff's claim, and no resort to the courts can be had.It is argued that, provisions having been made by the laws of the order for the investigation and allowance of benefits, a member who subscribes to those provisions is bound by them, and by the decisions of the tribunals which he himself has helped to create.One article of the constitution of the order is that "no claim for any benefit from the relief-fund shall be paid until all the laws or rules of the order have been fully complied with, and the requisite proof of the justness of the claims has been made in accordance with the general laws of this order."

For the purpose of sustaining the position that a resort to the courts is not permissible, attention is called to the laws of the order already mentioned, and also to the following provision of the constitution:

"The Supreme Lodge, when convened agreeable to the provisions of the constitution and laws of the order, shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all subjects pertaining to the welfare of the order, and absolute control of all appeals from the Grand or Subordinate Lodges and members; and its decisions upon all questions and appeals, when properly presented and heard, are the supreme law of the order."

Instructions were asked to the effect that, in the absence of fraud, the decisions of the tribunals of the order were final and conclusive; but these were refused, and, instead, the Court charged the jury as follows:

"If you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff has paid all dues and assessments as provided by the by-laws, and was in good standing in the order, and that he duly presented his claim and took the various appeals as provided by the constitution and laws of the order, and that the defendant order through its Grand Lodge finally acted upon and rejected the said claim, then he may maintain an action thereon in this Court, and may recover thereon, provided he proves by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the total disability as claimed."

Fraternal organizations like this one may doubtless adopt rules and by-laws which will be controlling as to all questions of discipline, doctrine or internal policy.Persons who voluntarily become members are bound by all reasonable rules and regulations, and with the determination of questions of the character named the courts will ordinarily not interfere.It does not follow, however, that the contract or property rights of members are beyond the reach of the courts or the protection of the law.In a recent case it was held that, while courts will not undertake to direct or control such societies in the matter of discipline or internal policy, they are nevertheless subject to the laws of the State and the jurisdiction of the courts in proper cases; and that the courts will not hesitate where property rights are involved to entertain jurisdiction and afford relief.Reno Lodge v. Grand Lodge, 54 Kan. 73, 37 P. 1003.In some cases it has been held that, in the absence of fraud, the decision of the organization, or one of its tribunals, as to the right of a member to benefits is final, and no resort to the courts can be had (Van Poucke v. St. Vincent de Paul Society, 63 Mich. 378, 29 N.W. 863;Canfield v. Knights of Maccabees, 87 id. 628;Fillmore v. Knights of Maccabees, 103 id. 437;Anacosta Tribe of Red Men v. Murbach, 13 Md. 91;The Osceola Tribe, No. 11, I. O. R. M., v. Schmidt, Adm'r, 57 id. 98;Van...