Tolbert v. Modern Woodmen of America
Decision Date | 07 January 1915 |
Docket Number | 12094. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | TOLBERT v. MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson Judge.
Action for injunction by Walter M. Tolbert against the Modern Woodmen of America. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Elias A. Wright, of Seattle, for appellant.
Benj. D. Smith, of Mankato, Minn., and Ralph Simon, of Seattle, for respondent.
The plaintiff, Walter M. Tolbert, commenced this action in the superior court for King county, seeking an injunction to prevent the defendant, Modern Woodmen of America, from canceling his benefit certificate which evidences his membership and insurance in the defendant society. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment of the superior court denying the relief prayed for.
Respondent is an incorporated fraternal beneficiary society organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois, with its principal place of business at the city of Rock Island in that state. It has local branches, called 'camps,' in the several states of the Union, one of which is at Seattle, in this state. In May, 1910, appellant made application for, and was admitted to, membership in the Seattle camp, when a benefit certificate was issued to him by the proper officers of the society at Rock Island, evidencing his membership in the society and the right of his beneficiary named in the certificate to participate in the benefit fund of the society to the amount of $1,000 in case of his death while a member in good standing. On March 21 1913, the head clerk of the society at Rock Island, evidently acting at the instance of the executive council of the society, gave notice in writing to appellant as follows:
This notice was received by appellant at Seattle in due course of mail a few days later. Evidently deeming this a threat by respondent to cancel his benefit certificate. appellant on March 31, 1913, several days before the time appointed for the hearing before the council, as stated in the notice, commenced this action in the superior court, for King County, seeking to enjoin the cancellation of his benefit certificate. It is to be noticed that the injunctive relief sought is against alleged threatened action of officers of the society at its headquarters, in the state of Illinois, under whose laws it exists as a corporation.
We are constrained to hold that the denial of relief and judgment of dismissal rendered in the superior court must be affirmed if for no other reason than that of want of jurisdiction in the courts of this state to interfere with the internal affairs of a foreign corporation; since the alleged threatened act sought to be restrained would be but the exercise of claimed authority of the officers of the society at its home office beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of this state. In North State Copper & Gold Mining Co. v. Field, 64 Md. 151, 20 A. 1039, there was involved the threatened forfeiture of the rights of a stockholder in a corporation existing under the laws of the state of North Carolina, hence foreign to the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of Maryland. Disposing of the contention there made, that the stockholder was entitled to mandamus against the corporate authorities to reinstate him in his rights as a stockholder, and refusing to assume jurisdiction, the court observed;
In Royal Fraternal Union v. Lunday, 51 Tex.Civ.App. 637, 113 S.W. 185, there was involved a threatened deprivation of the rights of a member of the Union, a fraternal insurance association, by its officers at its home office; it being a foreign corporation beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of Texas. The court disposed of the claimed right of the insured to an injunction against the home officers of the union to prevent cancellation of his policy as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ellis v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
...... war outside of the continental limits of the United States of. America and the Dominion of Canada. [187 So. 438] . . "If. ...Denton, 229. Mo. 187, 129 S.W. 709, 138 Am.St.Rep. 417; Tolbert v. M. W. A., 83 Wash. 287, 145 P. 183; Rogers v. Guaranty. Trust ......
-
Mo. Cattle Co. v. Great Southern Life Ins. Co.
...51 Tex. Civ. App. 637, 113 S.W. 185; Taylor v. Mutual Res. Fund Life Assn., 97 Va. 60, 45 L.R.A. 621, 33 S.E. 385; Tolbert v. Modern Woodmen, 83 Wash. 287, 145 Pac. 183. (c) Any cause of action that plaintiff may have in the future against defendant under said policy not yet having matured ......
-
Missouri Cattle Loan Co. v. Great Southern Life Ins. Co.
......Fund Life Assn., 97 Va. 60, 45 L. R. A. 621, 33 S.E. 385; Tolbert v. Modern Woodmen, 83. Wash. 287, 145 P. 183. (c) Any cause of action ...Co., 2. Mo.App. 262; Hanley v. The Life Assn. of America, 69. Mo. 380; Thompson v. St. Louis Mutual Life Ins. Co., . 52 Mo. ......
-
Grismer v. Merger Mines Corporation
...with the management of the internal affairs of a foreign corporation. That plaintiffs do so ask is clear. Tolbert v. Modern Woodmen of America, 83 Wash. 287, 145 P. 183. However, the reach of the Tolbert decision is limited to the application of the rule when the principal place of business......