Union Fraternal League of Boston v. Johnston

• Decision Date: 20 November 1905
• Citation: 53 S.E. 241,124 Ga. 902
• Parties: UNION FRATERNAL LEAGUE OF BOSTON, MASS., v. JOHNSTON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

53 S.E. 241

124 Ga. 902

UNION FRATERNAL LEAGUE OF BOSTON, MASS., v. JOHNSTON.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 20, 1905

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the constitution of a benefit society declared that "no suit shall be brought against this order without first referring the matter to the grievance committee," with right of appeal to the "cabinet" and from them to the "annual congress," a suit by a member on a claim for a "sick benefit" could not be maintained without first exhausting the remedies so prescribed especially in the absence of a valid reason for not so doing.

Where a member of such a society expressly agreed to comply not only with the constitution, laws, and rules thereof in force at the time of the issue of his certificate, but also with such as might thereafter be adopted, it was error for the court on the trial of an action against the society brought by such member on a claim for a "sick benefit," in which the defense was set up that the plaintiff had not followed the procedure prescribed by the constitution and by-laws of the society, to charge that the plaintiff was bound only by the constitution and by-laws in force when his certificate was issued.

A ground for the dismissal of an appeal in the superior court which was not there raised and insisted upon, cannot be successfully urged in the Supreme Court as a reason for the affirmance of the judgment rendered in the superior court in the case on appeal.

Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; H. C. Hammond, Judge.

Action by J. H. Johnston against the Union Fraternal League of Boston, Mass. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

C. P Pressley, for plaintiff in error.

Austin Branch and C. Henry Cohen, for defendant in error.

FISH, C.J. (after stating the facts).

1. A member of a benefit society must, in applying for benefits under its by-laws, follow the procedure therein prescribed. It is a well-settled rule that before resorting to the civil courts for redress, a member must exhaust all the remedies provided by the society by appeal or otherwise. Bacon, Benef. Soc. and Life Ins. § 94. In Harrington v. Workingmen's Benevolent Ass'n, 70 Ga. 340, it appeared that the by-laws of the association provided, that no claim for benefit would be received or acted on except through the sick committee and on a doctor's certificate furnished it; that 12 members should be annually appointed by the president as a grievance committee, with power to try all complaints brought to their notice, from whose decision there should be no appeal. It was held that such by-laws were not contrary to law, and a member could only avail himself of the rights to be enjoyed in the way and manner provided by such rules; and that the furnishing of a doctor's certificate to the sick committee was a prerequisite to receiving a benefit under a claim for sickness. In rendering the opinion Mr. Justice Crawford said: "Among the objects of the organization of this benevolent association, it is evident that the mutual aid to be rendered to the members thereof by the observance of self-imposed duties and obligations was among the most important. It was to be a brotherhood of workingmen; governed, managed, and controlled by its own membership, under its own laws, without extrinsic compulsion. Its operation for the execution of its benevolent designs were to be internal, and by persons of its own appointment; provision was made to accomplish all the ends in view; there was nothing in any of its laws prohibited by statute or constitution; hence, whosoever became a member, could only avail himself of the rights to be enjoyed in that way and manner provided by its rules."

Leave was granted to the defendant in error to review that case and after a careful consideration of the same, we are of opinion that the ruling therein made should be adhered to. In the present case, it appeared from the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant league, as shown by the certificate issued to him, that he agreed to comply with the constitution, laws, and rules of the league in force at the date of the certificate, and also those that might thereafter be enacted for the government of the league. The constitution required that in case of contention as to any claim by virtue of sickness, the matter should be referred to the committee on arbitration, for adjustment, and provided that no suit should be brought against the league without...