112 Kan. 42 | Kan. | 1922
The opinion of the court was delivered by
In this action Sallie Keeton asked and obtained a recovery on a beneficiary certificate issued by the Ancient Order of United Workmen upon the life of her husband, Will D. Keeton, who died on August 30, 1921. In its appeal the defendant insists that Keeton was not a member of the order when he died, having been suspended for nonpayment of assessments and that he had never been legally reinstated. A further contention is that when he applied for reinstatement and paid certain assessments he falsely certified that he was then in a good state of bodily health whén in fact he was not.
As to the suspension and reinstatement, the trial court found that the assessments for February, March and April were delinquent, but that on May 21, 1915, he paid the financier of the lodge $6.80, to cover the delinquent assessments' and dues, for which that officer issued a receipt reciting that if reinstatement should be refused the
There is a contention that Keeton had been suspended from the order and never had in fact been reinstated. There was a recognized delinquency in the payment of assessments by Keeton which operated automatically as a suspension, but the local lodge, which had authority to reinstate suspended members, accepted the delinquent dues and assessments and voted in favor of reinstatement. It is true that the lodge at a later time entered a declaration on the record to the effect that the former action was illegal, but the retention of the dues and assessments is a more effective declaration that the reinstatement is valid. While there was a condition attached to the reinstatement, and later a declaration that the action previously taken reinstating,Keeton was illegal, the acceptance and retention thereafter of payments precludes the order from insisting that the reinstatement was invalid, and that Keeton had lost his rights in the beneficiary fund. In view of the recital in the receipt for the delinquent assessments that the money would be refunded if reinstatement was refused, the retention of the money was an assurance to the member that reinstatement had not been refused, and the acceptance and retention of fees and assessments thereafter paid tended to confirm that assurance.
The authority of the financier to accept payments is questioned, but the court found that this officer pursued the same course- and handled the fees and assessments paid by Keeton in the same manner as had been generally followed in other cases of a like character.
On the record as presented it must be held that the recovery was justified, and therefore the judgment of the district court is affirmed.