163 Ky. 364 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1915
Opinion of the Court by
Affirming.
The appellant, National Council Junior Order United American Mechanics of the United States of America, is a fraternal secret organization, incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and by its charter, and by-laws and scheme of government, is controlled by a national council, which is its supreme head, and which is authorized to institute a council in each state, with authority to organize and institute subordinate councils' throughout the states and territories. The appellant has a life insurance and funeral benefit department, which is under the control, subject to the national council, of a board of control, the chief officer of which, other than the president, is the secretary-manager. The national council has supreme authority over the state councils and the subordinate councils, and the members of them. It seems to have been incorporated in the year 1901. After that time a subordinate council of the appellant order was organized at Science Eidge, in Montgomery County, Kentucky. Ur. S. II. Thomas was a member of the subordinate council at Science Eidge, and afterwards became a member of another subordinate council of the order instituted at Mt. Sterling, Kentucky, and which is called the Montgomery Council. While a member of the Science Eidge Council, the appellant issued and delivered: to bim what is called a funeral benefit certificate. By the terms of this certificate or policy of insurance the appellant undertook to pay to the legal dependents of S. II. Thomas, at his death, the sum of $250.00, “upon the condition that the said S. H. Thomas is now and shall be at the time of his death, a beneficiary member in good
According to the plan and by-laws of the order, a funeral benefit certificate was issued to every member of a subordinate council, upon the application of the subordinate council, who has certain prescribed qualifications, and the member may pay to his subordinate council the monthly dues required of him by the order, and in so doing the dues which were necessary to be paid upon his funeral benefit certificate were thus paid, the officers of the subordinate council paying a certain pereentum of these dues to the board of control of the funeral benefit department of -the order, and from the evidence, it appears that if a member became sick, he was entitled to be paid certain weekly allowances as a sick benefit, and if he became in arrears in the payment of his dues to the local council, his dues were deducted from the sick benefits to which he was entitled. It should be stated that by the by-laws of the national council, the local council was authorized to adopt rules for the payment of sick benefits.
While a member of the Science Ridge Council, the appellant issued and delivered to S. H. Thomas what is called a beneficiary degree certificate, by the terms of which the appellant agreed to pay to Ida Thomas, the wife of S. II. Thomas, in the event of his death, the sum of $1,000.00. The following provisions and conditions, among other things, are stated in the beneficiary degree certificate, namely: “Upon the express condition that said applicant fully and completely complied in all respects with all the conditions herein contained, and with all the laws, rules, and regulations now governing the Junior Order United American Mechanics, or that may hereafter 'be enacted for its government, or the government or control of the members thereof. * * * Provided that said member is in good standing in said council, and in the beneficiary degree at the time of death. * * * And it is expressly understood and agreed, that any violations of the conditions of this certificate, or the requirements or laws, rules or regu
When S. IT. Thomas became a member of the Montgomery Council according to the rules of the appellant, his beneficiafy certificate was taken up and cancelled, and one which bore the date of November 13, 1908, was issued and delivered to him, conditioned as stated in regard to the other one which was cancelled.
Ida Thomas, the beneficiary in the beneficiary degree certificate, died previous to her husband, S. IT. Thomas, and he died on the 21st day of April, 1910, leaving as his heirs at law, and the only heirs at law of Ida Thomas, the plaintiffs, Josephine Thomas and Katherine Thomas, two children of tender years. John Ii. Thomas qualified as their guardian. Thereafter, Josephine Thomas and Katherine Thomas, by their guardian, instituted this suit in the Montgomery Circuit Court, seeking* to recover of the appellant the amounts of the two above named certificates, alleging in substance their execution and delivery to S. H. Thomas, and the obligation of appellant to pay same, and that S. H. Thomas had fully paid all the dues and assessments required to be paid upon said certificates, up to the time of his death; and further, that the appellant failed and refused to pay any
These allegations were all denied by the appellant, which plead that the payment of the assessments alleged by appellee to have been made on the 16th day of April, were not received by the appellant until the 21st day of April, and after S. Ii. Thomas was dead; that they were received by it without knowledge of his death, and as quickly as it had knowledge of his death, it returned the money by which the assessments were attempted to be paid.
A trial by jury was had, which resulted in a yerdict and judgment for appellees, for the total amount claimed by reason of both certificates, and the appellant’s motion and grounds for a new trial being overruled, it took proper exceptions, and now appeals to this court.
The appellant, by counsel, insists most earnestly that the trial court erred in overruling its demurrer to the petition. The contention is that the deceased, being in good standing in his council, and in the departments of the order, in which the certificates were held, was a condition precedent to appellee’s right of recovery, while the appellees insist that the issual of the certificates to him was conclusive evidence of his good standing at the time, and that such good standing will 'be presumed to continue until there is proof that it no longer exists, and that same was a matter of defense merely, and that it was not incumbent upon appellees either to affirmatively allege it, or to take the burden of proof upon that issue. In our view, it is now immaterial. The appellant very fully and affirmatively plead that the decedent was not in good standing at the time of his death, and the issue was sharply made and defined. Section 134 of the Civil Code, in part provides: “The court must, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in the proceedings, which does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party; and no judgment shall be reversed, or affected by reason of such error or defect.” The defective allegations of a pleading by one party may be supplied and cured by the pleadings of his adversary. Riggs v. Maltby, 2 Met., 88; C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Thieman, 96 Ky., 507. If it was error in the trial court to overrule the demurrer, it does not appear that appellant was
The appellant further insists that the court was in error in overruling its motion to instruct the jury to find a verdict for it, at the conclusion of the evidence. The appellant, in its answer, affirmatively plead, and it was not denied, that by a by-law of the order, adopted by the national council, that a member of the order “shall be in good standing, if he be not in arrears, under suspension, or has not renounced the order,” and further: “As a member shall stand in his council, so shall be stand throughout the order.” There was no contention that the decedent was not in good standing, except in the contention that he had been suspended by action of his local council in March before his death and never reinstated, and that he had failed to pay his dues, as above stated. The proof showed that appellant had fully paid all his dues to his local council, and to the beneficiary degree, until the month of January, 1910, and had paid ten cents of the assessment for the beneficiary degree for that month. He became sick and confined to his bed on the 28th day of December, 1909, and so remained until about the 1st of February, 1910. He made no further payments of any of his dues,- but in March, following, he received a letter from the secretary-manager' of the beneficiary degree, and the funeral benefit department, saying to him, that his assessment for the’ month of February, and balance due for January, had not reached his office, and referring him to Section 35, of the laws, and stating that unless the assessment was received by the office of the appellant at Pittsburg, Pa., by the 10th of the month, the member stood suspended until same is received, and adding: “Please give this matter your immediate attention.” On the 16th day of April, following, C. F. Thomas, a brother of the decedent, on decedent’s behalf, sent to the secretary-manager liis check for $3.00, enclosing it with a letter, in which he directed the check to be applied to the payment of the'assessments due upon the certificate in the beneficiary degree held by decedent, and stating that the reason the dues had not
The above was all the evidence offered by either side upon the issue as to whether or not the decedent was in good standing at the time of his death, on account of his failure to pay the assessments against him in the bene
' It is not pretended that the decedent had ever renounced the order, and according to the by-laws of the order there is only one other way in which he could not have been in good standing at the time of his death, and that was from suspension by his local council. It is claimed in the pleadings that he was suspended by his local council on the 10th day of March for the period of twelve months. Upon that subject, the recording secretary of the local council was a witness upon the trial, with the book containing the proceedings of the council with him. He stated that the decedent was in good standing at the time of bis death, and as evidence of it, read to the jury a resolution of the council, adopted after the death of the decedent, in which it referred to him as a member of the council, and highly commended him as a citizen and said that the council had lost an upright, true, and loyal brother. This evidence was objected to by the appellant, and the objection overruled. The objection is made, because it is an act of the council occurring after the death of the decedent. This objection is not well grounded', because it is a direct admission by the appellant as to the standing of the decedent in his local council.
•Upon the issues made, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence on the part of the plaintiffs to submit the case to the jury, and the motion of appellant for an instruction, directing the jury to find for it, was properly overruled.
The objection made to the instructions is, that they did not require the jury, in order to find for the plaintiffs, to believe that the decedent was a member in good standing in the funeral benefit department of the order, and in the beneficiary degree, and - only required it to find that he* was in good standing in Montgomery Council, No. 27, of the order. In both of the instructions given by the court to the jury, a concrete instruction is given in regard to the payment of the dues and assessments upon the funeral benefit certificate, and the certificate in the beneficiary degree. The by-law of the order, which was affirmatively plead by the appellant and not denied, that: “As a member shall stand in his council, so shall he stand throughout the order,” eliminated the necessity of the court submitting to the jury the question as to decedent’s good standing in any department of the order, and other than in his own local council.
The contention of appellant that the court was in error, on account of sustaining a demurrer to the third paragraph of its answer, is not well grounded, from the fact that the allegation in the petition in regard- to the liability of the appellant was, that the appellant “then and thereupon denied any and all liability whatsoever
It has been held in many instances by this court and others, that when an assured person permitted his policy of insurance to lapse by reason of his failure to pay the premium dues upon it at the proper time and when due, that the insurer can treat it as forfeited, but, although having the right to treat it as forfeited, the insurer does not do so, but demands payment thereafter of the assured of the premiums it elects to treat the policy as a living valid obligation, and when he has elected to do so, he cannot thereafter change the election when it becomes to his interest to regard the policy as forfeited. New England Life Insurance Co. v. Springgate, 129 Ky., 627; Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Duval, 20 R., 441; Central Life Insurance Co. v. Spinks, 119 Ky., 261; Walls v. Home Insurance Co., 114 Ky., 611.
“As a general rule, if the company has treated the policy as valid, and has sought to enforce payment of the premium, or has otherwise, with knowledge, recognized by its act or declarations, or those of its agents, the policy as still subsisting, it waives thereby prior forfeitures.” 2 Joyce on Insurance, Section 1379.
There can be no doubt that in the case at bar, that the appellant was treating the certificate in the beneficiary degree held by Thomas, as a valid and subsisting obligation, when it requested him in March to look immediately after the matter and that if the assessments were not received by the 10th of the month, the certificate would stand suspended, could mean nothing else, except to pay the assessments due, and prevent a forfeiture, and
In the case of New England Life Insurance Co. v. Springgate, supra, Springgate held a policy in the insurance company, and had executed notes for the premiums. The policy provided, that if any premiums or any premium note was not paid when due, that the policy and all payments made thereon should become forfeited and void, and the note contained a provision that, if it was not paid at maturity, the policy would, without notice, become forfeited and void. One of these notes became due and was'not paid, and thereafter the agent of the insurance company wrote Springgate, stating to him that his note was past due, and that the matter must receive his immediate attention, or otherwise the policy would be cancelled, and requested him to remit the amount due. Springgate was dying when the letter was received, and thereafter his wife sent the money, and paid the note, but the insurance company having learned of his death, returned the money to her, and denied any liability upon the policy. This court held that the insurance company had elected to treat the policy as a subsisting obligation, and having elected to do so, it could not do otherwise, because it became to its interest to do so.
In the case of American Mutual Aid Society v. Quire, 8 K. L. R., 101, Quire failed to pay his dues for several months, and later the society sent him an assessment notice for the months of February and March; his failure to pay had commenced with October or November previous. This notice had printed upon it the statement, that if he failed to pay the assessment within thirty days after the notice had been sent to him, he would forfeit his membership and all benefits.’ Quire never did pay the assessments, but died, and the court held that the society was bound upon the policy, and in passing upon it said that the facts present a similar situation to this, as if the company should say to Quire: “You. are in arrears, and we can forfeit your rights as a member under the provisions quotedi, but we choose not to
Where the charter or by-laws of an order, such as appellant, provides for the payment of sick benefits, and, also, provides for the suspension or expulsion of a member for non-payment of dues, a member is not subject to suspension for the non-payment of dues, where the benefits due him exceed the dues he owes, and it is the duty of the society to apply the benefits due the member to the payment of his dues, and thus pay them and prevent the forfeiture of his membership, and his contract as such. Rogers v. Union Benevolent Society, 111 Ky., 598; Citizens Life, et al v. Boyle, 139 Ky., 1; Niblack on Benefit Societies, Sec. 271.
The instructions of the court being in accordance with, the doctrines above stated, the judgment is affirmed.