74 N.Y.S. 189 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1902
The plaintiff admitted that.he was present at a meeting of his lodge where the members voted against payment of sick benefits to him, and that he never appealed to any tribunal or to the committee of appeals and grievances. The constitution of the grand lodge of the State of Mew York, which applies fo every member of the defendant, provides by article 9, section 4, that the committee on appeals and grievances shall hear all appeals from decisions of district grand committees, and all appeals and grievances from subordinate lodges and members thereof. There is evidence upon which the learned trial court could determine that this remedy was clear to.the plaintiff in this claim against the defendant. I think that as. the plaintiff did not resort to the remedy prescribed by the constitution, which was the contract between him and the defendant, the-judgment of the court was justified and may be affirmed. (Lafond v. Deems, 81 N. Y. 507, 514; Poultney v. Bachman, 31 Hun, 49, Johansen v. Blumie, 53 App. Div. 526.)
I think the court had power to allow the amendments to the answer. In Hawhes v. Burke (34 Misc. Rep. 189) the Supreme Court, Appel
I think that the other amendments were within the power of the Municipal Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
All concurred.
Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.