202 Mich. 154 | Mich. | 1918
(after stating the facts). Counsel for appellant contends:
First. That after the agreement of the supreme secretary to see to it that the assured did not lapse out, that the order is not in a position to insist that he did- lapse.
Second. That the assured had not been suspended, because no formal action suspending him had been taken.
Third. That the action of the order in accepting payment on the 8th of January, in retaining that payment. until the 8th of May, and in asking for proofs of loss and additional proofs of loss, involving the expenditure of time and money by the plaintiff, that the order waived any right to insist upon a forfeiture.
This case upon its facts is much like the case of Edgerly v. Ladies of the Modern Maccabees, 185 Mich. 148, and is controlled by the same legal principles.
The judgment is affirmed.