Bixler v. Modern Woodmen of America

72 S.E. 704, 112 Va. 678, 1911 Va. LEXIS 135
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedNovember 16, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 704 (Bixler v. Modern Woodmen of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bixler v. Modern Woodmen of America, 72 S.E. 704, 112 Va. 678, 1911 Va. LEXIS 135 (Va. 1911).

Opinion

Buchanan, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought by Mrs. Savannah Bixler against the Modern Woodmen of America, a beneficial organization, upon a policy of insurance or benefit certificate issued to her husband, W. A. Bixler, and payable to her on his death.

The principal question involved in the case is whether or not the insured, who had been suspended for the non-payment of his dues, had been reinstated by the payment of such dues to the clerk of the local camp.

Upon a demurrer to the evidence, by the defendant, there was a judgment in its favor. To that judgment this writ of error was awarded.

It appears that in the year 1907 the husband, who was at that time in good health, became a member of the defendant company and obtained a benefit certificate therein payable to his wife at his death. He paid his dues and assessments until the levy for the month of March, 1910, became due and payable, when he defaulted and on that account was regularly suspended in accordance with the bylaws of the defendant company. On the 23rd day of April following Bixler inquired by ’phone of Todd, the clerk of the local camp of which he was a member, what was due from him, and was informed that he owed for the months of March and April; whereupon he paid the same to Todd without anything being said by either as to the condition of Bixler’s health. On the 26th of April Bixler received notice from the defendant company’s home office, calling his attention to the fact that he had been reported by the clerk of his local camp as suspended'for the non-payment of his [680]*680March dues; that his suspension had been recorded; and that from April 1st his certificate was null and void, but stated that if he had been reinstated since that date the notice of his suspension might be disregarded. On the 6th of May, Bixler, who had been suffering from chronic diabetes for two years or more, a fact known to both the insured and Todd, the clerk of the local camp, died suddenly of “diabetic coma.” None of the directors or other officers of the defendant knew anything about Bixler’s payment of his arrearages until after his death. The clerk of the local camp was instructed not to receive the May dues from Bixler’s estate, and the defendant after this action was instituted (which was, as claimed by the defendant, before it had finally passed upon the validity of the claim) offered to return the amount of the March and April dues, but the tender was refused.

The provisions of the by-laws of the defendant company bearing upon the reinstatement of a suspended member and the powers and duties of the clerk of the local camp, so far as applicable to the facts of this case, are found in sections 39, 56, 278, 287 and 291, which are as follows:

“Sec. 39. No Waiver of Any By-law. — No officer of this Society, except as provided in section 108 hereof, nor any local camp officer, is authorized or permitted to waive any of the provisions of the by-laws of this society which relate to the contract between the member and the society, whether the same be now in force or hereafter enacted.”
“Sec. 56. Reinstatement Within Sixty Days After Stispension for Non-Payment of Assessments, Fines, or Dues.— Any member suspended for the non-payment of assessments, fines, of dues, if not engaged in any of the prohibited occupations mentioned in section 12 hereof, may be reinstated by payment, within sixty days from the date of suspension, of all arrearages of every kind, including current assessment and all fines, dues, and assessments for [681]*681which he would have been liable had he remained in good standing; provided, however, that he be in good health at the time of reinstatement; provided, further, that the receipt and retention of such assessments or dues in case the suspended neighbor is not in good health, or is engaged in any such prohibited occupation, shall not have the effect of reinstating said member or entitling him or his beneficiaries to any rights under his benefit certificate.”
“Sec. 278. Shall Receipt for Moneys and Pay to Banker. — The clerk shall receive and receipt for all moneys paid in accordance with the provisions of these by-laws, and shall pay over all moneys by him so received to the banker as often as each regular meeting of his camp, taking the receipt of the banker therefor.”
“Sec. 287. Clerk Declared to be Agent of Local Camp.— The clerk of a local camp is hereby made and declared to be the agent of such camp, and not the agent of the society, and no act or omission on his part shall have the effect of creating a liability on the part of this society, or waiving any right or immunity belonging to it.”
“Sec. 291. Shall Not Collect or Receive Assessments from a suspended Beneficial Member.- — -The clerk shall not knowingly collect or receive either assessments or dues from a beneficial member who has become suspended for nonpayment thereof, if at the time tender was made the member was in impaired health. The receipt of assessments or dues contrary to the provisions of this section shall be unavailing in favor of the defaulting member, and such clerk shall forfeit his membership in the society for such violation.”

A person who takes out a policy in a mutual benefit society becomes a member of the society and is bound by the rules and provisions of its charter and the by-laws lawfully made in pursuance thereof, and is conclusively presumed to have knowledge of them all. Knights of Columbus v. Burroughs, [682]*682107 Va. 671, 60 S. E. 40, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 246, and authorities cited.

This being so, the insured is charged with knowledge of the limitation upon the powers of the agents of such company found in its by-laws. Knights of Columbus v. Burroughs, supra, and authorities there cited.

Under the by-laws Bixler was entitled to be reinstated within sixty days from the date of his suspension by the payment to the clerk of the local lamp of all fines, dues and assessments for which he would have been liable had he remained in good standing, provided he was at the time of such payment in good health.

By section 56 of the by-laws it is provided that the receipt and retention of such arrearages “in case the suspended member is not in good health ... . shall not have the effect of reinstating such member or entitle him or his beneficiary to any rights under his benefit certificate”; and by section 291 the clerk of the local camp is expressly pro.hibited from knowingly collecting or receiving either assessments or dues from a member who has been suspended for non-payment thereof, “if at the time the tender was made the member was in impaired health,” and declares that the receipt of such dues contrary to the provisions of the section “shall be unavailing in favor of the defaulting member, and such clerk shall forfeit his membership in the society for such violation.”

Bixler being, as we have seen, conclusively presumed to have knowledge of these provisions, knew when he paid the arrearages in his then condition of health, that he had no right to make such payment, and that the clerk of the local camp had no right to accept it, and that such payment could not have the effect of reinstating him as a member of the society.

It.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. Moore
141 S.E.2d 729 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1965)
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Kiser
6 S.E.2d 562 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1939)
Boll v. Catholic Knights of Wisconsin
265 N.W. 70 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1936)
Pulaski & Giles Mutual Insurance v. Downs
181 S.E. 361 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1935)
International Brotherhood of Boiler-Makers v. Wood
175 S.E. 45 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1934)
Farmers & Mechanics Benevolent Fire Insurance v. Horton
160 S.E. 315 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1931)
Kennard v. Travelers Protective Ass'n of America
160 S.E. 38 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1931)
Perrigo v. Connecticut Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Ass'n
127 A. 10 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1924)
Public Savings Insurance v. Manning
111 N.E. 945 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1916)
Greenwood v. Royal Neighbors of America
87 S.E. 581 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1916)
Hartman v. National Council
147 P. 931 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 S.E. 704, 112 Va. 678, 1911 Va. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bixler-v-modern-woodmen-of-america-va-1911.