Covenant Mutual Benefit Ass'n v. Baldwin

49 Ill. App. 203, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 167
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedJune 24, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 Ill. App. 203 (Covenant Mutual Benefit Ass'n v. Baldwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Covenant Mutual Benefit Ass'n v. Baldwin, 49 Ill. App. 203, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 167 (Ill. Ct. App. 1893).

Opinions

Opinion op the Court,

Wall, J.

This was an action of assumpsit brought in the Circuit Court of Edgar County, upon a certificate of membership issued by defendant below, appellant here, to John H. Baldwin, providing for the payment upon his death of a sum not exceeding $2,500, as a benefit to his wife and children. The appellant filed the following plea in abatement.

“ And the defendant, the Covenant Mutual Benefit Association of Illinois, by John Malick, its attorney in fact, comes and appears herein for the purpose of filing a plea to the writ of summons issued in the above entitled cause, bearing date May 25, 1891, and made returnable herein to said term of court, and the service thereon, and for no other purpose whatever, and defends, etc., and says : That at and before the time of the issuance of said writ of summons, and at the time of the service thereof, and for ten days prior thereto, and at all times since the commencement of this suit, the above named defendant was and is a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the State of Illinois, for the sole and only purpose of affording and ' furnishing life indemnity, financial aid and pecuniary benefits upon the death of a member, to the widow, heirs, relatives, legal representatives, or designated beneficiaries of such deceased members, and further avers that the said defendant association is, and since its organization has been, conducted by a board of managers who were, and are, members thereof elected annually, all residents of Illinois, and further avers that no annual premiums are, or ever were, required by said defendant, either in its by-laws or certificates.of membership, or are paid to said defendant by its members as profit, or dividends, or otherwise from defendant association.

The defendant further avers that it had not at the time of the commencement of said suit or the issuance of said writ of summons and service thereof, nor ever had, any capital stock of any description whatever, and further avers that since its said incorporation it has derived its money and funds to pay its mortuary claims or benefits to beneficiaries of deceased members, solely by levying a mortuary call, or assessment, upon the members of said defendant association, and the collection of the same, to which is added the expense of the management, and in which the surviving members are notified of the object for which the money is collected, the names, addresses and amounts of certificates of deceased members, the amount to which the beneficiary is entitled, and has, since its incorporation, namely, January 9, 1877, had its principal office in the city of Galesburg, Knox County, Illinois, and not in said county of Edgar. The defendant further avers that before and at the time of the commencement of said suit of the said Annie Baldwin, and before and at the time of the issuance of said writ of summons and the pretended service thereof upon A. W. Berggren, as its president, that he, the said A. ~W. Berggren, was, and from thence heretofore has been, and still is a resident of and residing in said county of Knox and State of Illinois, and not in the said county of Edgar, and that he, the said A. W. Berggren, as president of the said defendant association, or otherwise, was not found and served with process in said action in the said county of Edger, but was served with said summons in the said county of Knox. And the defendant further avers that this action is not a local action, and this the defendant is ready to verify. Wherefore the defendant prays judgment if the court will take further cognizance of the aforesaid action.”

A demurrer to this plea was sustained by the Circuit Court. This presents the first question to be disposed of. It is provided by Par. 3, Ch. 110, R. S., that an action against a life or fire insurance company wherein an individual may be plaintiff may be brought in the county where the plaintiff resides, and process may be sent to any county for service. Appellant, by the plea, sought to show that it was exempt from the operation of this provision and. that it might claim the benefit of Pai\ 2 of the Practice Act, which requires generally the suit to be brought in the county where the defendant resides or may be found.

It is provided by Sec. 31, Ch. 32, R. S., relating to corporations not for pecuniary profit, after setting out the mode of becoming incorporated and the powers to be exercised, that “ associations and societies which are intended to benefit the widows, orphans, heirs and devisees of deceased members thereof, and members who have received a permanent disability, and where no annual dues or premiums are required, and where the members shall receive no money as profit or otherwise, except for permanent disability, shall not be deemed insurance companies.”

Assuming, as we held substantially in N. W. L. A. v. Stout, 32 Ill. App. 31, that an association within this provision is exempt from the operation of Par. 3 of the Practice Act, it will be seen that the plea does not bring the appellant within the exemption.

1st. Associations here designated, can extend benefits to none except widows, orphans, heirs and devisees of deceased members, and members who have received a permanent disability, whereas the plea asserts that this association was organized fpr the purpose of furnishing life indemnity, financial aid and pecuniary benefits upon the death of a member to the widow, heirs, relatives, legal representatives or designated beneficiaries of such deceased members.

It extends its assistance to relatives, legal representatives and designated "beneficiaries, three classes in addition to those specified in the quoted statute.

■ 2d. "Whatever may have been in the mind of the pleader, the plea fails to aver that the members received no money as profit or otherwise except for permanent disability. That this is an essential feature of associations here referred to was held in Coml. League v. The People, etc., 90 Ill. 166. We will consider this point more fully, hereafter.

We understand, however, from the brief of appellant, that reliance is had upon the provisions of “ An act to provide for the organization and management of corporations, associations or societies for the purpose of furnishing life indemnity or pecuniary benefits to the beneficiaries of deceased members,” etc., Session Laws 1887, page 201.

This act is amendatory of an act passed in 1883, and the first section as amended is as follows:

“ That corporations, associations or societies for the purpose of furnishing life indemnity or pecuniary benefits upon the death of a member to the widow, heirs, relatives, legal representatives or the designated beneficiaries of such deceased member for the purpose of furnishing accident or permanent disability indemnity to members thereof, and where members shall receive no money as profit, and where the funds for the payment of such benefits shall be secured ip whole or in part by assessment upon the surviving members, may be organized subject to the conditions hereinafter provided.”

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

Related

Supreme Lodge Order of Mutual Protection v. Meister
105 Ill. App. 471 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Montgomery v. Harker
84 N.W. 369 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1900)
Covenant Mutual Life Ass'n v. Tuttle
87 Ill. App. 309 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Ill. App. 203, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/covenant-mutual-benefit-assn-v-baldwin-illappct-1893.