Hale v. Equitable Aid Union

31 A. 1066, 168 Pa. 377, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 806
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 20, 1895
DocketAppeal, No. 41
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 31 A. 1066 (Hale v. Equitable Aid Union) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hale v. Equitable Aid Union, 31 A. 1066, 168 Pa. 377, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 806 (Pa. 1895).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The controlling question in this case is, whether the plaintiff was bound by the subsequent amendments to defendant’s bylaws providing for the payment yearly, upon arrival at the-period of expectation of life and total physical disability, of one tenth of the amount specified in her benefit certificate, instead of the payment of one half of said amount at the time specified in said certificate. This question is to some extent involved in each of the assignments of error, but more particularly in the defendant’s first, second and fifth requests for charge recited in the last three specifications; and it appears to have been correctly decided in favor of the plaintiff, not only in the-general charge but also in the learned judge’s answers to said requests. In the former, he correctly said, among other things, that a contract between an association, such as the defendant, and one of its members cannot be impaired or altered by either [382]*382of the parties thereto, except so far as the power to do so is reserved. The benefit certificate was accepted by plaintiff “ subject to the right of the corporation to amend its by-laws and to change the contract in so far as the by-laws make it, but not in so far as the contract is made by the benefit certificate itself. For these reasons I think the plaintiff is entitled to recover, under the undisputed evidence, the one half of the sum mentioned in the certificate.” We find nothing in the record that would justify us in sustaining either of the specifications; and they are therefore dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Moon v. Locomotive Engineers Mutual Life & Accident Insurance
343 Pa. 472 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
Moon v. Loc. Engrs. Ins. Assn.
23 A.2d 474 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1941)
Willison v. Willison
187 A. 325 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Premuzic v. Croatian Fraternal Union of America
186 A. 311 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Roblin v. Supreme Tent of the Knights of the Maccabees
112 A. 70 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Independent Order of Puritans v. Cadden
102 S.E. 454 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Palmer v. Protected Home Circle
97 A. 188 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Jaeger v. Grand Lodge of Wisconsin of the Order of Hermann's Sons
135 N.W. 869 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1912)
Kaufman v. National Protective Legion
45 Pa. Super. 560 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Fort v. Iowa Legion of Honor
123 N.W. 224 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1909)
Hayes v. German Beneficial Union
35 Pa. Super. 142 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)
Suckling v. Most Excellent Assembly of Artisans' Order of Mutual Protection
35 Pa. Super. 199 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)
Court of Honor v. Hutchens
82 N.E. 89 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1907)
Wineland v. Knights of the Maccabees of the World
112 N.W. 696 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)
Shepperd v. Bankers Union of the World
108 N.W. 188 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1906)
Bornstein v. District Grand Lodge No. 4
84 P. 271 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)
Gaut v. American Legion of Honor
55 L.R.A. 465 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1901)
Lloyd v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias
98 F. 66 (Seventh Circuit, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A. 1066, 168 Pa. 377, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-equitable-aid-union-pa-1895.