Meinhardt v. Meinhardt

Baltimore City Circuit Court

Meinhardt v. Meinhardt

3 Balt. C. Rep. 196

DecidedAugust 1, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Balt. C. Rep. 196 (Meinhardt v. Meinhardt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Baltimore City Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meinhardt v. Meinhardt, 3 Balt. C. Rep. 196 (Md. Super. Ct. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

BOND, J —

The evidence now before the couit shows that the sole purpose and business of the corporation which issued the certificate in controversy, was, except as to a few scattered members, that of providing insurance to members, of entirely distinct organizations, who took no part in the affairs of this organization. While according to its external form, and the terms of its incorporation, it was a fraternal organization, according to the business engaged in, and in the course of which the present certificate was issued, it was an ordinary life insurance company. The statute providing for the beneficiaries concerns itself with the nature of the business, and, I think,' leaves payment to be made in this case, according to the ordinary rules. Therefore the amount should be paid to the named benefidiary, Bertha Meinhardt. Decree will be signed accordingly.

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

BOND, J —

The evidence now before the couit shows that the sole purpose and business of the corporation which issued the certificate in controversy, was, except as to a few scattered members, that of providing insurance to members, of entirely distinct organizations, who took no part in the affairs of this organization. While according to its external form, and the terms of its incorporation, it was a fraternal organization, according to the business engaged in, and in the course of which the present certificate was issued, it was an ordinary life insurance company. The statute providing for the beneficiaries concerns itself with the nature of the business, and, I think,' leaves payment to be made in this case, according to the ordinary rules. Therefore the amount should be paid to the named benefidiary, Bertha Meinhardt. Decree will be signed accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Balt. C. Rep. 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meinhardt-v-meinhardt-mdcirctctbalt-1912.