Modern Woodmen of America v. Taylor

71 P. 807, 67 Kan. 368, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 260
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedMarch 7, 1903
DocketNo. 12,954
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 71 P. 807 (Modern Woodmen of America v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Modern Woodmen of America v. Taylor, 71 P. 807, 67 Kan. 368, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 260 (kan 1903).

Opinions

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J. :

Dr. T. E. Taylor was a member of Circleville camp of the Modern Woodmen of America. He held a benefit certificate in the’ order for the sum of $2000, payable to his father, which was assigned to defendant in error, wife of the deceased, after his death. Taylor died on March 8, 1900.

In October, 1899, Taylor tendered to the clerk of Circleville camp the amount of the assessment payable on or before November 1, necessary to keep in force' his benefit certificate, but the tender was rejected on the ground that the insured was intemperate and addicted to the use of cocaine or opiates.

In his written application for membership, and for indemnity in case of death to the amount of $2000, Doctor Taylor stated:

“I agree to make punctual payment of all dues and assessments for which I may become liable, and to conform in all respects to- the laws, rules and usages of the order now in force, or which may here- . after be adopted by the same.”

The application also contained the following:

“If I shall fail to comply with and conform to any and all of the laws of said Modern Woodmen of America, whether now in force or hereafter adopted, that my benefit certificate shall be void.”

[370]*370In the benefit certificate issued to Doctor Taylor in September, 1895, is found the following provision :

“This certificate is issued in consideration of the warranties and agreements maqle by the person named in this certificate in his application to become a member of this fraternity,” etc.

Another clause in the certificate is to the effect that, if the member shall become so far intemperate in the use of alcoholic drinks or the use of opiates as permanently to impair his health, or to produce delirium tremens, the certificate shall be null and void.

The following by-laws of the order were in effect during the time of Doctor Taylor’s membership : [371]*371the clerk. Such appeal shall be heard and determined in the same manner as a trial in the local camp.”

[370]*370“Sec. 276. Shall not receive dues or assessments from intemperate members.- — He (the camp clerk) shall not receive or collect dues or assessments from a member whom1 he knows to be addicted to the intemperate use of intoxicants or opiates to such an extent as to be frequently under the influence thereof or intoxicated, or use drugs to such an extent as to injure his health.”
“Sec. 279. Appeal from the ruling of clerk.— Any member of the society aggrieved by the ruling of the clerk in refusing or accepting dues or assessments under any of the provisions of the preceding sections of this chapter may appeal from his decision to the camp within thirty days from the date of the refusal or acceptance of dues or assessments by said clerk by serving notice of said appeal on the consul. The local camp shall thereupon proceed to try the question in the same manner and under the same rules as are prescribed in these by-laws for other camp trials.”
“ Sec. 329. Appeals from decision of olerk of camp.— Any member of this society aggrieved by the decision of the clerk of the local camp upon any ruling made in accepting or refusing dues or assessments under the provisions of chapter 43 hereof may appeal to his local camp from such decision. Said appeal shall be perfected by filing with the consul notice of the taking of such appeal within thirty days from the ruling of

[371]*371By another section of the by-laws an appeal is provided for from the local camp in any such trial to the executive council, which is composed of the seven highest officers in the order, and an appeal is also allowed from the executive council to the head camp, the highest legislative body. Section 332 of the bylaws reads:

“All rulings of the clerk of the local camp, as referred to in section 329, and all decisions of local camps and of the head consul, as provided in sections 330 and 331, shall be final and conclusive unless appeals therefrom are perfected in the manner and within the time prescribed by these laws.”

Section 47 of the by-laws provides:

“Sec. 47. What suspended members may do. — A suspended member is not entitled to any of the benefits of this society, either fraternal or beneficial. . . .”

As before stated, the clerk of the camp to which Doctor Taylor belonged refused, in October, to receive the assessment required by the by-laws to be paid by November 1. There is no allegation in the petition, nor was there any showing made, that Taylor appealed from the ruling of the clerk. The court below instructed the jury that the appeal authorized by the by-laws was permissive only, and did not obligate Taylor to resort thereto. From a verdict and judgment for the amount of the benefit certificate, plaintiff in error has brought the case here for review.

In Reno Lodge v. Grand Lodge, 54 Kan. 73, 37 Pac. 1003, 26 L. R. A. 98, the grand lodge of Odd Fellows, to which Reno lodge was subordinate, levied an assessment of one dollar on each member of the order [372]*372in Kansas for the purpose of paying an indebtedness on property held in trust for the order, conveyed by one De Boissiere, and fifty cents additional per capita to maintain the same as an orphans’ home. Reno lodge and ninety-one other lodges in the state refused to pay the assessment, and. brought suit against the grand lodge to enjoin it from collecting the same. It was contended by the plaintiffs in that action that the grand lodge had no power to levy the tax; that the real estate conveyed by De Boissiere to trustees was not subject to the control of the grand lodge, and that it had no title thereto. There was provision made in the constitution and by-laws of the Odd Fellows’ order for an appeal from the decision of the state grand lodge to the sovereign grand lodge of the United States concerning all matters relating to the purposes of the order. No appeal was taken. It was held that the suit could not be maintained. The court said:

“The mode in which the orders of the grand lodge of the state are threatened with enforcement is by severing connection with and by the expulsion of the subordinate lodges which refuse to pay the assessments., There are many authorities which hold that, where a mode is pointed out for redressing grievances in an association of this kind by a charter or by-laws, members of the organization are bound to pursue that remedy before resorting to the courts, and that where a right of appeal is given to a tribunal provided by the society, the members must pursue that remedy. (Nibl. Mut. Ben. Soc. §§79, 130; Bac. Ben. Soc. §94; Harrington v. Benevolent Association, 70 Ga. 340; Chamberlain v. Lincoln, 129 Mass. 70; Lafond v. Deems, 81 N. Y. 507 ; Osceola Tribe v. Schmidt, 57 Md. 98 ; Oliver v. Hopkins, 10 N. E. 776.)”

In Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias of the World v. [373]*373Wilson, 66 Fed. 785, 787, 14 C. C. A. 264, 266, the court said :

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

Related

Hill v. Prince Hall Grand Lodge
325 P.2d 334 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1958)
Zeidler v. Knights of Columbus
241 P.2d 761 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1952)
Bowling v. Illinois Bankers Life Ass'n
41 P.2d 1012 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1935)
Wichita Council No. 120 v. Security Benefit Ass'n
28 P.2d 976 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1934)
Hanson v. Chicago B. Q.R.R. Co.
232 P. 1101 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1925)
Flynn v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
207 P. 829 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1922)
National Council of Knights & Ladies of Security v. Turovh
161 N.W. 225 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1917)
Ridgeway v. Modern Woodmen of America
157 P. 1191 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1916)
King v. Wynema Council No. 10
78 A. 845 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1911)
Taylor v. Modern Woodmen of America
83 P. 1099 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1905)
Kemper v. Modern Woodmen of America
78 P. 452 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 P. 807, 67 Kan. 368, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/modern-woodmen-of-america-v-taylor-kan-1903.