Royal Arcanum v. Vitzthum

97 A. 923, 128 Md. 523, 1916 Md. LEXIS 95
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedMay 17, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 97 A. 923 (Royal Arcanum v. Vitzthum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Royal Arcanum v. Vitzthum, 97 A. 923, 128 Md. 523, 1916 Md. LEXIS 95 (Md. 1916).

Opinion

*524 Pattison, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Upon the application of William Vitzthum, a certificate -of membership in the Royal Arcanum, a fraternal benefit ■association was;, on the 16th day of November, 1889, issued to him. The certificate provided that upon the conditions therein mentioned, his wife, Louisa O. Vitzthum was to be paid at his death, out of the Widows and Orphans Benefit Fund, the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000).

In his application is found the following clause: I do hereby * * * agree that * * * any concealment of facts by me in this application, or my suspension or expulsion, from, or voluntarily severing my connection with the order, shall forfeit the rights of myself and my family, or dependents, to •all benefits and privileges therein. I agree to make punctual payments 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 hereafter be adopted by the same.”

The certificate issued thereon contained among others, the provision that the payment to the beneficiary was to be made ■only “upon condition that said member complies in the future with the laws, rules and regulations now governing said Council and Fund or that may hereafter be enacted by the ■Supreme Council to govern said council and fund” and only '“in accordance with and under the provisions of laws governing said fund, upon satisfactory evidence of the death of ■said member and upon the surrender of said certificate, provided that said member is in good standing at the time of his death,” etc.

In 1900 the Supreme Council of the association adopted .and enacted the following by-laws:

“Section 400—(1) An officer or member of a Council who has knowledge that a member had disappeared shall at once inform the Council thereof and thereupon report of such disappearance shall be forwarded to the Supreme Secretary, together with the date as nearly as may be determined of the disap *525 pearance, the circumstances attending the same, the last address or residence of the member given by him or appearing upon the Collector’s Books and of the beneficiary or beneficiaries of such member.
“(2) The Supreme Secretary shall immediately send by registered mail to such member, at his said address or residence, a copy of this Chapter of the General Laws, making a record of such sending, and mail notice thereof to the Secretary of the Council,” etc.
“(3) A member who shall fail or neglect to furnish to the Council either by presenting himself in open Council at a stated meeting and then and there declaring the same, and having due record made of such declaration, or by writing over his own signature delivered by the Supreme Secretary, his address including both place of business, if any, and his residence, within six consecutive months after date of such mailing to said member by the Supreme Secretary, shall stand suspended from all rights, benefits and privileges of the Order upon and after the date upon which said period of six months expires and no assessments nor dues shall thereafter be received from him or on his account, and no action on the part of said Council or any officer thereof shall he required as essential to such forfeiture and suspension,” etc.

A Ye will assume that this law was regularly and properly passed as there is nothing in the record to show that it was not so passed, Heptasophs v. Rehan, 119 Md. 94.

AARlliam \Titzthum on the 26th day of April, 1910, abandoned his business, left bis home, wife and family in the City of Baltimore and was not again heard from by them, or his. brethren of the assoeiation, although diligent efforts were made to discover his whereabouts, until July 20, 1914, -when be was found in a hospital in the City of Eew York where lie died a short time thereafter on August 4, 1914. In the meantime in August. 1913, he, pursuant to the hy-laws to Avhicli we have just referred, had been suspended from all *526 rights, benefits and privileges of the Order, and from and after snch time no assessments were received by the Order.

This suit was brought by the wife, his beneficiary under the aforesaid policy or certificate of membership, to recover the amount named in the certificate. The chief question presented by this appeal, which is raised by the demurrers to the third and fourth pleas, is whether the plaintiff’s right to recover was affected by her husband’s suspension from the benefits and privileges of the Order under said by-law, when at the time he became a member of the Order there was no by-law permitting or authorizing it to suspend one of its members for the cause mentioned in the subsequently passed by-law.

It will be seen that the question here presented is a narrow one. The facts as we have stated them are in substance those stated in the pleas and were therefore admitted by the demurrers filed to such pleas. The demurrers were sustained by the Court below and the case was then tried upon the remaining pleas, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which a judgment was entered.

This Court said in the recent case of Heptasophs v. Rehan, supra, “that where a member of a fraternal benefit society agrees in his application for membership' to be bound by the rules, or laws then in force, or which might be thereafter adopted, the society, after he has become a member, may enact reasonable rules and amendments, and bind him to their observance.” Arold v. Heptasophs, 123 Md. 678.

In that case this Court quoted with approval from Lange v. Royal Highlanders, 106 N. W. Rep. 224, where it is said that a member of a fraternal benefit society, “who agrees in his application, or has the agreement incorporated in his policy or benefit certificate, that he will comply with the bylaws of the company then in force or thereafter to be adopted, is bound by subsequent by-laws the same as those in force at the time his certificate was issued; provided that such subsequent by-laws are reasonable in their nature and are prop *527 erly adopted in conformity of the rules of the Order, and the statutes governing such associations.”

We must therefore in deciding the1 question presented determine whether the by-law here involved is a reasonable one. In Heptasophs v. Rehan, the fraternal association passed a by-law relieving the order under certain conditions of the payment of any part of the amount named in the certificate, and under other conditions, of the payment of a part only of such amount, where the member, sane or insane, committed suicide. In that case there was no “suicide, law” of the association in force at the time the certificate was issued to and accepted by the member, of whom the plaintiff was the beneficiary, and as in this case the question was whether said by-law was a reasonable one and binding upon the plaintiff.

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

Related

Shapiro v. Independent Order, Brith Abraham of United States
155 Misc. 9 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)
New Baltimore Loan & Savings Ass'n v. Tracey
120 A. 441 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1923)
Steuernagel v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum
137 N.E. 320 (New York Court of Appeals, 1922)
Steen v. Modern Woodmen of America
129 N.E. 546 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1920)
Hannon v. Grand Lodge of the Ancient Order of United Workmen
99 Kan. 734 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 A. 923, 128 Md. 523, 1916 Md. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-arcanum-v-vitzthum-md-1916.