Saerwein v. Jamour

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Saerwein v. Jamour

32 Misc. 701, 65 N.Y.S. 501

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 Misc. 701 (Saerwein v. Jamour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saerwein v. Jamour, 32 Misc. 701, 65 N.Y.S. 501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The constitution and by-laws of the defendant «constituted the contract between the plaintiff’s intestate and the defendant. With that contract the courts have no right to interfere, unless the contract is against public policy. This contract is not against public policy. The defendant had a right to refuse to reinstate a member who had been dropped for just cause, and, having that right to refuse to reinstate a member so dropped, it had a right to impose the terms upon which such member should be reinstated. Under the terms imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to the death benefit. Hess v. Johnson, 41 App. Div. 465; Jennings v. Chelsea Benefit Fund Society, 28 Misc. Rep. 556; Cunniff v. Jamour, 31 id. 729.

Judgment is reversed, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, and a new trial is ordered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, for the eleventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Per Curiam.

The constitution and by-laws of the defendant «constituted the contract between the plaintiff’s intestate and the defendant. With that contract the courts have no right to interfere, unless the contract is against public policy. This contract is not against public policy. The defendant had a right to refuse to reinstate a member who had been dropped for just cause, and, having that right to refuse to reinstate a member so dropped, it had a right to impose the terms upon which such member should be reinstated. Under the terms imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to the death benefit. Hess v. Johnson, 41 App. Div. 465; Jennings v. Chelsea Benefit Fund Society, 28 Misc. Rep. 556; Cunniff v. Jamour, 31 id. 729.

Judgment is reversed, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, and a new trial is ordered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, for the eleventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 701, 65 N.Y.S. 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saerwein-v-jamour-nyappterm-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack