Sanderson v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

53 A. 767, 204 Pa. 182, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 621
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 10, 1902
DocketAppeal, No. 170
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 53 A. 767 (Sanderson v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen) 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
Sanderson v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 53 A. 767, 204 Pa. 182, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 621 (Pa. 1902).

Opinion

Prr Curiam,

The provision of the constitution of the beneficial order of which the appellant was a member, that “ any member in good standing suffering a loss of a hand at or above the wrist joint, or the loss of a foot at or above the ankle joint, or the loss of the sight of both eyes,” was intended to provide for the plain cases of total disability. For all other cases a tribunal was established, to which the plaintiff applied; and its decision was conclusive of the subject.

Referring to this the learned judge of the common pleas says in the opinion filed: “ In the case at bar the plaintiff’s statement clearly shows that the constitution of the order provides a tribunal to decide the very question now in controversy in this case, to wit: Whether or not the plaintiff’s claim amounted to total disability? In accepting the certificate the plaintiff agreed, with the other members of the beneficial order, that he would submit this question to the tribunal so constituted. It was a tribunal of his own choice. It was doubtless provided for the express purpose of preventing litigation and thereby to prevent the funds of the order from being taken and used in defending suits. It is to the interest of every member of the order that this regulation should be enforced. In our opinion the decision of such tribunal is conclusive upon the plaintiff and the merits of the decision of such tribunal cannot be inquired into collaterally, either by action at law or any other mode.”

On this finding we affirm the judgment.

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

Related

Falsetti v. Local Union No. 2026, United Mine Workers of America
161 A.2d 882 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)
Preveden v. Croatian Fraternal Union of America
120 F. Supp. 33 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1954)
Loos v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
2 N.E.2d 244 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1936)
Cimprich v. Pennsylvania Railroad
180 A. 51 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Huffman v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
259 N.W. 663 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1935)
Gabrell v. Grand Lodge, Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen
177 S.E. 918 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Virden v. Carpenter
170 A. 899 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Robinson v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
92 S.E. 730 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1917)
Rieden v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
184 S.W. 689 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
McGovern v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Engineers
21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 243 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1909)
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen v. Greaser
108 Ill. App. 598 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 A. 767, 204 Pa. 182, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanderson-v-brotherhood-of-railroad-trainmen-pa-1902.