Semm v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Semm v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor

29 F. 895, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2970

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedFebruary 14, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 29 F. 895 (Semm v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Semm v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor, 29 F. 895, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2970 (circtsdny 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Shipman, J.

The question of law is whether, under Semm’s application to Humboldt Lodge for membership therein, and the certificate which he received from said lodge, he warranted the truth of the answer which he gave to the question, “Have you been rejected by the medical examiner of any lodge or society?” In my opinion, he was required, under the contract, to answer the question according to his knowledge or reasonable means of belief, and not to misrepresent or suppress known facts, but that he did not warrant the absolute truth of his answers. The reason of the opinion is contained in the applicant’s agreement in his printed application for membership.

As stated when the motion for a new trial was made, I have no objection to the verdict on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence.

The motion for a new trial is denied.

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

Shipman, J.

The question of law is whether, under Semm’s application to Humboldt Lodge for membership therein, and the certificate which he received from said lodge, he warranted the truth of the answer which he gave to the question, “Have you been rejected by the medical examiner of any lodge or society?” In my opinion, he was required, under the contract, to answer the question according to his knowledge or reasonable means of belief, and not to misrepresent or suppress known facts, but that he did not warrant the absolute truth of his answers. The reason of the opinion is contained in the applicant’s agreement in his printed application for membership.

As stated when the motion for a new trial was made, I have no objection to the verdict on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence.

The motion for a new trial is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 F. 895, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/semm-v-supreme-lodge-knights-of-honor-circtsdny-1887.