Smith v. Boston & Maine Railroad Relief Ass'n

46 N.E. 626, 168 Mass. 213, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 193
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 30, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 46 N.E. 626 (Smith v. Boston & Maine Railroad Relief Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Boston & Maine Railroad Relief Ass'n, 46 N.E. 626, 168 Mass. 213, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 193 (Mass. 1897).

Opinion

Holmes, J.

The defendant was organized under St. 1882, c. 244, and it is agreed that no other statute applies to it. By § 1 of that act the corporation is authorized to receive and apply property “ for the improvement and benefit of its members, and for the relief of its members and their families in case of sickness, injury, inability to labor, or other cases of need.” We think it fairly plain that the words “ their families ” have in view primarily persons living with the member and dependent upon him for help in their support. As the court finds that the plaintiff, the member’s sister, was not dependent upon her brother, and, as we understand it, was not living with him, we are of opinion that she was not a member of his family. Tyler v. Odd Fellows’ Mutual Relief Association, 145 Mass. 134. Elsey v. Odd Fellows’ Mutual Relief Association, 142 Mass. 224.

The last designation failing, the previous one remains in force if valid. Elsey v. Odd Fellows’ Mutual Relief Association, 142 Mass. 224. Marsh v. American Legion of Honor, 149 Mass. 512, 515. United Order of the Golden Cross v. Merrick, 163 Mass. 374.

The only doubt is whether the previous beneficiary, the member’s wife, lost her rights by the separation between her and her husband. In view of the finding in her favor, we take the separation to have been a simple living apart, without change in the legal relation of the parties. We assume that such headship and unity of person as is left to husbands by our statutes still remained to the man. For all that appears, he still contributed to his wife’s support. We cannot say that the finding was wrong.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Connecticut General Life Ins. v. Benedict
88 F.2d 436 (Second Circuit, 1937)
Rosenblum v. Manufacturers Trust Co.
245 A.D. 333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)
Mather v. Boston & Maine Railroad Relief Ass'n
149 N.E. 617 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
McGough v. Hogan
185 N.W. 174 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1922)
Elliott v. United States
271 F. 1001 (N.D. Ohio, 1920)
Goyt v. National Council, Knights & Ladies of Security
178 Ill. App. 377 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1913)
Spear v. Boston Police Relief Ass'n
81 N.E. 196 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Miller v. Prelle
122 Ill. App. 380 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1905)
Grand Lodge Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Frank
94 N.W. 731 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 N.E. 626, 168 Mass. 213, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-boston-maine-railroad-relief-assn-mass-1897.