Whitehorn v. Arcanum

269 N.W. 821, 131 Neb. 713, 1936 Neb. LEXIS 280
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 20, 1936
DocketNo. 29724
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 N.W. 821 (Whitehorn v. Arcanum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Whitehorn v. Arcanum, 269 N.W. 821, 131 Neb. 713, 1936 Neb. LEXIS 280 (Neb. 1936).

Opinion

Good, J.

This is an action upon a fraternal benefit certificate, in which plaintiff is named as beneficiary. Defendant denied liability, alleging that plaintiff’s husband, who had been a member of the defendant order, had been suspended and had ceased to be a member for several months prior to his death. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court, on motion of defendant, directed a verdict for it. Plaintiff has appealed.

The Royal Arcanum is a fraternál benefit association, organized under the laws of. Massachusetts, with its headquarters in Boston. The supreme governing body of the order is known as the supreme council. The constitution and laws promulgated by the supreme council provide for grand lodges or councils and for local councils. One of these local councils located at Omaha, Nebraska, is known as Union Pacific Council No. 1069. William B. Whitehorn, deceased husband of plaintiff, became a member of this [715]*715local council, and a benefit certificate was issued to him in which his wife, the plaintiff, was named as beneficiary. The face amount of the certificate was $3,000. The form of certificate issued to Whitehorn provided for monthly payments or assessments. There were also quarterly dues payable to the local council. For some years prior to his death the monthly assessment was $4.86. Whitehorn paid his assessments up to and including January, 1933, but failed to pay his February assessment. This was advanced and paid for him by the local council. He did not reimburse the local council for this advancement and did not pay the March assessment, nor did the local council advance it for him, and on March 31, 1933, Mr. Whitehorn was suspended from membership in the order and was never reinstated and never made application for reinstatement. The evidence shows that no assessments were levied against him after March, 1933, and that no payments were made therefor.

It appears that on the 17th day of August, 1933, Mr. Whitehorn left a check for $37.02, payable to the defendant, with some employee of the Elks Club in Omaha, and that the collector for the local council received this check and retained it until after Mr. Whitehorn’s death. Plaintiff contends that there had been a custom to permit the payment of assessments at irregular intervals and after the time when they were actually due, and that Mr. Whitehorn did not know of the claimed suspension and relied on the custom of defendant in receiving payments long after they were due and at irregular periods, and that defendant, therefore, waived the right to insist upon strict enforcement of the rule for suspension.

It is conceded that the rules of the order provide for the payment of monthly assessments during the month for which they are made, and that if, at 10 o’clock p. m. on the last day of the month, the payment is not made, then the member is automatically suspended. It is also provided that after the member has been suspended he may be reinstated by making application therefor, paying all arrearages, dues and assessments, and, under certain conditions, is required [716]*716to pass a satisfactory medical examination. The by-laws provide that a local council may, if it so elects, pay the assessments of a member, or advance them for him, but such action is not required.

The evidence shows that the payments of assessments made by Mr. Whitehorn had been at irregular intervals, and that sometimes he would be two or three or four, and possibly more, months in arrears. The evidence also, shows that the local council advanced his assessments; that the amount payable to the supreme body was remitted each and every month for him; that he was kept in good standing, and that he would reimburse the local council from time to time for the payments which it had advanced. . It appears that the local council had a general fund, in addition to the assessments which were required for the insurance feature, and it was from this fund that advances were made for members. Inferentially, it appears that early in 1933 the local, council was running low in its general fund; White-horn di.d not. pay his February assessment, and the local, council advanced it for him. He had not reimbursed the. local council for the advancement so made. He failed to pay his March assessment, and the local council did not advance it for him. The record clearly shows, beyond question, that Whitehorn was suspended on the 31st day of March, 1933. It also appears that he was never thereafter reinstated and never made application for reinstatement. Under the rules and by-laws it would have been necessary for him to submit to a medical examination as a condition to reinstatement. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Whitehorn was not notified of his suspension. The evidence fails to show that, he was notified at. the time that he was suspended. There is no by-law or rule requiring notice. The by-laws provide that ipso facto suspension occurs if payment of assessment is not made before 10 o’clock p. m. on the last day of the month for which assessment is made. There is evidence, however, that at least as early as June, 1933, Mr. Whitehorn conversed with another member and an officer of the local council about his suspension, in which he stated, [717]*717in effect, that within a short time the rate of his assessment-would be increased, and he indicated that he did not desire reinstatement.

It appears that in August, 1933, Whitehorn and his wife contemplated a visit to Chicago and that prior to leaving he drew his check for $37.02, which would have been sufficient to pay his assessment for the months of February to August, inclusive, and his local council dues. This check was left at the Elks Club in Omaha with one of the employees,, who gave Mr. Whitehorn a receipt therefor. The employee of the Elks Club was not a member or officer of the Royal Arcanum, but the collector of the local council kept a desk, and maintained desk room at the Elks Club, and, as stated, it was the custom of members to pay their assessments to-some of the employees of the Club who deposited them, together with the member’s receipt book, with the collector,, who would receive the payments and receipt therefor in the member’s book. These payments were, ordinarily,, turned over to the collector on the same day that they were deposited with the employees of the Elks Club. In this instance the collector did not receipt in the book for the $37.02 payment, but wrote to the supreme council for information as to what should be done with the check under the circumstances, and in a few days received an answer, stating that Mr. Whitehorn had been suspended and that it would be necessary for him to make application for reinstatement and to submit to a medical examination before reinstatement would be made. The collector, in the meantime, retained this check. Mr. and Mrs. Whitehorn made their trip to Chicago, and he died there on the 31st of August, 1933; The check, of course, was not returned to Mr. Whitehorn but was returned to Mrs. Whitehorn some time after his death.

Plaintiff contends that the evidence of the member and official of the local council, as to his conversation in June with Mr. Whitehorn, was not admissible but was hearsay evidence. We think the contention is untenable.

In Ogden v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., 78 Neb. 804, 111 [718]*718N. W. 797

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

Related

Tighe v. Security National Life Insurance Company
214 N.W.2d 622 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1974)
ætna Life Ins. Co. v. Kepler
116 F.2d 1 (Eighth Circuit, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 N.W. 821, 131 Neb. 713, 1936 Neb. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehorn-v-arcanum-neb-1936.