Knights of Columbus v. Rowe
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dennis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society (Ark. 1935)
- Rose v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen (Colo. 1926)
- Vanasek v. Western Bohemian Fraternal Ass'n (Minn. 1913)
- Johnson v. Policemen's Benevolent Ass'n (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County 1912)
- Supreme Lodge, New England Order of Protection v. Hine (Conn. 1909)
- Davin v. Davin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1906)
- Huff v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. (W. Va. 1927)
- Marble v. Estate of Marble (Ill. 1922)
- Dworak v. Supreme Lodge (Neb. 1917)
- Giffin v. Grand Lodge, A. O. U. W. (Neb. 1916)
- Knights of Columbus v. McInerney (Mich. 1908)
- Larkin v. Knights of Columbus (Mass. 1905)
- Masonic Mutual Benefit Ass'n v. Severson (Conn. 1899)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
By the Act incorporating the plaintiff (10 Special Laws, 927), and according to its laws in force at the date of the death of the said David J. Rowe, the plaintiff was obliged to pay, on the death of a member in good standing, $1,000 (1) to such person of his immediate family as the member should designate; (2) in default of an immediate family, then to such relative of the member as he should designate; (3) in default of any designation by the member, either within or outside of such family as above named, then such sum is to be paid to sirch family, or relative, who are heirs at law of the member, in the order above arranged.
At the time the said David J. Rowe became a member of the plaintiff corporation, he was a minor residing in, and was a member of, his father’s family. At that time the designation of Ms father was strictly according to the laws of the plaintiff. At the time of Ms death Ms family was entirely changed. At that time his immediate family consisted only of his wife and child. Wood v. Wood, 63 Conn. 324. His father at that time was not a member of his immediate family. If the term “ family ” does not include an adult child living
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.