Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Hart
Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Hart
Opinion of the Court
Mrs. Anna M. Hart sued the Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World in the city court of Decatur, alleging that she was the beneficiary of an insurance certificate issued by the defendant to her husband at whose death she became entitled to collect the amount of the policy, that at the time of her husband’s death he was a member in good standing and had made all payments required by the certificate and had complied with all of its terms and conditions. The copy of the certificate attached to the petition required him to pay $3.25 on or before the last day of each month, and stated that the articles of incorporation, the constitution, laws, and.by-laws of the association and the application for membership should constitute the agreement between the association and the member. The defendant answered alleging that it was a fraternal beneficiary association and that it was not indebted to the plaintiff in any sum as the deceased was not a member-in good standing at the time of his death, he having failed to pay on or before the last day of September, 1935, the September instalment of his annual assessment, by reason whereof he became suspended on the first day of October, 1935, and the certificate became null and void. By agreement of counsel the case was submitted to the court for trial upon an agreed statement of facts without the intervention of a jury. The court found for the plaintiff and the defendant moved for a new trial. The motion for new trial being overruled the defendant excepted and assigned error on the overruling of the motion.
The agreed statement of facts, omitting parts about which there is no dispute, showed that on November 15, 1934, the deceased made application for membership and for issuance to him of a certificate, which application provided that it should constitute the basis and form a part of the certificate, and that he agreed to make all payments as required by the certificate and the constitution, laws, and by-laws of the association, and that if he did not make said payments at the time and for the amount required the certificate should be null and void and all payments thereon be retained
The agreed statement of facts further showed that on October 12, Mr. Mills went to Mr. Hart’s place of business for the purpose of collecting the monthly instalment. This was on Saturday, and Mr. Hart, being busy waiting on customers, requested Mr. Mills to return on Monday, and Mr. Mills stated that he would come back on Monday, October 14, and collect the instalment. As to this part of the statement of facts the defendant reserved the right to object to its admissibility. It was further agreed that if the court should hold that the defendant had waived the prompt payment of monthly instalments, no notice was ever given Mr. Hart by the sovereign camp or any officer or agent thereof, or by the financial secretary of the local camp, of the intention of the sovereign camp to again insist upon a strict compliance with the terms of the certificate and the by-laws requiring payment of said monthly instalments. It was further agreed in substance in a letter written by counsel for the defendant to counsel for the plaintiff, which was incorporated in the agreed statement of facts, that if the court should hold from the facts agreed on that there was a waiver of prompt payment of the instalments the payment of the September instalment by or before October 13, or 14, would have been a reasonable time in which to pay it.
Hnder these facts the contention of the plaintiff in error is that the six consecutive late payments of instalments ought to be assumed or construed as efforts on the part of the insured to reinstate his lapsed certificate. The question being whether the original contract between the parties had been modified by a course of dealing, the evidence contained in the agreed statement of facts, to the admissibility of which the plaintiff in error objected, was admissible to show in part what the course of dealing had been. The question arises as to the knowledge of the association that the local financial secretary accepted six consecutive payments of monthly assessments after they became due under the contract. This secretary was the collecting agent of the association and was charged
This is not a question of the power of the financial secretary to waive any provision of the contract, but is merely the question whether the association is charged with knowledge of the dates on which premiums were paid. These dates were necessarily known to the secretary, and the scope of his duties included truly reporting his collections after making them. There is nothing in the contract which undertakes to protect the association against this knowledge of its agent being imputed to it in the matter now under consideration, though there are provisions of that kind in regard to other matters. A fair construction of the agreed state
The evidence authorized the judge, passing on the facts, to find that there had been a waiver and to enter the judgment for the plaintiff as agreed upon by counsel. Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Milton, 51 Ga. App. 301 (180 S. E. 253); Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 54 Ga. App. 530 (188 S. E. 362). There was no error in overruling the motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
070rehearing
ON REHEARING.
The agreed statement of facts shows that no notice was ever given Hart either by the sovereign camp or any officer or agent thereof or by the financial secretary of the intention of the sovereign camp to again insist upon a strict compliance with the terms of the certificate and the by-laws requiring payment of monthly instalments. There is also no evidence that Mr. Hart knew that the financial secretary was reporting his payments as made in time instead of on the dates when the payments were actually made. There was no collusion between him and the financial secretary in this respect. This fact differentiates the ease from some decisions cited by the plaintiff in error. Under these circumstances the court trying the case could well hold that the plaintiff below- was misled, and that the association was estopped from avoiding the certificate on the ground that the September instalment was not paid on or before the last day of September.
Judgment adhered to on rehearing.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.