Independent Order of Sons & Daughters of Jacob of America v. Moncrief
Independent Order of Sons & Daughters of Jacob of America v. Moncrief
Opinion of the Court
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Tbe bill in this case wholly fails to state, any cause of action, and tbe demurrer should have been sustained. Tbe constitution
Tbe excuse offered in tbe bill for tbe nonpayment of tbe dues is tbat Adaline Moncrief was sick, and because she was sick became entitled to a sick benefit, and tbat it was tbe duty of tbe lodge to pay tbe dues out of this sick benefit, sending to tbe sick member only tbe surplus, after retaining all dues tbat might be owing; but, when tbe constitution and by-laws are examined, it will be seen tbat tbe order does not agree to pay to all parties who are sick a benefit. Tbe lodge can provide a sick benefit for a sick member, but tbe lodge does not agree, absolutely, to allow every sick member a benefit; but a member becomes entitled to a
Demurrer sustained, decree reversed and cause remanded.
Reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Independent Order of Sons and Daughters of Jacob of America v. Saul Moncrief
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Chancery Pleadings and Practice. Exhibits to pleadings. Demurrers. Where a hill in equity against a fraternal order charged that the defendant’s liability to complainant became fixed by specified sections of its constitution and by-laws and required the order to file copies of the same, to become when filed exhibits to the bill, the same when filed by defendant become parts of the bill in determining its sufficiency on demurrer. 2. Insurance. Fraternal orders. Forfeiture of membership. Siete benefits. By-laws. Where the by-laws of an order, which forfeited membership on a failure to pay dues, authorized it to provide benefits for sick members only on condition that, and when, the order had taken action and voted him the benefit, a member in arrear for dues, to whom no benefit was ever allowed, cannot escape a forfeiture of his membership on the claim that “sick benefits” should have been credited to his dues.