Vollman's Appeal
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Frederick v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. of New York (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1916)
- Kit v. Stecker (3d Cir. 1940)
- Mizishko's Estate (Schuylkill County Orphans' Court 1936)
- Stoll v. Boyle (Casserly) (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934)
- Sproat v. Travelers Insurance Co. (Pa. 1927)
- Coffey v. the Maccabees (Pa. Super. Ct. 1927)
- Bell v. Police Beneficiary Ass'n (Pa. 1921)
- Grant v. Faires (Pa. 1916)
- Siglar v. Ivancho (Pa. Super. Ct. 1915)
- Hunter v. Firemen's Relief & Benevolent Ass'n (Pa. Super. Ct. 1902)
- Masonic Mutual Ass'n v. Jones (Pa. 1893)
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
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered November 17th 1879,
The appropriation made by Lang of the moneys payable at his death on the beneficiary certificate, could be revoked by him only in the mode appointed in the regulations adopted by the Grand Lodge of the Ancient Order of United Workmen, by whom it was issued. They had an unquestionable right to make such a regulation. The regulation was that “any member holding a beneficiary certificate desiring at any time to make a new direction as to its, payment, may do so by authorizing such change in writing, on the back of his beneficiary certificate in the form prescibed, — attested by the recorder, with the seal of the lodge attached, and by the payment to the Grand Lodge of the sum of fifty cents.” No doubt it was adopted with a view to prevent the lodge from being involved in litigation with outside claimants. If Lang could revoke it by will — there is no reason why he could not do so by parol. If it was his so absolutely that he could dispose of it by will, it would undoubtedly be liable for his debts. One object of this regulation was to prevent this, and to secure it to such persons as he might desire. We think the decree of the Orphans’ Court was right.
"Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.