Allen v. National Council of the Knights & Ladies of Security

Citations

• 102 Kan. 128
• 169 P. 569
• 1917 Kan. LEXIS 233

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Fraternal Insurance — Suspension—Reinstatement—Acceptance of Back Dues — Evidence of Custom. In an action upon a fraternal benefit certificate where the defense was that the assured had been suspended for nonpayment of dues and had not been legally reinstated at the time of her death, it is held, it was not error to admit evidence of a custom of the local officers of the defendant to accept dues and assessments from members who were delinquent and to reinstate them.</p> <p>2. Same — Financier of Local Lodge — Agent of Insurer — Void By-law. Instructions are approved which charged that the acts of the officers of the local lodge, although unauthorized in the first instance, if ratified with the knowledge of the superior officers having authority, amount to a waiver of any right or forfeiture then existing in favor of the society and against the member; that notice given to the officers qf the local lodge is notice to the national council; that in receiving payments of dues and assessments the local financier was, in fact and in law, an agent of the defendant and not of the member, and that a by-law making the financier of the subordinate lodge the agent of the members, is void.</p> <p>3. Same — Payment of Back Dues — Warranty of Good Health — Instruction. By reason of a special finding that at the time she was reinstated the member was not in bad health, it is held, that an instruction respecting the provision of the by-laws that payment of back dues and assessments constitute a warranty that the member’s health is good, could not have prejudiced the defendant and became immaterial.</p> <p>4. Same — Effect of Acceptance and Retention of Dues after Suspension. After accepting from the beneficiary the dues and assessments for the months of December and January, and retaining them until after the death of the assured, it was too late for the defendant to question the authority of the beneficiary to make the payments.</p> <p>5. Same —