Sheetz v. Protected Home Circle, Inc.

Citations

• 256 Pa. 172
• 100 A. 749
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 583

Syllabus

<p>Beneficial associations — Benefit certificates — By-laws—Change— Retroactive effect — Ultra vires.</p> <p>1. Though a member of an association may know that certain amendments to the by-laws have been passed and he may even have voted for them, it does not follow from this that he consents that they may have retroactive force, modifying his contract with the society.</p> <p>2. An averment in an affidavit of defense in an action on a death benefit certificate that plaintiff by his representatives had participated in the enactment of certain amendments to the constitution and laws of the association, relating to contracts with members, does not state by inference that plaintiff consented that such bylaws should have retroactive force or agreed to the modification of his contract.</p> <p>Palmer v. Protected Home Circle, 252 Pa. 201, followed.</p> <p>3. A benefit certificate stipulated that upon compliance by the beneficiary with all the laws, rules, regulations and requirements of the association, then in force or that might thereafter be enacted by it, he should be entitled to participate in a beneficiary fund. It further provided that “in case the said (beneficiary) shall live to the age of physical disability according to the American experience table of mortality, in this case 70 years, or shall be proven to be totally and permanently physically disabled previous to that time, from any cause except intempoi%nce or immoral conduct on his part, as per article 8, sec. 9, of the constitution, from following his own or any other remunerative occupation whereby he can earn a livelihood......, he shall receive” a stipulated sum of money. Defendant contended that its charter did not contemplate the payment at the age of disability of any part of the amount of the benefit certificates issued to the members and that the inclusion of such a provision in the benefit certificate was ultra vires and void. It appeared that defendant was incorporated to promote the welfare of i