Tepper v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Heard upon pleadings and proofs in open court, and the written arguments of counsel. The suit is in the nature of an interpleader. The holder of the fund in dispute is the defendant the Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum; the contestants are the complainant, Charles F. Tepper, on the one side, and his five half-brothers and sisters, Anna Worth (formally Plondrick), Antoni Sieburg, Wilhelmina ■ Ranges, August Zuber and Wilhelm Zuber, on the other side.
Read the full summary
Heard upon pleadings and proofs in open court, and the written arguments of counsel. The suit is in the nature of an interpleader. The holder of the fund in dispute is the defendant the Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum; the contestants are the complainant, Charles F. Tepper, on the one side, and his five half-brothers and sisters, Anna Worth (formally Plondrick), Antoni Sieburg, Wilhelmina ■ Ranges, August Zuber and Wilhelm Zuber, on the other side. The nature of the contest will be best understood by a statement of the facts. In 1864 Mrs. Zuber was the widow, with five children, of one…
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V. C.
Counsel for complainant advances three propositions:
First. That the use of the word “ children ” in describing stepchildren in the application for membership was, if not a fraud, at least such a misdescription as prevents the insertion by the Royal Arcanum of their names in the certificate of membership from having the eifect of an acceptance and approval of them by the society as proper beneficiaries.
Second. That under the Massachusetts statute of 1877, under which the Royal Arcanum was organized, as amended in 1882, and under- the constitution and by-laws made by the society in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Supreme Council American Legion of Honor v. PerryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Esty v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Kimball v. StoryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Golden Star Fraternity v. MartinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1896
3Cited by9 opinions
- Modern Woodmen of America v. HeadleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Houston v. McKinneySupreme Court of Florida · 1907
- Jones v. ManganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
- Middlesex County Welfare Board v. MotolinskyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1944
- Hollingsworth v. . Supreme CouncilSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.