Lake v. Minnesota Masonic Relief Ass'n
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., denying a motion for a new trial. The amendment to art. 10, § 6, of the by-laws, referred to in the opinion, was as follows: “It being further understood that if an assessment levied to the full maximum of the table of rates as provided by the by-laws will not produce a sum sufficient to pay the full limit named, then and in that case the payment above shall be made pro rata.”
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This action was brought upon a certificate of membership issued by defendant to plaintiff’s husband, James H. Lake, since deceased. The complaint alleged that by the terms of this certificate the defendant promised to pay to her, as beneficiary,, within 90 days after proof of the death of James H. Lake, a sum-equal to $1 for each member of the association at the date of his; death, not exceeding $2,000, and that the membership at that date was 1,624. The defendant, by. its answer, alleged, in substance1,, that it only agreed to make an assessment on its members, in accordance with its…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Elkhart Mutual Aid, Benevolent & Relief Ass'n v. HoughtonIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Earnshaw v. Sun Mutual Aid SocietyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1888
- Lueders' Ex'r v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1882
- Curtis v. Mutual Benefit Life Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1880
3Cited by8 opinions
- Langhammer v. City of ManchesterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Monahan v. Supreme Lodge of the Order of Columbian KnightsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- United Order of Golden Cross v. HooserSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Southern Life Insurance v. LoganCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
- Prosser v. Carolina Mutual Benefit Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.