Schwanekamp v. Modern Woodmen of America
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; John B. Mc-Clernan, Judge. Action by Helen Schwanekamp against the Modern Woodmen of America. From a judgment for defendant and an order denying a motion for new trial, plaintiff appeals. The provision of the contract upon which respondent relies to defeat appellant’s claim is void.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; John B. Mc-Clernan, Judge. Action by Helen Schwanekamp against the Modern Woodmen of America. From a judgment for defendant and an order denying a motion for new trial, plaintiff appeals. The provision of the contract upon which respondent relies to defeat appellant’s claim is void. (Rev. Codes, sec. 5057.) If the contract is void to that extent, it is of the same legal effect as though such provision had been entirely omitted from its terms, and leaves the contract otherwise intact, to be enforced according to the intention of the parties, just…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holloway
In 1902 Henry J. Sehwanekamp became a member of the Modern Woodmen of America, a fraternal beneficiary society authorized to do business in this state, and received a benefit certificate or policy of life insurance for $2,000, in which the plaintiff in this action was named as beneficiary) The contract of insurance is made up of the application of the insured, the by-laws, rules, and regulations of the association, and the benefit certificate. In June, 1908, Sehwanekamp died. The beneficiary made due proof of death, but the association refused to pay the *531benefit, and this action was commenced…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Insurance Co. v. NewtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Langnecker v. Trustees of the Grand Lodge Ancient Order of United WorkmenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Mayor of Leesburg v. PutnamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Newell v. MeyendorffMontana Supreme Court · 1890
- Supreme Council v. CurdIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- People Ex Rel. Graham v. LindseySupreme Court of Colorado · 1927