Genest v. L'Union St. Joseph
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract by a member of the defendant society, to recover $20, alleged to be due the plaintiff according to the by-laws of the society.
Read the full summary
Contract by a member of the defendant society, to recover $20, alleged to be due the plaintiff according to the by-laws of the society. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Knowlton, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The defendant is a charitable and benevolent association, duly incorporated under the laws of this Commonwealth, composed exclusively of French Canadians, and governed by the following by-laws, among others: “ Article 13. When an application for benefit is made to the Union by a sick member, the president names two members to visit him,…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
The only question is whether the plaintiff had become capable of working on December 10, 1884, so that he was no longer entitled to the benefit of the Union, under his *420notice. This was a question of fact, and must be deemed to have been conclusively decided in favor of the plaintiff, unless the detailed facts are inconsistent with such a finding. On examining the detailed facts reported by the judge,, we cannot say that the plaintiff might not be deemed “ incapable of working,” within the just meaning of the by-law. The fact of his having done some work is not the final test. The by-law must…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Rezendes v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Indiana Life Endowment Co. v. ReedIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Meley's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Kotick, Et Ux. v. Durrant, Et Ux.Supreme Court of Florida · 1940
- Reno Lodge No. 99 v. Grand LodgeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.