Earney v. Modern Woodmen of America
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Texas Circuit Court. — Hon. L. B. Woodside, Judge. In order to establish a forfeiture, defendant must, as alleged in their answer, establish the fact that assessment number 5 was levied and ordered collected by their board of directors. The first fact in issue under the pleadings was whether or not this assessment was levied, for May, 1897. Without proof of such levy, notice to deceased, and failure to pay, would not work a forfeiture.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Texas Circuit Court. — Hon. L. B. Woodside, Judge. In order to establish a forfeiture, defendant must, as alleged in their answer, establish the fact that assessment number 5 was levied and ordered collected by their board of directors. The first fact in issue under the pleadings was whether or not this assessment was levied, for May, 1897. Without proof of such levy, notice to deceased, and failure to pay, would not work a forfeiture. There was no offer on the part of defendant in any way to show such levy. This is fatal to the establishment of a forfeiture. Hannum v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
The defendant is organized under the laws of the state of Missouri as a fraternal benevolent association *387with an insurance feature. In January, 1897, Thomas P. Earney became a member of the order. On that day the defendant issued a certificate of insurance on his life for $1,000. Margaret A. Earney and Riley J. Earney, the plaintiffs herein, were named as equal beneficiaries. Thos. P. died August 9, 1897. Margaret A. assigned her interest in the insurance to the plaintiff. The present action is to recover the amount of insurance. The admissions of the defendant were sufficient to make a prima…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stokes v. BurnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Barber v. Hartford Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1916
- King v. Hartford Life & Annuity InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Johnson v. Hartford Life InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912