Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-11


land no one claiming under it shall be
entitled TO the recovery OF any money
thereon"
The old certificate made it abundant
ly clear that after the contract had been
avoided no defaulting pclicy-holder, or
any one claiming under him, could re-
cover any money under the policy.
This additional language in the new
certificate could not have been employ
ed simply to express that idea.
II must have been intended to en-
brace others than the delinquent GER
tihcate-holder and his privles, and who
could those others have been but the
Association and members Of the AssO-
citation. The claim which is asserted
by the plaintiffs in these causes is GER
tainly claim against the surviving
members of the Association under the
certificate Of membership which those
I survivors accepted from the AssOcia-
| tion. 1t is not a claim under their ap-
plication for membership, for the appli-
cation by itself constituted no contract.
and when it became a contract by the
acceptance Of the company it was made
upon the face Of the certificate a part
thereof.
There is no obligation imputed to
these certificate holders in this record
under any other contract. express or
implied. and If there be no obligation
under the contract set ont in their GER
tiiicates Of membership there can be no
liability upon them. am therefore of
opinion that as to the holders OF this
latter class Of certificates Of member
ship there is 10 liability to the plain
tli's in these causes.
The holders Of the first certificates Of
membership constitute an intermediate
class between the policy-holders and
the holders Of the later certificates Of
member hip, and there is much more
difficulty in constituting their conirac..
have already quoted the defeasance
clau.e in these contracts and contrasted
il with the corresponding clause in the
later certificates. The change Of Ian
guage in this clause would ordinarily
indicate a purposed change in the CON
tract. especially when that change Of
language is so marked, and if the con-
suuction of this contract depended only
upon the construction Of this dcfeasance
clause, it would be difficult for me to
understand it otherwise. But there are
other clauses Of the contract, as 20
which no substantial or even literal
change ias been made. I'm connection
with these the meaning Of this clause is
90 he interpreted.
Let us then read ,he contract as if
he GCiCasauce clause was not IN il.
" bat, then, are the Undertakings Of /
tie parties:
Tie assured promises 10 pay his NOR |
tuary assessments within thirty day
after cate Of notice
The Association promises 10 make /
tLc assessments ana 20 pay the amount |
collected from them within ninety days |
a.ier proof Of death. This is the whole .
Of the express promise Of the company.
The written contract is rs silent as
death as to any obligation Of the COM
any with regard to the unpaid assess
acats. IF it was in the contemplation
f the parties that those unpaid assess
lents were TO be considered as debts
0 tle company. this silence is most cN-
raordinary. IL debts were due they
rere debts due 10 the company as
trustees for the death claimant.
Iley were very small IN amount, and
The debtors were contemplated to be
,cattGed over many States, and the
-eccSsary trouble and expense in at
tempting to enforce the collection Of
hese small debts, and the payment
over from time to time as the small re-
.uTns might come into the treasury Of
he company, would apparently be
heavy bwden upon the company. If
his burden had been contemplated it
would have been a strange oversight IL
heSe contracting parties to omit from
he written instruments any cXplana-
ion Of the understanding upon which
he company assumed this trust, and
he ccrtiiicate-holders accepted the ex-
cution Of this trust. The absence Of
ny such explanation is a potential in
ication that no such burden was con-
omplated.
Now, then, let US read in IN con-
ection this defeaSauce clause. il does
cad that the holder of the certificate
grees and accepts on the condition
hat by reason Of his default the GER
fcate shall he null and void and of no
fleet. There is great force in the con-
eniion that this language. being an
greemcnt by the holder as to the con-
aquenceS Of his own apparent default,
should be construed most strictly
,ainst him, and being 50 construed
hould only release him from dues and
sseS>ments subsequent to his default. !
ut the force Of this contention rests
pon The idea that his non-payment was {
} be a breach of faith on his part, and !
OF the exercise Of an election like that
'blhNN ~ NllN dNohlNG III ltEu- |
II insurance companies to con-
nue. bls insurance by pay :
,ent or surrender it by non-payment, :
nd upon the further idea that the OBJ !
cation TO pay after his default the =
leS and assessments as to which he
as delinquent would be burthensome
him hut beneficial to the company.
hen, however, in the light Of the pre-
ding clauses Of the contract TO which
e have just referred it appears con- I,
licuously manifest that the retention d
any obligation on his part TO pay
ese dues and assessments imposed
ION the other party to the contract a
lrden, which 1t was as much the in y
rest of the company to avoid as it p
as Of the certificate to avoid
yment of bis dues and assessments. al
is argument from the phraseology of k
c defessance clause loses much. if not
j, Of its force. al
If this record does not show allitm-
yely it does show negatively that the II
npany never recognized any such fu
rden, and that none among the many pc
whom it has paid death losses has
l Il