The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-12-21

SOMERSET COUNTY.
Adelaide AIarcoux VS.. Societe &c
Blenfaisnance st. Jean Batpists.
Rescript by Savage, j. The by laws q
the defendant corporation, raligloti.s w.
social and beneficial society, prohibit Snu
admission of q person more than nlty
years of age. A memb Der of the society at
the time OF his admission in answer 10
the question propounded by the president
in accordance with the bylaws, declared
that his age WAS then forty ysars-
He was, in fact, atsthat time fifty years.
nine months and seventeen days o1o.
Held, that the declaration Of the members
in regard TO his age was misIepresenta-
tion of u material fact, and that such
Misrepresentation rendered Invalid the
contract with the society.
The plaintiff 8 husband became MEM
Der Of Uhe St. John Baptist BeneVolent
society of Wnterville, an unincorporated
association, July 10, 1877. Tho members
Of this society were Incorporated Deem
Der 81, 1878, under the provisions OF 4.
s., C. SIS. The bylaws Of the association
were adopted by the corporations, april
5, 1887. Tha members of the WaterVliie
society, residing in Fairfield, withdrew
by consent Of the parent society and or
ganized the defendant corporation. Inc
plaintiff husband was one of bhese mem
bers. The old and new societies made a
contract and alliance, so that the mem
Der of each of the societies should pay at
the death of each member the sum OF one
dollar TO his window, the same as before
| their separation" AT It's organization,
the defcndant corporated adopted the
constitution and regulations OF the
Wateryille society, and which are identi-
ca with those in force when the plain
| III IS husband became a member These
by laws absolutely prohibited the admis-
sion OF person who Was more than fifty
years old. Held, that the defendant cor
| poration assumed the obligations per.
tanning to thesmem bership Of the plain
tiff's husband only upon the implied con-
dltlon that his declaration to the Water
vile society, In regard to his age, was
true. The defendant corporation con-
tipued the contract undertaken by tie
parent society and it is liable. in this
particular, only when the old society
would have been. Also that any fact
which rendered the contract invalid,
when so adopted, furnishes good defense
by the defendant corporation to the plain
| tlfi's action upon il.
The laws of the defendant ecciaty pro-
vide that member while retaining his
membership shall forfeit temporarily his
right to sick benefits if his illness is due
to Incompetence, OF II he fails to pay the
monthly contribution promptly in adj
vance, ana In each case, II he afterwards
| pays, the forfeiture is extended through
the month succeeding mia payment. These
! laws further provide shat the defendants
society shall not be liable to a beneficiary
for death benefit. unless the member at
| the time of his death is entitled to sick
benefits. Held, upon the facts reported
| that there was forfeiture OF the con-
i tract in this case upon both grounds. and
that therefore the beneficiary cannot re-
cover the death benefit. ~
Held, that the plaintiffs right under
the contract to recover the expenses Of
worship and burial is contingent upon
valid mem bership of the deceased. His
widow, therefore, is not entitled TO re-
cover under this claim, it appearing that
her husbands membership was invalid
by reason of his age at the time of joining
| the society -
One cannot be said to waive that which
| he does not know Held, that the ds-
| PENDANT corporation did not waive its de-
| fenses by attending tho funeral of the de-
ceased, pursuant to a vote of the society.
as q body and in uniform. The society
| did not have any knowledge OF the true
age of the mernbe until long after mis-
| funeral. Also, that the attendance ut the
| funeral is not waiver OF tho other tie-
fenses. While intemperance and failure
to make prompt payments work for
| fixture Of benefits, they do not work q
| forfeiture of membership.
| Judgment for the defendant.