The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-06-27
STATE SUPREME COURT |
Case of Mary Cotter VS.. A. O. u.
w. Is Reversed.
THE APPEAL is SUSTAINED
Silver Bow Courts Gave a Judgment
for the Plaintiff-Never Demanded
Hearing Before the Board
OF Arbitration.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.


to-day reversed the case of Mary Cot
ter VS.. the Grand Lodge, A. o. U. W.,
OF Montana, tried in the district court
OF Butte few months ago. The suit
was instituted by the plaintiff to col
leet $1,000 life insurance carried by her
father, Daniel P. Cotter He Joined
Butte lodge, No. 1, in December, 1888.
He died in September, 1895. His daugh-
ter as beneficiary, presented proof and
notice of the death to the local lodge,
which transmitted the same to the
grand recorder, James Sullivan. of Hell
ena. In conformity with the rules and
regulations, Recorder Sullivan present.
ed the notice and proof to the finance
committee of the grand lodge. The
hnance committee rejected the claim
because the report had been received
from the Butte lodge since one had
been filed in March, 1894 showing that
Cotter had been suspended for not pay
ing assessment No. 2, in January, 1894.
The plaintiff instituted suit in the dis
trict court of Silver Bow county for
the full amount of her fathers insur-
ance, $1,000 and recovered Judgment.
The grand lodge appealed from an Or
der Of the lower court denying a new
trial. The appeal cited numerous err
rors on the part of the lower court.
One of the errors set up by the de-
PENDANT which the supreme court deems
the most worthy, was the refusal of the
lower court to admit the offering that
the plaintlff never demanded a hearing
before the board of arbitration of the
grand lodge. although she knew the
finance committee had rejected her
claim. The rules of the society pro-
CHI ha
successfully before the arbitration
committee, the grand lodge and the su-
preme lodge before redress is sought
IN the courts to recover a claim. Plain
tiffs counsel contended that such pro-
visions are void, their express purpose
being that such claim shall be investi-
gated and finally determined within the
order without recourse to law
Inc supreme court in an opin-
ION by Associate Justice Piggott
sees no reason why members of a pure
ly mutual and semi charitable society
may not agree and contract with each
other bylaws of their own making that
au!ure olHerences and controversies
arising out of their relation to each
other and the society shall be finally
determined by the tribunals elected by
themselves,
We feel no hesitancy." says the
court, in declaring that the provisions
are reasonable and Valid in so far at
least as they demand a resort to the
several tribunals of the order as a con-
| altion precedent to maintaining an &C
| ton at law to recover, money judg-
ment upon a death and such is our our
opinion without reference to the clause
that any claimant seeking to enforce a.
claim, without such submission and ap-
peal shall be stopped by virtue hereof
from maintaining a suit or action on
such claim, for the claimant would still
be required by virtue of the other pro-
visions to pursue the course and ex-
haust the remedies prescribed by the
order as prerequisite to the rights of
any before resort to the courts SINH
lar provisions in the laws of like So
cieties have been frequently the sub
jects of judicial inquiry. The view that
they are imperative has been expressed
in but few cases. of which Daimler VS.
grand lodge A. o. u. w, 10 Utah, no.
n Pac. rep. 245, is in type. An extended
and critical examination of the reported
adjudications justifies us in making
the assertion that the substantial unan-
unity of opinion, based upon correct
principles, upholds such provisions as
valid and enforceable so far as they re-
quire as a condition precedent to the
bringing of an action an exhaustion of
the prescribed remedies within the Or
der
Another contention of the plaintiff
was that the grand master workman
and finance committee had not rejected
her claim and that rejection by each
was necessary under the laws of the
society before appeal to the board of
arbitration In discussing this conten-
tion, after quoting the rules of the
lodge, the supreme court says in con-
Guiding its opinion:
! 1T is to be noted that all warrants
| for the payment of money by the grand
| lodge must be signed by the grand mas
| ter workman. When the grand lodge
| itself orders a warrant drawn, the
| grand master has but one duty to per-
| form with respect to 1t. to-wit: The
signing of the warrant. He has no dis
erection in the matter; he is without
| authority to approve or disapprove.
| When, however, the finance committee
approves claim and authorizes war
| rants between sessions of the grand
\ lodge, their action is subject to the ap-
! prevail or disapprova1 of the grand
master workman, for without his con-
! sent to the allowance by the finance
committee, disclosed by his signing the
warrant, the action of the committee is
without effect, If he approves the al
| loWance he signs the warrant for it's
| payment. If he disapproyes, his duty
| is performed when he omits to sign.
His approval, as well as that CT the
| committee is, in the absence of an APP
| peal, required for the valid allowance of
claim; disapproval by either is a
rejection. The finance committee may
| approve claim which the grand mas
| ter workman disapproyes, or the finance
| committee, acting Independently of the
| grand master workman, may refuse to
| allow claim, In either case the re-
| lection is effectual. The grand master
workman has nothing whatever to dc
in the matter of approving or disap-
| proving when the finance committee
| has rejected. In such case his attempt
ed rejection adds nothing to the effect
| already produced by the action of the
| committee. In short, neither the grand
master workman nor the finance COM
| mittee, alone, can allow a claim, but
either may reject, although the other
may favor payment. According to the
theory of the plaintiff an appeal does
not lie when the finance committee APP
| proves and the grand master workman
rejects a claim. Her theory is also that
an appeal does not lie unless the grand
master workman performs the vain and
useless act of disappearing the claim
! already the finance com