Perth Amboy evening news., 1906-10-13
DEClSIO Ms !
DON'T AGREE
Supreme Court Has Again Re-
versed Itself This Time Re-
garding FraternaI Lodges.
Special to the EVENING NEWS:

opcctdb 20 the EHENINt NE VS.:
TRENTON, Oct. 13:-Following
the discovery a few days ago that the
New Jersey Supreme Court has pro-
mulgated two decisions that are dia-
metrically opposed to each other on
the question of the liability of pro-
perty owners along a public road to
pay their share of the ten per cent.
of the cost of improving a road where
the road was not completed until af-
ter the passage of the new road act Of
1908, it has come to light that the
same court has also reversed itself
on another important legal question.
In this last mentioned case the court
handed down the first decision in
January, this year. In June last it
announced another decision on the
same question that is exactly con-
trary to the first opinion. Both deci-
sions related to the right of fraternal
orders to make binding upon their
members rules adopted after the said
members Joined.
The first case decided was that of
Mrs. Margaret Sautter, of Newark,
against the Supreme Conclave of the
Improved Order of Heptasophs. 1t
was decided January IL, 1906.
Sautter Joined the order in 1899
and received a certificate for $1,000
payable upon proof of death. Sautter
committed suicide in 1904. In
June, 1903, the order adopted a rule
barring payments on certificates in
cases of suicide. Payment on the
Sautter certificate was refused and
the new rule set up as a defence.
Mrs. Sautter brought suit to recover
and the Supreme Court decided in
her favor. Chief Justice Gummere
wrote the opinion, which said: 1.-THE
stipulation of the insured to comply
with the rules, in TINS case conferred
upon the defendant association no
authority to alter the benefit certifl-
cate issued to Sautter by inserting in
it a provision that no benefit should
be paid upon it in case the insured
should commit suicide, and it's at
tempt to make such alteration was
nugatory."
The other case decided was that OF
the state at the relation of George
Strang against Camden Lodge, A. 0.
U. W., of Camden. Strang was made
a member of the loGge in 1881 and
received a benefit certificate for ST.
900. In 1898 the order adopted a
law providing that members who
should engage in the retail liquor
business should be expelled. Strang
engaged in the liquor business in jan
uary, 1905. In May, 1905, the fin
ancier of the lodge refused to accept
Strang's assessment then due on the
ground that he could no longer be a
member. Then Strang brought-the
proceedings for a mandamus to co1A-
nal fhn 1n1or0 IN naanrt nc n u,nr1x.Axuf
and reinstate him as a member. In\
the Supreme Court the case was
argued before Justices G~arretson,
Reed and Fort. Justice Garretson
wrote the opinion. The writ was de-
MED. The syllabus of the opinion
follows:
Where an application for s(bene-,
fit certificate in a fraternal ~associa-
tion contained an agreement by the
applicant that compliance on his part
with all laws, regulations and re-
quirements which are, or may here
after be enacted by said order is the
express condition upon which | am to
| be entitled to participate in the bene-
fit fund and have and enjoy all the
| privileges and benefits of said order,'
a law of the order subsequently,
adopted that ANY meber of the order
who shall after August |, 1898, enter
the business of selling by retail in
%toxicating liquors as a beverage
shall be expelled from the order and
making provision for suspension from
rights in the beneficiary fund, and
rendering the certificate null and
void, is valid and binding upon n
who has obtained a benefit certificate
upon such an application"