The Irish standard., 1906-06-02

! l. ! y l..
| in through it's governing officers with
anything of that character that had
been done, the court believes that it
is the duty to direct verdict for de-
PENDANT, inasmuch as whatever had
been done could be done by the society
only through its governing officers
Il have indicated what l believe to-
be the rule in the case of an ordinary
insurance company. This is not an
ordinary insurance company. This is
brotherhood or fraternal society 1t
as Il fraternity or brotherhood. 1t con-
slsts of numerous persons associated
together for mutual protection to each
other in case of sickness and for the
protection of their families and thsc
dependent on them in sickness or
death. They meet together They
laws and rules. They print those rules.
Those printed rules constitute the con-
tract between the members of this
Order. 1t becomes Il written and
binding obligation. The officers have
no power to do anything except to
carry out and put into effect the rules
of the Order. Failure of officers to
enforce those rules could never ripen
into law of the Order. The neglect
of the members to do their duty. even
with liberation on the part of the Off
GERS thereof. could never set aside the
rules of the Order to which every one
has assented and which is binding
upon them all. 1t would be extra
ordinary if this body of laws, known as
the Constitution of the Catholic Order
of ForesterS. which provides that the
rules shall be established in certain
way and that they shall be amended
in Il certain way. could be nullified by
an occasional failure of member to
fulfill the conditions Of the written
contract into which he has entered
with his brother members. That is a
vicious and wrong theory. There is
not much use of taxing people to
establish schools and teaching people
to read and write and print, if Il
written contract of this kind between
the members of this Order can be so
nullified. 1t is true there always is !,
tendency of some courts for the pur-
pca* to their sympathes to be subtle
to find some means for destroying
written contracts that the parties have
entered into. The cases cited tend to
SHOW that some courts, and some
courts of high standing. have ell
deavored to nullify the contract that
entered into with each other. by per-
hitting it to be shown that here and
there somebody has failed to abide
by the provisions of those rules. and
permitting the deduction therefrom
that no one need conform to the rules
or abide by his written contract But
those cases. $" far as they can sustain
the position of the plaintiff, are not
binding upon this court There is no
authority here. of course, excepting
the Circuit Court above and the SUI
preme Court above, and what any
other court has said is only useful so
far as ii enlghtens and so far as it's
reasoning commends itself to this
court. ...
Now. therefore. on the undisputed
facts as contained in the peadings and
the statements of counsel, the court
is of opinion: First. that no evidence
is rendered tending to show that there
ever had been a waiver of the rules in
favor of the restoration of a person
similarly situated to Dennis F'ahey,
and that therefore counsel would fail
in his proof if that were admissible.
Second. that there is no evidence ten
dered tending to show that the govern
ing body of this defendant had knowl-
edge thereof or assented thereto. even
though such things had existed.
Th@rd. and fundamently that these
governing officers have exactly the
power as agents of this brotherhood
that is given to them in the printed
rules. and no more andsno power to
waive the requirements of the rules
being invested in them. the plaintiff
could not recover under the conditions
of this case. Therefore. gentlemen of
the jury as Il matter of law. in which
you have no discretion. the court di-
reefs you to choose a foreman, and the
foreman will sign the verdict for de-
PENDANT.
OVER THE NORTHWEST.
Nj Al