The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-02-05
CANNOT GET
 ENDOWMENT Aid Association Not Com pelled to Pay. IMPORTANT INSURANCE DECISION Company Had No Right to Promise
 to Pay. supreme Court Yesterday Handed Down an Evsn Dosen Decisions-- FertiIiser Brand Case
 Decided.
IMPORTANT INSURANCE DE CIsION


 Among the even dozen decisions yes terday put out by the Alabama Su- preme Court. was that of the Southern Mutual Aid Association, ct al. vs. Sal lie Watson pro ami, in which the validity and value of certain insurance contracts issued by that company were decided in favor of the defendant or- ganization as in previous test cases involving similar points.
 < This case was appealed from the Montgomery City Court which render ed 8 Judgment in favor of the plaintiff policy holder for $52 on a contract is- sued June 6. 1895. For the past few years it has been a much mooted ques- ton as to whether the Southern Mutual Aid Association was liable for such contracts as was issued to Sallie Wat son. of Montgomery County. It pro- vided. like most other contracts of mutual aid companies, that certain in- demnities should be paid the holders of the certificates in the event of sickness and funeral expenses in case of death, but in addition an early series of com tracts issued by the Southern Mutual Aid provided for an endowment at the end of ten years
 The fights between the Association and the policy -holders has been over this endowment provision of the con tracts. It guafanteed that if the in- sured is living at the end of ten years the company would pay back all that had been paid in weekly premiums less any amount that had been paid out as indemnity for illness. Several of these contracts have matured in the last two or three years and the com pany refused to pay the endowments. They set up the claim that the poli- cies were void as to the endowment clause in that they were issued ultra vires
 In other words, there was never any right under the charter of the As- sociation to issue contracts of such a character. On this contention the As- sociation has won out in the Supreme Court. So the holders of the. certifi- cates will have to content themselves with what indemnities they have re- ceaved during the existence of the contracts. No ehdowments will have to be paid. This also settles the sol- vency of the Southern Mutual Aid which at one time was in question. There was no fraud or imposition" said the opinion of the Supreme Court written by Associate Justice J. R. Dow dell. "and if money was paid under mistake 1t was a mistake of law and not of fact. A mistake of law in sup posing that the Association had authority to repay to the plaintiff at the end of ten years all money paid to 1t less amounts paid In the mean time to the plaintiff in the way of benefits provided in the contract. when. under its charter. 1t had no such authority.
 "The rule Is well established that persons dealing with corporations are bound to take notice of its charter | powers, and the rule is also settled that in the absence of fraud money voluntarily paid under ignorance of the law cannot be recovered back, the only exception being. it seems, that there Is want or total failure of consider ation 1t is then immaterial whether the nfstakesbe one of fact or of law.
 Here there was neither fraud nor imposition. The money was paid with the full knowledge of all the facts, and | as we have said, if there was any mis- | take 1t was one of law and not of fact. Nor was there Q want or total failure l of consideration. It is not denied that for the term of ten years the plaintift was in the case of sickness entitled to sick benefits stipulated in the con- tract on which money was paid. This is consideration sufficient to support the contract, and. it is of no importance that the plaintiff as a matter of fact. was never sick during the period and consequently received no money under
 
 Our conclusion is that the trial court erred in rendering a judgment for the plaintiff, and as the case was tried by the court with a jury tho judgment will be reversed and one here rendered in favor of the defendant"
 The full list of decisions handed down yesterday Is as follows:
 TYSON. c. J.
 Southern Timber & Investment Com pany vs. P. M. Creagh, appeal from Clarke Circuit Court. Reversed and re- handed.
 DOWDELL. J.
 F. M. Prout ct al. V. Joe Williams appeal from Coosa Circuit Court. Af- firmed.
 Fanny Charles Mitchell, ct al. V. Mary Ellen Baldwin, ct al, appeal from Bullock Chancery Court. Reversed and rendered.
 Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v Scruggs and Echols, ap- peal from Morgan Circuit Court. Re- versed and rendered.
 Southern Railway Company V. Jo- Circuit Court. Affirmed.
 Addie M. Rayford V. George w. Faulk, appeal from Mobile Circuit Court. Reversed and remanded.
 Norwich Union Fire Insurance So- ciety V. Agnes Prude. ct al pro ami., appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court. Affirmed.
 Southern Mutual Aid Association, ct al, v. SalIie Watson, by next friend, appeal from Montgomery City Court. ReverRCd and rendered.
 !. c. stouffer v smith h-Davies Hard ware Company. appeal from Bessemer City Court. Reversed and remanded.
 John Norris. ST.. V. WA liam H. Mc- CIellan, appeal from Limestone Circuit Court. Reversed and remanded.
 SIMPSON. J.