Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-12-21

to what was meant by presumption of
death as stated in said letter. and was
advised that a presumption or death from
absence arose after seven years. Being
unable to have the policy reduced. plain
tiff continued to make the payments up
to and including June 5, 1912, and the
payments were accepted by the defend
ant with fun knowledge of the facts
1.-The single question" says Justice An
derson in his opinion, lis whether section
5 of law 80 of the laws of the National
Union applied to the policy of insurance
or benefit certificate sued upon. II SO,
Judgment is to be entered for the de-
PENDANT. If not, judgment should be Tor
plaintiff"
Runs Counter to Charter.
/ The court proceeds to determine that
the the bylaw in question runs counter
to the charter of the company. counter
to the law Of the land and is unreason-
able. AS to the first proposition the court
points out that it is a part of the settled
law of Ohio, where the company is char
tered. that the law creates a presump-
ton of death from an absence of seven
years, it does not seem to the court that
the defendant had any power, under the
law creating ii, to pass a bylaw 1ncon-
sistent with said law. and the bylaw
under consideration appears 10 be clearly
inconsistent Herewith.
"A bylaw can confer no new powers,
says the court, upon a corporation. It's
powers are based wholly upon the char
ter. and they must be consistent there
with. Therefore, the function of by
law is simply to provide for the procedure
or method of administration within the
limitations of the charter and constitu-
ton. The charter was never amended
to permit the Incorporation of a pro-
vision of the character under considera-
10
bylaws of the defendant, and conse-
quently a bylaw embodying such pro-
vision is of no force or effect.
such being the limitations upon the
power of the defendant to control the
subject-matter under consideration by
, provisions in Its constitution and bylaws,
| it follows that the defendant could not
| impose the restriction in question upon
| any of its members otherwise than by
| expressly reciting it III the policies OF
! certificates themselves.
Opposes D. C. Law.
| On the second proposition the court
finds the bylaw in opposition to the OK
press statute in the District Of Columbia
which provides for the presumption OF
| death after an absence OF seven years.
| THE bylaw is also unreasona bIe,' con
| tinues Justice Anderson. because it with
| draws from the beneficiary. without no.
| tice to the insured and after his disap-
pearance, the protection which had beer
| left by him Tor his wife and which il
| was the very object and purpose of the
| policy or certificate tc provide.
| 1T is further unreasonable because il
! seeks to alter the provision of the policy
| or certificate requiring payment to be-
made upon sufficient proof OF the death
The words sufficient proof clearly meant
| any proof which was sufficient to the
law. Yet by this bylaw the defendant
| seeks to impose a requirement that &
| greater degree of proof shall be furnished
| than that which the law recognizes as
sufficient Manifestly, it will not do fol
the defendant to provide what evidence
| will be satisfactory to it. When the Law
| is satisfied it becomes of no eonsaauance