Case Name: KOETH v. KNIGHTS TEMPLAR'S & MASONS' LIFE INDEMNITY CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-01-18
Citations: 55 N.Y.S. 768
Docket Number: 
Parties: KOETH v. KNIGHTS TEMPLAR'S & MASONS’ LIFE INDEMNITY CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 55
Pages: 768–769

Head Matter:
KOETH v. KNIGHTS TEMPLAR'S & MASONS’ LIFE INDEMNITY CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
January 18, 1899.)
Mutual Life Insurance— Alter avion of Policy—Evidence.
On an issue whether an amendment to the constitution of a mutual life insurance company applied to a policy issued prior to its adoption, evidence that the members unanimously adopted it, and that the holder of the policy in question voted for it, is admissible.
Action by Christina Koeth against the Knights Templar’s & Masons’ Life Indemnity Company. There was a verdict for plaintiff, to which defendant filed exceptions, which were ordered to be heard by thé appellate division in the first instance.
New trial ordered.
Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and FOLLETT, ADAMS, WARD, and Mclennan, jj.
George F. Yeoman, for plaintiff.
Eugene Van Voorhis, for defendant.

Opinion:
FOLLETT, J.
January 14, 1896, sections 1 and 2 of the so-called constitution of the defendant were duly amended, by which it is asserted by the defendant that the contract between it and the insured was amended in an important particular. On the contrary, it is contended by the plaintiff that an amendment of the constitution duly adopted according to the provisions of the original constitution did not affect outstanding policies. The defendant offered to show that there were no votes cast in opposition to the proposed amendment, which was excluded on the plaintiff's objection, and that Augustus M. Koeth voted in favor of the amendment, which was excluded on the plaintiff's objection. To these rulings the defendant excepted. These rulings were error. It was competent for the defendant to show that the insured expressly assented January 14, 1896, to a change of the contract existing between him and the defendant as to the manner of giving notices of assessments, and when such assessments became payable.
For this error the defendant's exceptions should be sustained, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the defendant to abide the event. All concur, except WARD, J., not voting.