Case Name: POKREFKY v. DETROIT FIREMEN'S FUND ASS'N
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1902-06-03
Citations: 131 Mich. 38
Docket Number: docket No. 141; docket No. 1
Parties: POKREFKY v. DETROIT FIREMEN’S FUND ASS’N.
Judges: Hooker, C. J., Moore and Montgomery, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 38–46

Head Matter:
POKREFKY v. DETROIT FIREMEN’S FUND ASS’N.
1. Benefit Societies — Change of By-Laws — Modification of Benefits — Assent of Member — Consideration.
The assent of a member of a beneficiary association to a change in its by-laws, whereby certain benefits are increased and others diminished, is not without consideration, and hence need not be in writing, nor by any express agreement.
3. Same — Question for Jury.
The trustees of a beneficiary association, after decedent became a member thereof, adopted an amendment to the by-laws, increasing the sick benefits, decreasing the death benefits, and increasing the membership dues. Decedent paid his assessments and increased dues without protest. He also stated to a member that he was satisfied with the changes made. Held, that the question whether he had assented to the change, so as to be bound thereby, was properly submitted to the jury.
Error to Wayne; Carpenter, J.
Submitted April 25, 1902
(docket No. 141);
opinion filed June 3, 1902.
Rehearing granted January 5, 1903;
resubmitted October 6, 1903
(docket No. 1);
former opinion affirmed November 3, 1903.
Assumpsit by Annie Pokrefky, individually and as guardian of Charles Pokrefky, a minor, against the Detroit Firemen’s Fund Association, to recover for death benefits. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
James D. May (Robert T. Speed, of counsel), for appellant.
Edwin Henderson, for appellee.

Opinion:
Grant, J.
For a statement of the case we refer to 121 Mich. 456 (80 N. W. 240). The case was then reversed, and new trial ordered. That trial has been had, resulting in a verdict in favor of the defendant. The sole question litigated upon the second trial was whether Mr. Pokrefky had assented to or waived the change in the by-laws so as to be bound by such change. The question was left to the jury, who found such assent or waiver. The court instructed the jury that they must find "that there was on his part a clear and explicit understanding as to his rights in the matter, and that he intended to waive those rights; and that the burden of proof was upon the defendant to establish such waiver." The sole question is, Was there any testimony reasonably tending to show such waiver ?
Upon the last trial defendant contended that Pokrefky had not signed any protest against this amendment to the by-laws. The jury by their verdict have established the fact that he did not. The matter was evidently very generally discussed by the members of the association, and the most of them took sides for or against the amendment. Mr. Dupont, one of the officers of the fire department, testified that Mr. Pokrefky told him that "he [Pokrefky] was well satisfied with $1,500, and $5 a week for injuries with pay, and $10 for sickness without pay." By the bylaws the dues were increased from $1 quarterly to $1 monthly. Mr. Pokrefky before his death paid these dues without protest, and each assessment that had been levied under the amendment since it was adopted. Counsel for plaintiff contend that he was in the position of a debtor, charged with no obligation to speak; citing Chippewa Lumber Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 80 Mich. 116 (44 N. W. 1055). The facts in the two cases are dissimilar. While not perhaps controlling, it is significant that Mr. Pokrefky paid the increased dues, making no protest. If the association could not change the amount to be paid upon his death, for the same reason it could not charge him more for his dues than were provided when he joined. He could have retired from the association instead of paying the increased fees and receiving certain benefits from the change. He should have, at least, protested, and tendered the fees required by the original by-laws, unless he desired to waive them.
We think there was evidence for the jury, and the judgment is affirmed.
Hooker, C. J., Moore and Montgomery, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.