Case Name: Marion L. Evans, as Executrix, etc., of Griffith Evans, Deceased, Respondent, v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum, and James E. Bird, Regent of Rome Council, No. 150, of the Royal Arcanum, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-11
Citations: 181 A.D. 916
Docket Number: 
Parties: Marion L. Evans, as Executrix, etc., of Griffith Evans, Deceased, Respondent, v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum, and James E. Bird, Regent of Rome Council, No. 150, of the Royal Arcanum, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 181
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
Fourth Department,
November, 1917.
Marion L. Evans, as Executrix, etc., of Griffith Evans, Deceased, Respondent, v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum, and James E. Bird, Regent of Rome Council, No. 150, of the Royal Arcanum, Appellants.
Insurance — benevolent association — suspending member — effect of injunction.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the Oneida county clerk’s office February 24, 1917.
Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of Crouch, J., delivered at Special Term. [Reported in 101 Misc. Rep. 720.] All concurred, except Kruse, P. J., and Foote, J., who dissented, each in a separate memorandum, and voted for reversal.

Opinion:
Kruse, P. J. (dissenting):
I am unable to see how the injunction order kept the life insurance certificate in force without payment of the assessments in full. As it seems to me, the most the injunction did was to prevent the defendant from taking affirmative action to suspend or forfeit the certificate. But I think no affirmative action was necessary upon the part of the defendant to forfeit this certificate. While the injunction order may have had the effect to prevent the member from being suspended from the ordinary lodge privileges, I think it did not have the effect to keep the insurance in effect. If I am right so far it is not necessary to consider the question as to whether the plaintiff could be substituted in this action and recover upon the certificate. Furthermore, it is claimed that question has been decided in her favor by our previous decision, which affirmed the order of substitution. (Evans v. Supreme Council, Royal Arcanum, 171 App. Div. 884.)