Case Name: Burlington Voluntary Relief Department of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. Anna E. White, Administratrix
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1894-06-26
Citations: 41 Neb. 561
Docket Number: No. 5356
Parties: Burlington Voluntary Relief Department of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. Anna E. White, Administratrix.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 561–562

Head Matter:
Burlington Voluntary Relief Department of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. Anna E. White, Administratrix.
Filed June 26, 1894.
No. 5356.
Mutual Insurance Associations in Connection with. Railroad Companies: Membership: Estoppel: Waiver. The questions presented by this case being substantially the same as those decided in Burlington Voluntary Belief Department v. White, 41 Neb., 547, the judgment is affirmed for the same reasons.
Error from the district court of Cass county. Tried below before Chapman, J.
Marquett & Deweese, John H. Ames, and Byron Clark, for plaintiff in error.
Matthew Gering, eontra.

Opinion:
Irvine, C.
This case is based upon the same state of facts as that of Burlington Voluntary Relief Department v. White, 41 Neb., 547, just decided. Here Mrs. White, as administratrix, sues to recover the disability benefits which accrued to White before his death. The trials were separate, and there are some differences in the evidence and in the instructions, but none of them is material. The cases were submitted upon the same briefs, and it is recognized by the parties that upon the principal questions involved the same considerations must control both cases.
Upon an examination of rules 54 and 55 of the associa- ' tion it is perhaps doubtful whether, in the case of the death of a member at a time when disability benefits have accrued, those benefits do not become consolidated with the death benefit and payable to his beneficiary rather than to his personal representative. We do not understand, however, that counsel contend for this construction, nor do we find that the question is raised by the record.
Judgment affirmed.