Court Opinion

ID: 9830787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:29:12.887869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.861984
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[6] Appellants Shield, Turner, Hunter, and Woodward, directors of appellant association, in their motion for rehearing insist that the judgment herein against them is unjust and inequitable, inasmuch as they had no pecuniary interest in the matter, but merely acted as arbiters between the association and its members. If these directors believed that the deceased, Wester, obtained the certificate herein sued on by means of fraudulent representations as to his age, it was proper that they should refuse to draw the money from the treasury and pay the same over to his beneficiary. -Had they stopped at this, the beneficiary upon obtaining judgment against the association would have gotten the money which was put in the treasury for her. But they did not stop at refusing to pay this money to the appel-lee. They drew it out of the treasury and appropriated it to another purpose. In so doing they rendered themselves personally liable. If the association proceeds to collect the assessment rendered due by the death of the insured, as it should have done in the beginning and as it was thei duty of the directors to have done, there will be money in the treasury to pay appellee’s certificate.
[7] Appellant, the association, in its motion for a rehearing says that this court should have looked to the pleadings only, and not to the facts, in determining whether or not it was suable. The plaintiff’s petition alleged that the association was a voluntary, unincorporated association, doing business as a fraternal life insurance association. Such an association is suable under the statute in this state. Acts 1909, p. 443; Acts 1907, p. 240. Under the facts in evidence, justice to its directors demands that judgment should be rendered against it, as they used the money to pay another just claim against the association.