Court Opinion

ID: 9833118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:27:50.289426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:59.833999
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their argument on rehearing counsel for • appellant have cited and quoted from a number of opinions by other Courts of Civil Appeals of this state, particularly the following: Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World, v. Rothschild, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 463, 40 S. W. 557; United Moderns v. Pike, 76 S. W. 776; Bennett v. Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World, 168 S. W. 1027; Grayson v. Grand Temple, 171 S. W. 489. And it is contended, in effect, that our decision in this case is in conflict with the principles approved in these eases. We have examined and considered thoroughly all of the above cases, and we think it suflicient to say that all of them are cases in which the member of • the order or association, which it was sought to hold liable, had merely failed to pay the regular monthly assessments and dues, and the certificate of the member had been forfeited for that reason, and no facts were presented and established which were sufficient to excuse the default, or to warrant the courts in relieving against the forfeiture incurred.
The first case above mentioned, Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World, v. Rothschild, is quoted at some length, and evidently much relied upon, by counsel for appellant. We think that it may be taken as illustrative in a general way of the nature of the other cases cited and quoted. The essential facts of that case, very briefly stated, were these: Rothschild, the member, was delinquent in the payment of his dues for two months, May and June, and under the terms of the by-laws of the association his certificate of insurance had become forfeited, and could be reinstated only by the payment of all delinquent dues. Some time in July following, and the day previous to his death,, the member, Rothschild, paid to the camp clerk $2 for one of the months for which he owed. May, but still left unpaid and delinquent the dues for the month of June, which he said he would pay in a few days. The camp clerk accepted the payment of the May dues without comment. It was contended that the camp clerk, by accepting the dues for May, and remaining silent when the member,' Rothschild, promised to pay in the future : the dues for June, had thereby led the member, Rothschild, to believe that his beneficiary certificate was still in force and effect. The circumstances showed that the member understood his situation and rights in the matter, and he was not in any way misled by the action of the camp clerk. Truly, as said by Judge Einley in holding the association not liable on the certificate, '“there is no ground upon which the claim of estoppel can rest.”
In this ease now before .us, the camp clerk was the person to give notice to, upon Putnam’s change of occupation. For receiving such notice the camp clerk was the plenary agent of the association. Upon being advised of that fact, it was no doubt his duty to. notify his superior officers that Putnam had éntered the saloon business, just as he-should give such notice when a member became a locomotive fireman, a plow grinder, a grindstone turner, a brass worker, or took up any one of the other occupations calling for an increase in the amount of dues payable. The local clerk was the proper person to demand of Putnam and receive the amount of dues payable, and for nine years demands and receives from Putnam certain amounts-as being all that was due. When it is too late to remedy matters, after the death of Putnam, the oversight or omission of duty *975of the camp clerk or' clerks is quickly found out, the mutual mistake of the parties running through the years is uncovered, and then it is claimed that the position and rights of the association, under the strict letter of the by-laws, are not and cannot be in any way affected, and the onerous burden of forfeiture is to be cast upon the member, who is in truth the less at fault. To approve of such a result would be equivalent to holding that an association like this is exempt from any of the consequences ordinarily arising from the acts of an agent and authorized representative, such as would be recognized and given effect in all other relationships of life, and such a proposition we cannot assent to. See Supreme Lodge, Knights of Pythias, v. Withers, 177 U. S. 260, 267, 20 Sup. Ct. 611, 44 L. Ed. 762, 765.
Counsel for appellant have discussed at some length the general principles on which these fraternal benefit societies, such as appellant, are organized and operate, and seek to found some distinction along that line. We believe we fully understand and appreciate the theory of mutuality of obligation underlying the organization and existence of these societies, with the constitution and by-laws as the bound of union and the measure of each individual member’s obligation to all other members, and of their obligation to him. But after all is said, and looking a.t the laws and rules of this society now before us, the matter resolves itself again simply to this: The camp clerk has been constituted, by all members, we will say, as the person to perform certain special functions within the society. He is to receive notice of changes of occupations; he is to receive and collect dues and assessments; it is the clerk’s particular business to look after these things. The responsibility must rest somewhere, and it has been placed in the camp clerk. It is then only natural and proper that the individual members will rely to a large extent, if not entirely, on the camp clerk in that connection, and surely the society as a whole should bear the responsibility for the acts of the clerk which are exactly in line with his duty. The clerk cannot vary, change, or modify the contract between the member and the society, or excuse its performance by waiving any of the conditions or provisions thereof, it is true; and in this ease the clerk and the member were not undertaking to do this, but, on the contrary, were making an honest effort to comply with its every term. The society must be held to he concluded from long aft-erwards bringing up the question as to the acts of the clerk, in so far as the manner of performing those acts are involved, or the correctness and accuracy of his acts are concerned, and should not be permitted to take advantage of his mere mistakes and omissions.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.