Page images
PDF
EPUB

to the probate court as paid. That account is | Italiana against Edward J. Leyden. Verdict still pending in the probate court. was directed for piaintiff, and case reported. Judgment on verdict.

[3] As was said by Knowlton, J., in Ewing v. King, 169 Mass. 97, 102, 47 N. E. 597, 598: "The statute is remedial, and it expressly provides that a judgment under it in favor of a plaintiff shall not affect any payment or distribution from the estate of the deceased person made before the filing of the bill. Its operation is not limited to cases where the failure to sue seasonably was due to such fraud, accident, or mistake as would be a ground for equitable relief if there were no statute."

Under the special facts of this case as established by the master's report, we cannot say that his findings are clearly wrong, or that the conclusion of the single justice that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the statute was not right. That she was entitled to compensation for her faithful services was not questioned by her brother in his lifetime, nor disputed by the executors. She apparently relied upon their assurance that during her absence in the West they would attend to its allowance by the probate court without further action on her part. She and those representing her estate were in no way responsible for the delay of the defendants in calling up the account in court, or in the proceedings before the auditor. McMahon v. Miller, 192 Mass. 241, 78 N. E. 457; Ryan v. Lyon, 212 Mass. 416, 99 N. E. 169. See Carroll's Case, 114 N. E. 285 (Nov. 28, 1916).

The defendants' exceptions to the master's report were rightly overruled.

Decree affirmed.

(225 Mass. 540)

Silvio Martinelli and W. G. Brownson, both of Springfield, for plaintiff. Leary, Cummings & Leary and David E. Lavigne, all of Springfield, for defendant.

LORING, J. This is an action against a deputy sheriff for a false return. The facts were these: One Teresa Fortini sued out a writ against the plaintiff corporation and committed it to the defendant for service. The defendant served on a stranger and made return that he had served upon the corporation. The result was that the plaintiff corporation was defaulted, the case went to judgment, and the sum of $300 damages and $8.40 costs was collected by Teresa from a savings bank which had been summoned as trustee in the original action. The original action was brought to recover mortuary dues to which Teresa was entitled if her husband was a member of the plaintiff corporation on the day of his death. The sheriff contended that on the evidence introduced by him the jury were warranted in finding that Teresa's husband was a member in good standing at that time. If he was the damages suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the false return were nominal. If he was not the damages suffered by the plaintiff corporation amount to the sum collected by Teresa on execution. The judge directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount collected on execution and reported the case to this court

SOCIETA UNIONE FRATELLANZA ITAL- "with the stipulation that, if this direction

IANA v. LEYDEN.

(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Hampden. Jan. 8, 1917.)

1. INSURANCE 761-MUTUAL BENEFIT SoCIETY-REINSTATEMENT OF MEMBER-DocTOR'S CERTIFICATE.

Constitution of a mutual benefit insurance society requiring as condition to readmission to membership on return of a member who has left the country a certificate of its physician that he is "physically and mentally" sound is not satisfied by one that he is "still sick with indigestion, but improving.'

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1924; Dec. Dig. 761.] 2. INSURANCE 763 MUTUAL BENEFIT WAIVER OF PROVISION OF CONSTITUTION. Certificate of doctor required by constitution of mutual benefit insurance society as a condition to readmission of member who having left the country returns cannot be waived by the corporation itself, that is, through its members, so as to raise an estoppel, by vote of the members undertaking to readmit the member and subsequent acceptance and retention of dues, there being no course of dealing showing abandonment of the provision of the constitution, but this being the first attempt to over

rule it.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1925; Dec. Dig. 763.]

Report from Superior Court, Hampden County; Henry A. King, Judge.

Action by the Societa Unione Fratellanza

was right, judgment is to be entered upon the verdict; otherwise judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff in the nominal damages of one dollar."

At the trial the sheriff admitted that he was liable. On this admission the judge was right in directing a verdict for the plaintiff in some sum. He admitted further that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum collected on execution in the original action unless on the evidence introduced by him (the defendant) the jury could have found that the husband of Teresa was a member in good standing at the time of his death. This authorized the direction of a verdict in the sum for which the verdict was rendered if on the evidence the jury were not warranted in finding that the husband was a member in good standing at the time in question. The judge in effect ruled that the jury were not warranted in finding that the husband was a member in good standing on the day of his death. The correctness of that ruling is the question now before us.

The facts put in evidence by the sheriff on which he contended that the jury could find that the husband of Teresa was a member in good standing at the time of his death were as follows: The husband left the Unit

ed States for Italy on March 2, 1911. At that time he was a member in good standing. The Constitution of the plaintiff corporation provides that any member leaving the United States shall have neither the rights nor the duties of a member during his absence. It further provides that on returning to the United States he can be readmitted to membership provided within one month of his arrival in this country he presents to the secretary of the corporation "a certificate from the society's physician, declaring him to be physically and mentally sound and readmissible." Teresa's husband returned to the United States on May 2, 1911. On May 5, 1911, he went to the office of the society's physician and obtained from him the following certificate:

"This is to certify that I have examined Mr. Luigi Fortini, and find him still sick with indigestion, but improving."

On the evening of that day this certificate was presented to a meeting of the plaintiff corporation at which a quorum was present and the corporation in effect voted or the jury were warranted in finding that the corporation in effect voted to readmit the husband. Thereafter he paid his dues for May and the five succeeding months. These dues have never been returned. At a meeting of the plaintiff corporation held in November, 1911, a member called to the attention of the meeting the fact that Luigi had never become a member because he had failed to produce the proper certificate from the society's physician. The president was about to put to vote the question whether Luigi was or was not a member when the member in question took the position that such a vote was unnecessary. Thereupon the president adopted that position and ordered the corresponding secretary to notify Luigi that he was not a member of the society. Thereafter the corporation struck off his name from the list of members and refused to accept any dues from him, although monthly dues were regularly tendered by him until the day of his death. He died in April, 1912.

[1] We take up first the question whether the certificate presented by Teresa's husband was or could have been accepted by the cor

poration as a compliance with this provision of the constitution. We assume that the certificate could be accepted as a compliance with the constitutional provision if it complied with it in substance. Did it? What the corporation's physician certified to was that the husband is "still sick with indigestion, but improving." Indigestion is a neutral term. Some forms of indigestion are compatible with the person in question being physically and mentally sound. Other forms of indigestion are not compatible with that. Indigestion may mean that for temporary

functional reasons a man's food does not agree with him. But indigestion may be the manifestation of disease which would ren

der the patient physically unsound. Indigestion sometimes spells cancer; sometimes peritonitis or appendicitis; and sometimes gastric ulcers. The physician of the corporation went no further than to certify that Teresa's husband was suffering from indigestion. Which kind of indigestion he was suffering from the physician did not state. We take the question as it stood when the certificate was presented without regard to the fact that a month later an operation was performed on the husband for cancer of the stomach. Possibly what we have just said as to indigestion goes beyond the judicial knowledge of the court. However that may be, we are of opinion that a certificate that a man is "still sick with indigestion" is not equivalent to a certificate that he is "physically and mentally sound" and cannot be accepted as such.

[2] The other contention put forward by the defendant is that the plaintiff corporation has waived its right to require the certificate called for by the constitution as a condition of readmission and that it is now estopped to set up that defense. He bases that contention on the action of the members of the corporation at the meeting of May 5 (in effect undertaking to readmit Teresa's husband to membership) and on the acceptance and retention of the dues paid by him for that and the succeeding five months. He relies on these as acts of the corporation as distinguished from acts of its officers. He concedes on the authority of Burbank v. Boston Police Relief Ass'n, 144 Mass. 434, 11 N. E. 691, McCoy V. Roman Catholic Mutual Ins. Co., 152 Mass 272, 25 N. E. 289, and Lyon v. Royal Society of Good Fellows, 153 Mass. 83, 26 N. E. 236, that the provision of the constitution here in question (requiring the physician's certificate as a condition of readmission) could not have been waived by the officers of the corporation. But he contends that it can be and was waived by the corporation itself and that where pursuant to action by the corporation itself monthly dues are received and retained by it a waiver and estoppel comes into existence which prevents the corporation setting up noncompliance with such a provision of the constitution. That is a question which was left open in Burbank v. Boston Police Relief Ass'n, ubi supra, 144 Mass. at p. 437, 11 N. E. 691, and in Lyon v. Royal Society of Good Fellows, ubi supra, 153 Mass. at p. 86, 26 N. E. 236.

Teresa's right to mortuary dues depends the plaintiff corporation: upon these provisions of the constitution of

"The family of the deceased member shall receive from this society as many times one dollar as there are active members in the society at the time of the death of the member." "At the death of a member of this society, ev ery member shall pay One ($1) dollar as mortu

ary dues."

That is to say, Teresa's right to mortuary dues depends upon the liability of each mem

ber of the corporation to pay one dollar in | bers present at a meeting of the corporation case Luigi was a member of the corporation undertakes to do so. Neither body has a right on the day of his death. In other words the to override the constitution and the result is question we have to decide is the same question which would have arisen if the plaintiff corporation had undertaken upon the death of Luigi to collect from each member of the corporation one dollar upon the groùnd that mortuary dues were due to Teresa. If such an action had been brought could the corporation have maintained it? Suppose the member sued had set up in defense:

"The constitution of the corporation provides that a person whose membership has lapsed cannot be readmitted unless he produces the certificate of the corporation's physician that he is physically and mentally sound at the date when he applies for readmission."

the same in each case. It follows that although the question was left open in Burbank v. Boston Police Relief Ass'n, 144 Mass. 434, 437, 11 N. E. 691, and in Lyon v. Royal Society of Good Fellows, 153 Mass. 83, 86, 26、 N. E. 236, the case at bar is within the principle on which those two cases and McCoy v. Roman Catholic Mutual Ins. Co., 152 Mass. 272, 25 N. E. 289, were decided.

The

It appeared that between the May meeting and that in November the corporation paid Luigi sick benefits for thirteen weeks. amount of the sick benefit paid to Luigi and the amount of the monthly dues paid by him are not set forth in the report. It is hardly likely that monthly dues for five months exceed the amount of sick benefits for thirteen weeks. If they do not there is nothing now in the hands of the corporation to be returned to Luigi's representatives.

From the fact that it is not within the power of the members of the corporation to waive a provision of the constitution it follows that no estoppel arises from the acceptance of dues by the corporation pursuant to a vote by which the corporation undertakes It is admitted, or for the purposes of the to override the provisions of its constitution. present discussion it must be admitted, that The corporation cannot do by indirection Luigi did not present such a certificate when what it cannot directly do. If by chance in the members present at the meeting in May the case at bar any money so paid is now in undertook to readmit him. Why the mem- its hands the executor or administrator of bers present at the meeting in May under-Luigi can recover it from the corporation. In took to readmit him does not appear. It does that respect the case is within the decision not appear whether they thought that the of this court in Lyon v. Royal Society of certificate presented by him was sufficient or Good Fellows, 153 Mass. 83, 26 N. E. 236. whether they thought it insufficient and undertook to override the constitution. And it, is immaterial which view was taken by the members present at the May meeting. So long as the constitution is unchanged no action could be taken by the corporation which admitted a person to membership and so admitted him to the class insured by the other members unless he had complied with the conditions of the constitution defining the class who can be admitted as members. If the constitution had provided in terms that this condition as to the admission of members could not be waived or changed by the corporation (unless the constitution was changed) it would have added nothing to the provisions of the constitution already set forth. The very purpose of putting the provision as to the admission of members in the constitution is to make certain that neither the officers of the corporation, nor the corporation itself can admit to membership persons who are outside the class defined. There is no pretense in the case at bar that the constitution had been changed or that the members present at the meeting in May could change the constitution at that meeting. is provided in the constitution that:

It

Cases like the case at bar where the right which it is claimed has been waived is created by the constitution stand on a different footing from cases where the right claimed to have been waived is created by the contract entered into between the beneficiary corporation and the member. Where a right has been brought into being by contract between the beneficiary corporation and the member and the right in question is one which the beneficiary corporation was at liberty to bring into existence or not to bring into existence (as it in its discretion might choose to do) the receipt of dues after there has been a breach of such a contract right is a waiver of it. Rice v. New England Mutual Aid Society, 146 Mass. 248, 15 N. E. 624, and cases like it, are cases of that kind, that is to say cases where the right held to have been waived was not created by the To that answer of a member in an action beneficiary corporation's constitution. to collect from him one dollar to pay mortu- cases like Rice v. New England Mutual Aid ary dues on the death of Luigi Fortini there Society, see Crossman v. Mass. Benefit Assoc., is no answer. In other words, there is no 143 Mass. 435, 438, 9 N. E. 753; Rindge v. difference between the case where officers of New England Mutual Aid, 146 Mass. 286, 15 mutual beneficiary corporations undertake N. E. 628; Shea v. Mass. Benefit Ass'n, 160 to override the provisions of the constitution Mass. 289, 35 N. E. 855, 39 Am. St. Rep. 475; defining the class of persons who can be ad- Campbell v. Supreme Lodge, Knights of Pythmitted as members and so become insured by ias, 168 Mass. 397, 400, 47 N. E. 109; McNichthe other members and the case where the olas v. Prudential Ins. Co., 191 Mass. 304, 308,

"Any modification or addition must be proposed at a meeting and voted for at the next meeting."

For

IN RE MONEYWEIGHT SCALE CO.

74)

the Supreme Judicial Court to establish exceptions should show all material facts in order The report of a commissioner appointed by that the court may decide whether the trial Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. 55(4).1 judge was correct in disallowing the exceptions. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions, 3. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF 55(4)-PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH-JUDGE'S CERTIFICATE.

Golden Star, 212 Mass. 289, 98 N. E. 1039, 12. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF 55(4)-PROCEEDAnn. Cas. 1913D, 345; Insurance Company v. Norton, 96 U. S. 234, 24 L. Ed. 689. We have INGS TO ESTABLISH examined the cases relied on by the defendPORT. COMMISSIONER'S REant and with one possible exception find nothing in them requiring special notice. The possible exception is the case of Draper v. Oswego Fire Relief Ass'n, 190 N. Y. 12, 82 N. E. 755. In that case it seems to have been assumed that a defense founded upon a bylaw of a co-operative fire insurance company Icould be waived by the company. case it was held that on the evidence there In that that case was an assumption made without The assumption made in

was no waiver.

discussion.

So far as appears the attempt which was made at the May meeting to override the provision of the constitution of the plaintiff corporation here in question was the first time that the plaintiff corporation had undertaken to override it. In other words there was no evidence in the case at bar that warranted a finding that this provison of the constitution had been abandoned by it. In that respect this case stands on a different footing from the decision of this court in Crowley v. A. O. H. Widows' and Orphans' Fund, 222 Mass. 228, 110 N. E. 276. In that case there was evidence that the by-law there in question had been abandoned. dence in that case that during a period of There was evieleven years next before the time there in question fifty-eight instances occurred in which a late payment had been accepted from the member in question alone without the corporation requiring the certificate of good health being produced which the by-laws required in case a forfeiture was to be waived. It was under these circumstances that this court held in that case that the jury could find that the by-law in question had been abandoned and was no longer in force.

It follows from what has been said that there was no evidence warranting a finding that Luigi Fortini was readmitted to membership in the plaintiff corporation, and under the admissions of the defendant the judge was right in directing the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount collected on execution with interest. By the terms of the report judgment is to be entered upon the verdict and it is so ordered.

(225 Mass. 473)

In re MONEYWEIGHT SCALE CO. (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Essex. Jan. 6, 1917.)

1. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF 55(4)

[ocr errors]

PROCEED

disallowance as true unless overcome by other The commissioner should treat the statements contained in the judge's certificate of evidence.

Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. 55(4).] [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions, 4. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF 55(4) considered a proper bill, and the judge's certifiINGS TO ESTABLISH-MATTER CONSIDERED. PROCEEDcate, but made no direct finding regarding the Where the commissioner reported what he considered on the facts revealed by the reports and the certificate. facts stated in the certificate, the case will be

Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. 55(4).]
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions,
5. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF 55(4)-PROCEED-

amended bill was agreed to by both parties save
INGS TO ESTABLISH-PROOF.
as to a single exception before disallowance, the
Where the commissioner did not find that an
case will be considered as if no such agreed
bill was presented for allowance.

[ocr errors]

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions,
6. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF 55(4)
Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. 55(4).]
fore the Supreme Judicial Court, the court is
INGS TO ESTABLISH-MATTERS CONSIDERED.
PROCEED-
confined to the bill tendered to the judge and
In a proceeding to establish exceptions be-
which the petition seeks to establish.

Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. 55(4).j
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions,
7. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF

55(1)

juris because the judge was presumably fair
INGS TO ESTABLISH-CHARACTER.
PROCEED-
Such proceedings are regarded as strictissimi
and is not a party to the proceeding.

Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 90; Dec. Dig. 55(1).]
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions,
8. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF ~55(4)
INGS TO ESTABLISH-COMMISSIONER'S FIND-
PROCEED-
INGS.

[ocr errors]

consistent with the statement in the certificate
of disallowance that petitioner presented the
Findings of the commissioner held not in-
alternative of allowing the bill as filed or dis-
allowing it as a whole.

Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. 55(4).)
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions,
9. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF 56(2)-CERTIFI-
CATE OF DISALLOWANCE-CONTENTS.

Rev. Laws, c. 173, § 107, requiring the trial
court to file a certificate when disallowing ex-
ceptions, requires such a narration as may be
necessary to make clear his action and the rea-
sons therefor.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions,

CATE OF DISALLOWANCE.

INGS TO ESTABLISH-COMMISSIONER'S DUTY. Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 94; Dec. Dig. 56(2).] The duty of a commissioner appointed by 10. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF 55(4)—CERTIFIthe Supreme Judicial Court to establish exceptions involves examination of the bill actually filed and a determination whether such exceptions were saved and are fairly stated.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Exceptions, Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. 55(4).]

disregarded in so far as it exceeds its proper
A certificate disallowing exceptions will be
scope of impartial statement.

Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. ~55(4).]
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions,

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

LOWANCE.

The

11. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF 55(4)-PROCEED- [the commissioner the duty vested in it by INGS TO ESTABLISH-CERTIFICATE OF DISAL- the law of deciding that crucial question. A certificate of disallowance not irrelevant Cullen v. Sears, 112 Mass. 299, 306. and substantially as found by the commissioner commissioner is charged with a delicate and will not be disregarded for matters of form, important duty in reviewing the action of since the parties have no control thereover. the trial judge. The judge is presumed not [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions, Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. 55(4).] to be present at the hearings and the commis12. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF 55(4)-CORREC-Sioner must in his absence ascertain the facts in part through the evidence of other persons. But he has a right and ought to consider the statements contained in the certificate of the judge. Com. v. Joslin, 158 Mass. 482, 484, 33 N. E. 653, 21 L. R. A. 449. These statements are to be treated as true in the first instance and, unless rebutted, explained or overcome by other evidence, will stand.

TION-COURT'S DUTY.

Where only one of four exceptions was correctly stated, and petitioner refused to modify the proposed bill of exceptions, the court was not bound to separate and allow the good exception.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions, Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. 55(4).] 13. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF ☺~55(4) CORRECTION-COURT'S POWER.

Under Rev. Laws, c. 173, § 110, authorizing settlements of exceptions before the full court, where a justice disallows or alters any statement in a proposed bill, the trial court has power to alter statements in the exceptions at fault therewith.

[4] The commissioner's report in the case at bar simply states that, after a hearing of the parties and their evidence, he "settled the exceptions of the said petitioner, as here follows, to be true." There follows a complete draft of a bill of exceptions, without statement of the points in controversy before him

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Exceptions, Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. 55(4).] 14. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF 55(4)-PROCEED- and without particular reference to the bill INGS TO ESTABLISH-DISMISSAL.

Where one of four exceptions in a proposed bill was fairly stated, and petitioner refused to modify the bill before the trial court, a proceeding to establish the bill in the Supreme Judicial Court will be dismissed.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Exceptions, Bill of, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. 55(4).] Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Essex County.

Petition by the Moneyweight Scale Company in Supreme Judicial Court to establish exceptions disallowed by the superior court. Petition dismissed.

Fowler, Bauer & Kenney, of Boston, for petitioner. S. Howard Donnell, of Peabody, for respondent.

RUGG, C. J. [1-3] This is a petition to establish the truth of exceptions disallowed by a superior court judge. The matter was referred to a commissioner. His report is somewhat irregular. The duty of the commissioner under the usual order of appointment is to examine the bill of exceptions actually filed, and to determine upon all the evidence whether the exceptions there alleged were in fact saved, whether enough facts are stated to present the exceptions saved, in their right perspective with reference to the issues tried and decided, whether the statement of the exceptions is uncolored and of sufficient brevity, and whether otherwise it is true and fair. The bill actually filed must be the basis of the investigation, although offers by the excepting party to make modifications in order that it may conform to the truth may be considered in some aspects of the inquiry. His report ought to show all the material facts in order that this court may be able to decide the ultimate inquiry whether the judge was right or wrong in disallowing the exceptions. This court does not delegate to

as filed. But by comparison of the draft made by the commissioner, with the bill as filed, and disallowed by the judge, it is apparent that the form of the exceptions as filed was followed by the commissioner, except that certain important additions were made to it and one alleged exception was omitted. The case was recommitted to the commissioner for the purpose of annexing copy of the "certificate of the trial judge disallowing the exceptions and reporting the material facts as to the conduct of the petitioner from the time of filing until the disallowance of the exceptions." Report was made accordingly. No direct finding as to the truth of the facts stated in the judge's certificate is made. Considering these two reports together the facts may be gathered. The first report must be interpreted to mean that the commissioner has established what would be a fair and complete statement of the exceptions actually taken, together with enough of the evidence to make them intelligible. It states such a bill as the excepting party ought to have filed and the judge ought to have allowed. Whether the bill actually filed differs in such material respects from this draft that it ought not to have been allowed is to be ascertained by a comparison of the two. In connection with the circumstances that no finding is made in either report as to the facts set out in the judge's certificate and cognate matters, and that the judge's certificate is annexed to the second report without comment, the record must be construed as a whole to mean that all the pertinent facts are to be found in the two reports and in the judge's certificate so far as that is not controlled by facts set forth in the two reports. Upon these facts the question whether the exceptions are established must be decided by the full bench of this

« PreviousContinue »