Williams & Bradley, of Swainsboro, and Atkinson & Born, and Jackson & Orme, all of Atlanta, for Plaintiff in Error. T. N. Brown and Saffold & Jordan, all of Swainsboro, for Defendant in Error. RETHERFORD vs. KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF (Supreme Court of Iowa.) 1. INSURANCE-FRATERNAL BENEFIT INSURANCE-ACTIONS -QUESTION FOR JURY. In an action on a benefit certificate, evidence held to present a question for the jury as to the date of delivery of the certificate as affecting the question of application of payments by the insured. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 2009; Dec. Dig. § 825[2].) Appeal from District Court, Lucas County; D. M. Anderson, Judge. Action upon a life insurance certificate issued by the defendant to Eva M. Retherford, now deceased, who was the wife of plaintiff. Plaintiff was the beneficiary named in the certificate. There was a trial to a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence the court sustained the defendant's motion for a directed verdict in its favor. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial. W. W. Bulman, of Charlton, for Appellant. * Decision rendered, Sept. 29, 1916. 159 N. W. Rep. 185. FRICK vs. HARTFORD LIFE INS. Co. (No. 30368.)* (Supreme Court of Iowa.) 2. INSURANCE - FOREIGN CORPORATION — JURISDICTION – STATUTE. Under Code 1897, §§ 1794, 1808, providing that on complying with the law the state auditor shall issue to a foreign insurance company a certificate of authority to do business in the state, and that on receiving such certificate it shall file with the state auditor an agreement that process may be served on him, the district court had jurisdiction of a foreign insurance corporation, defending an action in which notice and return of service had been according to statute, especially where the defendant appeared and filed its demurrer. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1573; Dec. Dig. § 627[2].) * Decision rendered, Sept. 29, 1916. 159 N. W. Rep. 247. 3. INSURANCE-MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY-RIGHTS OF MEMBERS. In a mutual company a member's rights are determined, not only by the contract, but by the charter, constitution, and by-laws. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 66; Dec. Dig. § 54.) 4. INSURANCE-FOREIGN CORPORATIONS-ACTIONS― JURISDICTION OF SUBJECT-MATTER. Under Code 1897, § 1639, providing that all foreign corporations doing business in the state shall be subject to all the liabilities imposed upon domestic corporations, the district court had jurisdiction of a suit to enjoin the defendant, a foreign insurance company doing business in the state, from assessing plaintiff at a rate in excess of that provided in its contracts, for an accounting of the amount illegally collected from plaintiff in excess of such rates, and for judgment against defendant for the amount found to be due, since, where defendant did not appear to be a mutual company, it was alone liable and the result could not affect any other policyholder, and since the action did not involve the production of the defendant's books and papers, or any complicated account involving the rights of every other policyholder, or an interference with the internal management of the defendant's business. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1535; Dec. Dig. § 617.) 5. INSURANCE - FOREIGN CORPORATIONS — JURISDICTION— ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT. In such action, the plaintiff's right would be fixed, and he may pay or tender the assessments in the amounts fixed by the court, and, when the policies mature at his death, the question as to enforcing payment might be then litigated, and the court would not assume in advance that the defendant would not comply with any decree that might be entered, or the possibility that the decree could not be enforced. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1535; Dec. Dig. § 617.) Appeal from District Court, Linn County; F. O. Ellison, Judge. Jones, Hocker, Hawes & Angert, of St. Louis, Mo., Dawley, Jordan & Dawley, of Cedar Rapids, and F. W. Lehmann, Jr., of Des Moines, for Appellant. Deacon, Good, Sargent & Spangler, of Cedar Rapids, for Appellee. HORNER vs. HEINECKE et al.* (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.) 1. INSURANCE-EXCESS DUES-OWNERSHIP. A beneficial society acquired no title to excess dues paid by the members thereof pursuant to an order of the Court of Chancery providing in effect that they be deemed involuntary payments to be returned if *Decision rendered, June 19, 1916. 98 Atl. Rep. 393. Syllabus by the Court. Life.] Horner vs. Heinecke et al. 501 determined by the court to have been unlawfully exacted; it appearing that the court had so determined. Such excess fund will be deemed to be a trust fund held by the society for the benefit of the members who paid it. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1888; Dec. Dig. § 743.) 2. INSURANCE - EXCESS DUES-TRUST FUND - ASSENT OF BENEFICIARIES. The mere fact that not all of the members of a beneficial society who were entitled to a fund held by it for their benefit formally assented to the segregation of the fund and placing it in the hands of other trustees for their benefit is no reason for setting aside the transfer, since, in the absence of anything appearing to the contrary, it will be assumed that they all assented to an action so clearly beneficial to them. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1888; Dec. Dig. § 743.) 3. INSURANCE-EXCESS DUES-DEATH BENEFIT FUND — TRANSFER OF MORTGAGE. Where a beneficial society held certain unlawfully exacted excess dues in trust awaiting the result of litigation, and, instead of keeping it in the form of cash, used it to pay death benefits, so that the death benefit fund became indebted to the excess fund, it was legitimate for the society to use the mortgages in which the death benefit fund was invested to discharge the known indebtedness of that fund to the excess fund. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1888; Dec. Dig. § 743.) 4. INSURANCE-EXCESS DUES-REPAYMENT. When a beneficial society used cash belonging to an excess dues trust fund to pay death benefits, keeping separate accounts so that the exact amount of the indebtedness of the death benefit fund to each member entitled to a share of the excess fund was capable of being ascertained, then, upon the same being so ascertained, it was proper for the society to pay the money due to the excess fund from the death benefit fund out of the assets of the latter. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1888; Dec. Dig. § 743.) 5. INSURANCE-EXCESS DUES-LIABILITY FOR INTEREST. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1888; Dec. Dig. § 743.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Bill in equity by John G. Horner, receiver, etc., against George W. Heinecke and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, the complainant appeals Affirmed. Oscar B. Redrow, of Camden, for Appellant. HASKEW vs. KNIGHTS OF MODERN MACCABEES. (No. 6957.)* (Supreme Court of Oklahoma.) 1. INSURANCE-FRATERNAL BENEFIT INSURANCE - PROOFS OF LOSS. In an action on a benefit certificate of a fraternal insurance association, the plaintiff must prove a reasonable compliance with the requirements of the association as to the furnishing of proofs of death. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. §§ 1999, 2000; Dec. Dig. § 817[1].) 2. INSURANCE-FRATERNAL BENEFIT INSURANCE - PROOFS OF LOSS. A member of a fraternal insurance association, in his application for membership, agreed that no claim by his beneficiary should be valid until proofs were made and filed, establishing such claim in accordance with the laws, rules, and regulations of the association in force at the time such claim was made. Upon the death of the insured, and after proofs were received, the association requested that the proofs be made in a manner not provided for in the laws, rules, and regulations. Held, that the officers of the association were without power to impose further duties upon the beneficiary as to the manner of making the proofs of death; that the beneficiary could not be required to comply with such unwarranted requests; and that from the record it appears that the proofs of death reasonably complied with the laws, rules and regulations of the association. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. §§ 1963, 1964; Dec. Dig. § 789[1].) 3. INSURANCE-FRATERNAL BENEFIT INSURANCE — PROOFS OF DEATH-WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS. Where proofs of death are received and retained without condition or objection, except to demand compliance with certain requests of the association, which requests it had no authority to make, the association will be held to have waived any objections thereto, which it might otherwise have urged. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1965; Dec Dig. § 789[2].) 4. INSURANCE-FRATERNAL BENEFIT INSURANCE-ACTIONS -CONDITIONS PRECEDENT. The failure of a fraternal insurance association to comply with the provision of its by-laws, in regard to the disapproval of death claims, excuses the beneficiary from complying with the further and related provision, that all claims must be submitted to the proper tribunals within the order before commencing a suit in law or equity, and permits such beneficiary to maintain an action on the benefit certificate in the courts of this state, without first having sought relief in the tribunals of the association. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1987; Dec. Dig. § 805[1].) Error from District Court, Bryan County; Jesse M. Hatchett, Judge. * Decision rendered, July 25, 1916. 159 Pac. Rep. 493. Syllabus by the Court. Action by Mollie Haskew, nee Curington, against the Knights of Modern Maccabees. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions. J. M. Crook, of Oklahoma City, and W. B. Stone, of Durant, for Plaintiff in Error. Porter Newman, of Durant, Frank E. Jones and S. H. Kyle, of Bisbee, Ariz., for Defendant in Error. SOVEREIGN CAMP OF WOODMEN OF THE WORLD vs. HUTCHINS. (No. 7514.)* (Supreme Court of Oklahoma.) 2. INSURANCE-FRATERNAL INSURANCE-BURDEN OF PROOF. Where, in an action on a benefit certificate, liability is denied on the ground that a false statement was made by the assured in the application for the certificate, which by its terms voided the same, and it was denied that the assured executed the application or made the false statement, held, that it was not error for the court to instruct the jury that the burden was on the defendant to prove the execution of the application and the alleged false statement therein. (For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 2001; Dec. Dig. § 817[2].) Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Carter County; A. Eddleman, Judge. Action by Laura E. Hutchins against Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World. There was judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 39 Okla. 267, 134 Pac. 1116. N. B. Maxey and Kelly Brown, both of Muskogee, for Plaintiff in Error. Potterf & Walker, of Ardmore, for Defendant in Error. *Decision rendered, June 27, 1916. Rehearing denied, Sept. 12, 1916. 159 Pac. Rep. 920. Syllabus by the Court. SCHRINER ET AL. vs. SACHS ET AL* (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.) INSURANCE-FRATERNAL INSURANCE-ASSETS — INCORPO RATION. A fraternal insurance order, originally incorporated in New Jersey, surrendered its charter and obtained a charter in Pennsylvania. After * Decision rendered, May 15, 1916. 98 Atl. Rep. 724. |