Majority
Headnote
Dues to lodge of Odd Fellows —words “accrue weekly” not equivalent to “payable weekly ” — what failure to pouy necessity to create a forfeiture of a “funeral benefit" — hearing before the tribunals of the society.This controversy must turn upon the construction to be put upon the provisions of the constititution of the lodge, which provides that “ the dues of members of a lodge accrue weekly,” when read in connection with that provision of the by-laws, which prescribes the ground of forfeiture of benefits, and which is as follows: “No brother who is in arrears for dues, fines or assessments of any kind over the amount of thirteen weeks, * * * shall be entitled to receive the benefits of this lodge, until after the expiration of six weeks from the time of the payment of such arrearages.”
It is quite apparent from the uniform action of the lodge, in not exacting weekly payments of dues from its 'members, -that it did not interpret the phrase “ accrue weekly ” as equivalent to “ payable weekly,” or “ due weekly.” Bouvier defines accrue as to grow to, to be added to, as the interest accrues on the principal. Applying this definition to the phrase “ dues accrue weekly,” and it would not signify that they are payable weekly, but rather that they are estimated or measured weekly, to grow or to be added to each other as interest is added to or increases the amount of a debt.
This, at least, should be its signification when applied to members who for years have been paying quarterly at the rate of thirteen cents per week, rather than the other construction which might result in a penalty or forfeiture, which is not favored in law. If, therefore, these dues were payable quarterly, then no dues could be deemed as in arrears until the end of the quarter. The quarter ended on the 1st of July, 1888, and from that time, and that time only, would dues be deemed to be in arrears, but the “ dues accruing weekly ” thereafter would not be in arrears, because they would not fall due until the first of the succeeding October, when they, under the definition of Bouvier and the usage of the order, would fall due. What dues, then, were in arrears on and after the 1st of July, 1888? Clearly only those which fell due on that day, and they were paid and credited on the 13th of July, 1888, nearly a month before the death of Moses Strasser. No dues, therefore, at the time
But it is insisted that the constitution, by-laws, rules and regulations of the order require that all disputed questions arising in it must first be submitted to the lodge, and an appeal taken from its determination to the district grand committee, and then to the grand lodge, and unless permission be refused by that body to the sovereign grand lodge; and that a resort to the civil court until all these remedies are invoked and exhausted shall render any right or claim to any of the benefits provided for in sections 4, 5 and 6, null and void.
It is quite true that controversies between members of a lodge and the lodge itself can and should be settled, or attempts should be made for their adjustment within the order, where provisions are made for such settlement by the rules, constitution or by-laws of the order. (Lafond v. Deems et al., 81 N. Y., 514 ; Poultney v. Backman, 31 Hun, 49 .)
The contract or compact under and in virtue of which members can make claims against the order for benefits must be the constitution .and by-laws to which these members are deemed to have assented; .and as long as they are so fairly and impartially executed that a court ■of equity would not be authorized to intervene to correct abuses; the parties must and ought to be governed by the letter of the ■contract. This would clearly be so where a member of the order was seeking a benefit conferred by the constitution or by-laws of the lodge. (Poultney v. Backman, 31 Hun, 54 .) Does the same ■rule apply when the claim is made by a person not a member of the order, who can have no hearing in person before its body, or access to the tribunals provided by it for adjustment of questions between its members.
The case shows that neither the ]3laintifE nor any of the next of Idn of Moses Strasser now are or ever have been members of this order. The remedies which the lodge, and its superior tribunals,
It would not be a reasonable construction of a contract between the lodge and a non-member to hold that the non-member’s rights under it are subject to the adjudication of his adversary. Its rules are binding upon its members, for they have so agreed; but when a member makes a contract with the lodge for tbe benefit of third parties the contract must be enforceable according to its terms, and ' not according to the subsequent adjudication of the lodge as to the meaning of its terms.
The provisions of the constitution that benefits “ shall be dependent upon, and recoverable only through the methods provided in the constitution, by-laws, rules and regulations of the ordér,” must mean that benefits to members shall be so recoverable, not benefits to which strangers by virtue of a contract made in their behalf with the lodge are entitled. His payment was due without delay.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Learned, P. J., and Landon, J., concurred.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.