TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Simmons v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n

Simmons v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association.

Simmons v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 39 S.E. 966 (N.C. 1901)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 4, 1901
Judges
Douglas
Citations
39 S.E. 966128 N.C. 4691901 N.C. LEXIS 418
Headnotes
1. INSURANCE — Contract — Mutual Benefit Associations — Vested R-ghts A mere general consent by a member of a mutual benefit association to the amendment of its by-laws and constitution does not authorize such a change as will destroy his vested rights. 2 INSURANCE — Vested Rights — Recovery of Premiums — Remedy. Where a mutual benefit association violates its contract, the most practical remedy of a member is to bring action for the premiums paid, with interest thereon.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Douglas

Douglas, J.

This is an action brought to recover the assessments which the plaintiff, E. G. Simmlons, has paid the defendant on a contract of insurance which the plaintiffs allege has been unlawfully cancelled -by the defendant. Viewed in the light of the original contract, the facts of this dase seem to bring it within the prinaipO.es decided in Strauss v. Life Association, 126 N. C., 971 , and on rehearing at this term. It seems'that the plaintiffs on November 10, 1895, commenced an action based on the alleged breach of the original con *470 tract) which termimalted in 'a compromise agreement darted October 31, 1896. What might have been the proper construction of that compromise, or its legal effect, is not before ns, as it seems to have been repudiated by both parties. This being so, the panties are relegated to their former contract. Even if the second contract were otherwise in force, it has been admittedly violated by the defendant, who can not be allowed to “approbate and reprobate” tbe same instrument in 'the Siam© breath. Such being the case, we see no error in the judgment of the Court below.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1903: 21904: 11905: 11907: 119032026peak 1903 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Green v. Insurance Co.51 S.E. 887 (N.C. 1905)
  2. Johnson v. Reformers.47 S.E. 463 (N.C. 1904)
  3. Makely v. American Legion of Honor133 N.C. 367 (1903)
  4. Makely v. Legion of Honor45 S.E. 649 (N.C. 1903)
  5. Brockenbrough v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance59 S.E. 118 (N.C. 1907)

Most recent

  1. Brockenbrough v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance59 S.E. 118 (N.C. 1907)
  2. Green v. Insurance Co.51 S.E. 887 (N.C. 1905)
  3. Johnson v. Reformers.47 S.E. 463 (N.C. 1904)
  4. Makely v. Legion of Honor45 S.E. 649 (N.C. 1903)
  5. Makely v. American Legion of Honor133 N.C. 367 (1903)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Strauss v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 54 L.R.A. 605 (N.C. 1900) 32

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list