SEMM 11. SUPREME LODGE KNIGHTS OF HONOB.

895

the members of the commissioners' court, under the coercive power of this court, Uladethe levy which they did make, the probate judge, a member of that court, failed to deliver the tax-roll to the tax collector of the county so that the levy was not collected, and practically became valueless to the plaintiff. Such conduct on the part of an official suggests that there should be some spur and incentive to the performance of legal duty beyond a ju<igment of one cent and costs; and following the ca8elastcited, supra, (the parties having agreed in open court, the question,being one of Jaw, and the jury having been discharged, th8.t thecottrt should determine the matter, and the entry be made as upon a verdict of ajury,) the court finds for the plaintiff in the sum of $500 as cotnpensationfor trouble and attorneys' fees in this cause, and costs of this suit.

SElIM t7. SWREME LoDGE KNIGH'l'8 OF HONOn.

(Otreuit Oourt,B. D. N8'ID Y()'f'k. February 14, 1887.)
LU'II

I:!mmANOB-ANsWERll 01' APPLICANT NOT W AR1lANTIE8. 'An applicant for life insurance, under the cont:ract, in this case, undertakea

to, answer the questions put to him according to his knowledge or r,easonable belief, and not to misrepresent or suppress known facts, but does nl)t warran& the absollitetluth of his a.nswera. .

.:A.t lAw.

,CJhMleB Steckler, for plaintift'. Mama Goodhart, for defendant.

SlUPHAN, J. The question of law is whether, under Semm's application to Humboldt Lodge for membership therein, and the certificate which hereceivedfroril said lodge, he warranted the truth of the answer which he gave to the question, II Have you been rejected by the medical examiner of any lodge or society?" In my opinion, he was required, Under the contract, to answer the question according to his knowledge or reasonable means of belief, and not to misrepresent or suppress known facts, but that he did not warrant the absolute truth of his answers. The reason of the opinion is contained in the: applicant's agreement in his printed application for membership. ' As stated when the motion for a new trial was made, I have no objection to the verdict on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence. The motion for a new trial is denied.

FEDERAL nEPORTER.

MARCK

v.

SUPREME LODGE KNIGHTS OF HONan.

(Oircuit Oourt, S. P. New York. February 14,1887.)

;

,

BENEFIT ASSOCIATION-KNIGHTS OF HONOR-ExPULSION-DEATH PENDING PEAL-REVERSAL. . . '

AP-

A member of a lodge of the Knigb,ts of Honor was expelled by his lodge, and appealed to the grand dictator. Pending the appeal he died. Subsequently the judgment of expulsion was reversed by the grand dictator, he wall reinstated by vote. of the lodge, and. bis assessments due. up, to tb,e of .his deatli w.erereceived. Held, following the analogy of the common law and of the'law of the order, as held by its supreme dictator, that the appeal did not abate by the death of the member, and his benefit should be paid.

At Law. Charles Steckler, for plaintiff. Morris Goodhart, for defendant.
SHIPMAN,1:" Gisbert W. Marek, a member of German Oak Lodge Knights of HOIl,or, was expelled [r,om the lodge on,April 8, 1884, appealed to grand dictator froIl} said sentence, of which appeal said lodge had notice, and died on Apri125,·1884, pending said appeal. Subsequentlythegrand dictator set aside the judgment of expulsion. Marek hy ·vote 9f the the. dues .assessments which were due up to the date of his death were received.·, NQ :appeal was ever taken from the vote of reinstatement. If the analogies of the common law are to be regarded, the appeaVdid not abate by the death of Marek. Green v. Watloins;6 Wheat. 260. By the reversal of the sentence of expulsion; and by' the of the lodge, he was reinstated as at the date of his expulsion, and was entitled to his benefit.' Itriiay be added tliat such was, at the time; the law.of the order, which had held, by its supreme dictator, that if a decision of expulsion was,re\t'ersed on final appeal, .the appellant stands a member as if there had such judgment,and he must pay all back dues and assessments;'and if, pending the 'appeal. he dies,has regularly tendered his dues and assessments, and, after death, the appeal is decided in his favor, his benefit will' be paid as one who died in good standing, less th.e amount of his tendered and unpaid dues and assessments. 'Fhe motion for a new trial is denied.