¶1I concur in the conclusions reached upon both points discussed in the opinion, but dp not concur in the language used in the criticism of the reasoning of the supreme court of the United States in Ritter v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 169 U. S. 139.
75 Neb. 188
Lange v. Highlanders
Decided December 6, 1905
Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1905-12-06
<p>1. Beneficial Insurance Contract. Where a member of a fraternal benefit association agrees to be bound by subsequently enacted by-laws, such contract will be upheld when the subsequently enacted by-laws are reasonable in their nature and legally enacted.</p> <p>2. -: New By-Law: Forfeiture: Suicide. A subsequent by-law, legally enacted, providing for the forfeiture of a fraternal benefit certificate when the death of the member is occasioned by suicide, whether sane or insane, is a reasonable by-law and will be upheld.</p> <p>3. -: -: Construction. A subsequent by-law providing for a forfeiture will be strictly construed against the association, and, if passed in contravention of the provisions of the statute governing such associations, it will be held void and of no effect.</p> <p>4. Corporate Powers: Statutory Regulation. When the exercise of corporate power has been regulated by statute, the corporation cannot, by its by-laws or resolutions, change the mode of the exercise of this power.</p> <p>5. Praternal Societies: Government. A fraternal benefit association must have a representative form of government. This requires that the directors or other officers who have charge and control of the property and business of the society, and the management of its affairs, shall be chosen by the membership thereof. State v. Bankers Union of the World, 71 Neb. 622, followed and approved.</p> <p>6. Collateral Attack. An attack on a'n illegal by-law of a fraternal benefit association is not a collateral attack on the right of the society to do business.</p>
Relies on Ritter v. Mutual Life Ins Co of New York
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1905-12-06
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 1981
19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →