fraternal, social, or like purposes, is an insurance company.16 In a Pennsylvania case, however, the association was an Illinois corporation. It was not organized for profit or gain, but its purpose was to secure pecuniary aid to the widows, orphans, heirs and devisees of deceased members of said association. It was incorporated under a statute which expressly provided that associations with such a purpose, where no annual dues or premiums were required and where the members were to receive no money as profit or otherwise should "not be deemed insurance companies." It was held, therefore, that the association was not an insurance company, nor the certificates, issued by it in Illinois, contracts of insurance. In this case the distinction is made between contracts of insurance, which are purely a business adventure the characteristic feature of which is granting an indemnity, or security against loss, for a stipulated consideration, and benevolent societies of a purely philanthropic or benevolent character the object of which is not indemnity or security against loss, but the accumulation of a fund by contributions of members for aid or relief in case of sickness, injury, or death.17 § 344e. Same subject: rules of construction as a factor.-The same rules of construction apply to death benefit certificates as are applicable to contracts of insurance as such certificates are held to be insurance contracts.18 And in the absence of statutes wherein mutual benefit fraternal and like societies and associations are declared not to be insurance companies, it is determined by the weight 16 Knights Templar & Masons' Life Indemnity Co. v. Berry, 50 Fed. 511, 1 C. C. A. 561, 4 U. S. App. 353. That such Masonic relief associations are life insurance companies. See also the following cases: United States.-Knights Templars' & Masons' Life Indemnity Co. v. Jarman, 104 Fed. 638, 44 C. C. A. 93, 30 Ins. L. J. 230, aff'd 187 U. S. 197, 47 L. ed. 139, 23 Sup. Ct. 108, 32 Ins. L. J. 57 (holding that a statute forbidding the defense of suicide to an action on a life policy applied to certificates issued by a Mason's life indemnity company, on the assessment plan); Jarman v. Knights Templars & Masons' Life Indemnity Co. 95 Fed. 70. Illinois. Lehman v. Clark, 174 Ill. 279, 43 L.R.A. 648, 51 N. E. 222, 27 Ins. L. J. 745, rev'g 71 Ill. App. 366 (contract expressly held one of life insurance), quoting from Rock- ously questioned,” etc.). Iowa.-Prader v. National Masonic Accident Assoc. 95 Iowa, 149, 63 N. W. 601. Maine.-Bolton v. Bolton, 73 Me. 299 (considered under § 346 herein). Minnesota.--Lake V. Minnesota Masonic Relief Assoc. 61 Minn. 96, 52 Am. St. Rep. 538n, 62 N. W. 261. 17 Northwestern Masonic Aid Assoc. v. Jones, 154 Pa. St. 99, 35 Am. St. Rep. 810, 26 Atl. 253, quoting from and applying Commonwealth v. Equitable Beneficial Assoc. 137 Pa. 412, 18 Atl. 1112. 18 Small v. Court of Honor, 136 Mo. App. 434, 117 S. W. 116. of authority, in so far as the construction of the certificate in general and as to forfeiture, beneficiaries, etc., are concerned, that such societies and associations are to be treated as life insurance companies, and their certificates as life insurance contracts, although under some of the decisions the certificates differ in some respects from ordinary insurance policies in that the constitution and bylaws become part of the contract.19 So, in Colorado, in an action upon a fraternal benefit policy, the court held that in order to arrive at the intention of the parties, the same rules of construction governed.20 Again, in a case in the Federal court in an action founded upon a certificate in a Masonic life indemnity company, an assessment association, the court in discussing the question of the company's right to make certain amendments declared that: "All contracts, notwithstanding the general words or phrases they may contain, should receive an interpretation which will accord with the presumed intention of the contracting parties, and will not work an injustice or lead to absurd consequences" and this rule of construction was applied.1 19 See also the following cases: Arkansas.-Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Aday, 97 Ark. 425, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 126, 134 S. W. 928, 40 Ins. L. J. 737 (construed like any other insurance policy, according to plain and obvious meaning with a view to accomplish purpose for which brotherhood maintained). Indiana.-Modern Woodmen of America v. Miles, 178 Ind. 105, 97 N. E. 1009 (construed to effect intent); Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Corder, 52 Ind. App. 214, 97 N. E. 125 (liberally construed). defense in case of misrepresentations and warranties). Nebraska. Modern Woodmen of America v. Coleman, 68 Neb. 660, 94 N. W. 814, rehearing denied 96 N. W. 154 (governed by general rules of law applicable to life insurance companies). New York.--Weinberg v. Woodward, 67 Misc. 283, 124 N. Y. Supp. 480 (governed by principles which apply insurance contracts). See also note 38 L.R.A. 34-40, on whether a benefit association is an insurance company where the construetion of the certificate is in question; §§ 188 et seq., 207, 220 et seq. herein. Minnesota.-Mady v. Switchmen's 20 Modern Woodmen of America v. Union of North America, 116 Minn. International Trust Co. 25 Colo. App. 147, 133 N. W. 472 (cannot be given 26, 136 Pac. 806. See also Supreme interpretation at variance with clear Lodge Knights of Honor v. Davis, sense and meaning of language em- 26 Colo. 252, 58 Pac. 595; Grand ployed). Circle Women of Woodcraft V. Missouri.-Brittenham V. Sover- Rausch, 24 Colo. App. 304, 134 Pac. eign Camp Woodmen of the World, 180 Mo. App. 523, 167 S. W. 587 1 Knights Templars' & Masons' (effect should be given to all parts Life Indemnity Co. v. Jarman, 104 printed or written. See §§ 212, 223 Fed. 638, 44 C. C. A. 93, 30 Ins. L. herein); Evans v. Modern Woodmen J. 230, case is aff'd in 187 U. S. 197, of America, 149 Mo. App. 166, 129 47 L. ed. 139, 23 Sup. Ct. 108. S. W. 485 (strict interpretation in Joyce Ins. Vol. I.-54. 141. 849 So the rule, applicable to regular insurance contracts, that the contract should be construed against the insurer and most favorably to insured so as not to defeat a recovery and to prevent a forfeiture applies likewise to mutual and fraternal benefit and like contracts. And a fraternal beneficiary association on the lodge system is not within a nonforfeiture insurance statute which is limited to old-line insurance companies.3 § 344f. Same subject: attachment of copy of application or bylaws. A fraternal association on the lodge system is not in Massachusetts within a statute requiring attachment of an application to a life insurance policy. But in Kentucky a society is a "fraternal society" under a statute requiring a copy of the application to be 2 Arkansas.-Industrial Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Hawkins, 94 Ark. 417, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 635n, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1029, 127 S. W. 457, quoted from in Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Aday, 97 Ark. 425, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 126, 134 S. W. 928, 40 Ins. L. J. 737. Illinois. Zeman v. North American Union, 263 Ill. 304, 105 N. E. 22; Mutual Protective League v. McKee, 122 Ill. App. 376, aff'd 223 Ill. 364, 79 N. E. 25. Indiana.-Modern Woodmen of America v. Miles, 178 Ind. 105, 97 N. E. 1009 (liberally in favor of assured); Supreme Council Benevolent Legion v. Grove, 176 Ind. 356, 36 L.R.A.(N.S.) 913, 96 N. E. 159. Kentucky.-Brackett V. Modern Brotherhood of America, 154 Ky. 340, 157 S. W. 690. Minnesota.-Geronime v. German Roman Catholic Aid Assoc. of Minnesota, 127 Minn. 291, 149 N. W. 291. Woodmen of America, 236 Mo. 326, 139 S. W. 151; Simmons v. Modern Woodmen of America, 185 Mo. App. 483, 172 S. W. 492; Wintergerst v. Court of Honor, 185 Mo. App. 373, 170 S. W. 346; Brittenham V. Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World, 180 Mo. App. 523, 167 S. W. 587; Beile v. Travelers Protection Assoc. of America, 155 Mo. App. 629, 135 S. W. 497, 40 Ins. L. J. 1028. New Jersey.-Coghlan v. Supreme Conclave Improved Order of Heptasophs, 86 N. J. Laws 41, 91 Atl. 132; Johnson v. Grand Lodge Ancient Order United Workmen, 81 N. J. Law 511, 79 Atl. 333, 40 Ins. L. J. 924 (forfeitures not favored, etc.). Tennessee.-Independent Order of Foresters v. Cunningham, 127 Tenn. 521, 156 S. W. 192 (forfeiture not favored). Texas.-Haywood v. Grand Lodge of Texas Knights, Tex. Civ. App. 138 S. W. 1194 (construed in favor of insured to prevent forfeiture). 3 Westerman v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias, 196 Mo. 670, 94 S. W. 470, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1114n. 4 Attorney Gen'l v. Colonial Life Assoc. 194 Mass. 527, 80 N. E. 455. See §§ 190, 190a herein. Mississippi.-Grand Lodge (colored) Knights of Pythias v. Jones, 100 Miss. 469, 56 So. 458; Masonic Benefit Assoc. v. Hoskins, 99 Miss. 812, 56 So. 169, 40 Ins. L. J. 1671, quoting from Morgan v. Independent Order of Sons & Daughters of Jacob, 90 Miss. 864, 44 So. 891, which cites On conflict of laws as to necessity Murphy v. Independent Order of of attaching application or copy Sons & Daughters of Jacob, 77 Miss. thereof to policy, see notes in 63 830, 50 L.R.A. 111, 27 So. 624. L.R.A. 867; 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 982; Missouri.-Mathews V. Modern and 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 285. 5 attached to the policy, except as to such societies, where it operates under a lodge system and does not pay commissions to procure members. Although it is also held in that state that a fraternal order exclusively on the lodge system, although excepted under a statute defining an insurance company is within a statute requiring the attachment of the application or a copy thereof to policies issued by assessment or life insurance companies. A certificate of membership of a beneficial association is not an insurance policy under the Pennsylvania statute so as to make its by-laws inadmissible in evidence although not attached to the certificate." 8.344g. Same subject: other insurance as a factor.-Certificates in mutual aid societies are held in a Federal case not to constitute insurance within the meaning of a question in an application blank of an insurance company as to "existing insurance" in this or any other company. This decision upon the point of other insurance accords with other decisions where the question was directly involved and also where the question was one of estoppel and the question whether such associations are insurance companies or not is not discussed.9 § 344h. Same subject: liability as a factor.-In a case in Arkansas it was claimed that a company was one of mutual fire insurance organized under the laws of another state, and that by virtue of the laws thereof, the articles of incorporation, and the by-laws of the company, its policy holders became members of the company and as such were not subject to certain liabilities, but it was Life 5 Yeomen of America v. Rott, 145 Chamberlain, 132 U. S. 304, 33 L. ed. Ky. 604, 140 S. W. 1018. 341 (question turned on estoppel); 6 Grand Lodge, Ancient Order McCollum v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. United Workmen v. Edwards, 27 Ky. 55 Hun (N. Y.) 103; Peterson v. L. Rep. 469, 85 S. W. 801. See also Manhattan Ins. Co. 244 Supreme Commandery of the United Ill. 329, 91 N. E. 466, 18 Am. Order of the Golden Cross of the & Eng. Ann. Cas. 96, 39 Ins. L. World v. Hughes, 114 Ky. 175, 24 J. 817 (citing and quoting from Ky. L. Rep. 984, 70 S. W. 405; examine Corley v. Travelers Protective Assoc. 105 Fed. 854, 46 C. C. A. 278. 7 Marcus v. Heralds of Liberty, 241 Pa. 429, 88 Atl. 678, act of May 11, 1881, Pub. L. 20. the Penn Mut. Life case); Kemp v. Good Templars Mutual Benefit Assoc. 46 N. Y. St. R. 429; White v. National Life Ins. Co. 39 Ohio L. J. 237; Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Hazlewood, 75 Tex. 338, 7 L.R.A. 217 (question turned on estoppel). Examine Clapp v. Massachusetts Benefit Assoc. 146 Mass. 519, 16 N. E. 433 (where question not discussed but only whether under the evidence jury should have been instructed as for a nonsuit). held that under the statutes of Arkansas the liabilities of a foreign mutual insurance company doing business therein under policies therein issued were the same as those of stock fire insurance companies, thereby placing them on the same basis. But other than as above stated the question whether or not such mutual companies are insurance companies was not discussed.10 § 344i. Same subject: applicability of insurance laws: statutory exemptions. Whether or not or to what extent mutual benefit, fraternal benefit and like associations or societies are within the meaning of the insurance laws must depend upon the terms of the different statutes, and the various circumstances of each particular case, must also be considered in order to determine whether it is within the intent of the statute or statutes involved. No governing rule can be stated for the reason that there is no common ground upon which to base such a rule, and even though there may be an underlying principle it is difficult to apply it. This undoubtedly accounts for whatever disagreement exists in the decisions.11 In Colorado a voluntary association issuing benefit certificates is not entitled to the benefit of a statute providing that societies founded under it shall be corporations, and if intended to benefit widows and orphans of members shall not be deemed insurance companies. And a benefit certificate in which the beneficiary may be anyone, even a stranger, dependent upon the holder, is not within a statute providing that societies intended to benefit widows, orphans, heirs, and devisces of members shall not be deemed insurance companies." 10 Federal Union Surety Co. v. Flemister, 95 Ark. 389, 130 S. W. 574, 39 Ins. L. J. 1485; acts 1905, sec. 4, p. 772, and Kirby's Dig. sec. 4339, as to giving bond as prerequisite to doing business. As to limitation of liability of members of mutual or assessment fire insurance companies, organized, etc., under Ky. Stat. c. 32, subd. 5, see Ky. act approved March 24, 1910 (c. 93, Stat.). 11"Under statutes exempting benerolent societies from the operation of certain insurance laws, some cases notwithstanding such statute have defined such associations to be insurance companies owing to the business carried on by such benevolent societies. of insurance law, or to particular Note 38 L.R.A. 49-53. "Where the question is in regard to jurisdiction. It is generally held under statutes providing for jurisdietion in actions against life insurance companies, that benevolent associations are controlled by the general insurance laws, but there are exceptional cases in Illinois." Note 38 L.R.A. 47-49. 12 Head Camp Pacific Jurisdiction But other cases v. Sloss, 49 Colo. 177, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 831, 112 Pac. 49. hold that most benefit companies are not subject to the general principles |