Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

549

MURPHY, J., dissenting.

to our long-observed policy, is to decline to exercise jurisdiction in this cause.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, without prejudice to the determination in the future of any issues arising under the Federal Constitution from further proceedings in the Municipal Court.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK Concurs in the result.

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS Concurs, dissenting.

It is difficult for me to believe that the opinion of the Supreme Court of California is so ambiguous that the precise constitutional issues in this case have become too blurred for our powers of discernment.

The courts below and the parties involved have all acted on the assumption that the appellant Murdock was charged with having violated §§ 44.09 (a) and 44.12 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Now it is true that various other parts of the Code are interconnected with those sections and serve to complicate the picture somewhat. But the constitutional issues thereby raised seem clear to me. Simply stated, they are: (1) Does it violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion to prohibit solicitors of religious charities from using boxes or receptacles in public places except by written permission of city officials? (2) Is that guarantee infringed by a requirement that such solictors display an information card issued by city officials?

Those issues were properly raised below and the courts necessarily passed upon them. The time is thus ripe for this Court to supply the definitive judicial answers. Its failure to do so in this case forces me to register this dissent.

[blocks in formation]

ORDER OF UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS OF AMERICA v. WOLFE.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

No. 32. Argued February 28, 1946.-Reargued November 12, 1946.— Decided June 9, 1947.

1. An Ohio citizen brought an action in a state court in South Dakota against a fraternal benefit society, incorporated in Ohio and licensed to do business in South Dakota, to recover benefits claimed to have arisen under the society's constitution as a result of the death of an insured member who had been a citizen of South Dakota throughout his membership. The society's constitution, which was valid in Ohio, prohibited the bringing of an action on such a claim more than six months after its disallowance by the society. The action was brought after expiration of this time but before the expiration of the period prescribed by South Dakota law for commencing suits on contracts. A statute of South Dakota declared void every stipulation or condition in a contract which limits the time within which a party thereto may enforce his rights by usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals. Held: The Federal Constitution requires South Dakota to give full faith and credit to the public acts of Ohio under which the society was incorporated, and the claimant was bound by the six-month limitation upon bringing such an action. Pp. 588-589, 624-625.

2. A claim based on membership rights under the constitution of an incorporated fraternal benefit society, the terms of which are subject to amendment through the processes of a representative form of government authorized by the law of the state of incorporation, differs from a claim for benefits under an ordinary contract of accident insurance whether issued by a stock or a mutual insurance company. Pp. 600, 606.

3. It is of primary significance from the legal point of view in this case that the society is a voluntary fraternal association organized and carried on not for profit but solely for the mutual benefit of its members and their beneficiaries, and has a representative form of government which shall make provision for the payment of benefits in accordance with certain statutory requirements. P. 605. 4. Relationships between the members of fraternal benefit societies are contractual in that they are undertaken voluntarily in consideration of the like obligations of others; but, interwoven with their

586

Statement of the Case.

financial rights and obligations, they have other common interests incidental to their memberships, which give them a status toward one another that involves more interdependence than arises from purely business and financial relationships. Pp. 605-606.

5. Membership in a fraternal benefit society is governed by the law of the state of incorporation; control over its terms is vested in the elected representative government of the society as authorized and regulated by that law. P. 606.

6. By virtue of the full faith and credit clause, the people of the United States have imposed upon the general rules governing conflicts of laws respecting statutes of limitations on claims arising out of ordinary contracts another limitation, giving effect to a limitation contained, as in the present case, in the constitution of a fraternal benefit society. P. 607.

7. Fraternal benefit societies exist by virtue of the laws of the states of their incorporation, and the rights and obligations incident to membership in them are as much entitled to full faith and credit as the statutes upon which they depend. P. 609.

8. To permit recovery in this case would fail to give full faith and credit to the terms of membership authorized by Ohio by placing an additional liability on the society beyond that authorized by Ohio or accepted by the society. P. 610.

9. The weight of public policy behind the general statute of South Dakota, which seeks to avoid contractual limitations upon rights to sue on ordinary contracts, does not equal that which makes necessary the recognition of the same terms of membership for members of fraternal benefit societies wherever their beneficiaries may be especially where the State, with full information as to those terms of membership, has permitted such societies to do business and secure members within its borders. P. 624.

10. If a state gives some faith and credit to the laws of another state by permitting its own citizens to become members of, and benefit from, fraternal benefit societies organized by such other state, it must give full faith and credit to those laws and must recognize the burdens and limitations which are inherent in such memberships. P. 625.

70 S. D. 452, 18 N. W. 2d 755, reversed.

In an action brought in a state court in South Dakota, an Ohio citizen obtained a judgment against a fraternal benefit society incorporated in Ohio for benefits claimed to have arisen under the society's constitution as a result

755552 0-48-41

Opinion of the Court.

331 U.S.

of the death of an insured member who was a citizen of South Dakota. The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed. 70 S. D. 452, 18 N. W. 2d 755. This Court granted certiorari. 326 U. S. 712. Reversed, p. 625.

Byron S. Payne and E. W. Dillon argued the cause on the original argument, and Mr. Dillon on the reargument, for petitioner. With them on the brief was Samuel Herrick.

Hubbard F. Fellows argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

MR. JUSTICE BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action in a circuit court of the State of South Dakota, brought by an Ohio citizen against a fraternal benefit society incorporated in Ohio, to recover benefits claimed to have arisen under the constitution of that society as a result of the death of an insured member who had been a citizen of South Dakota throughout his membership. The case presents the question whether the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States required the court of the forum, South Dakota, to give effect to a provision of the constitution of the society prohibiting the bringing of an action on such a claim more than six months after the disallowance of the claim by the Supreme Executive Committee of the society,2

1

1 "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." U. S. Const. Art. IV, § 1. See also, Act of May 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 122; Act of Mar. 27, 1804, 2 Stat. 298; Rev. Stat. §§ 905, 906, 28 U. S. C. §§ 687, 688.

2 "No suit or proceeding, either at law or in equity, shall be brought to recover any benefits under this Article after six (6) months from

586

Opinion of the Court.

when that provision was valid under the law of the state of the society's incorporation, Ohio, but when the time. prescribed generally by South Dakota for commencing actions on contracts was six years and when another statute of South Dakota declared that

[ocr errors]

"Every stipulation or condition in a contract, by which any party thereto is restricted from enforcing his rights under the contract by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void."

We hold that, under such circumstances, South Dakota, as the state of the forum, was required, by the Constitution of the United States, to give full faith and credit to the public acts of Ohio under which the fraternal benefit society was incorporated, and that the claimant was bound by the six-month limitation upon bringing suit to recover death benefits based upon membership rights of a decedent under the constitution of the society. This has been the consistent view of this Court.5

The record in the present case well illustrates both the practical effect of such a limitation as that contained in the constitution of this society and the need for the application of the full faith and credit clause to membership obligations in fraternal benefit societies.

the date the claim for said benefits is disallowed by the Supreme Executive Committee." From § 11 of Article IV, "Insurance," of the constitution of The Order of United Commercial Travelers of America, as printed on the back of the original certificate of membership issued to decedent August 19, 1920, and as in effect at the filing of this action June 15, 1934.

[blocks in formation]

5 Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U. S. 531; Modern Woodmen v. Mixer, 267 U. S. 544; Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U. S. 629; Sovereign Camp v. Bolin, 305 U. S. 66. See also, Pink v. A. A. A. Highway Express, 314 U. S. 201, 207, 210-211.

« PředchozíPokračovat »