Cited by

The rule was first applied in Mueller v. Grand Grove, 69 Minn. 236, 242 , , where this court in referring to a situation very similar to the one here involved said: “If, then, he was permitted without objection to pay his dues at irregular intervals, this permission covering a period of more than three years, the subordinate grove accepting his money, with *186 out th

Defendant cites and relies upon such cases as Elder v. Grand Lodge, 79 Minn. 468 , ; Graves v. Modern Woodmen, 85 Minn. 396 , ; Mueller v. Grand Grove, 69 Minn. 236 , ; Villmont v. Grand Grove, 111 Minn. 201 , ; Leland v. Modern Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , .

Mueller v. Grand Grove, 69 Minn. 236 , ; Davis v. National Cas.

Mueller v. Grand Grove, 69 Minn. 236 , ; Hendrickson v. Grand Lodge, supra; Sauerwein v. Grand Lodge, 121 Minn. 229 , ; Dougherty v. Supreme Court I. O. O. F. 125 Minn. 142 , ; Suits v. Order C. T. 139 Minn. 246 , , Ann. Cas.

for this policy, the subsequent acceptance of a premium by the insurer or by any of its duly authorized agents shall reinstate the policy, but only to cover loss resulting from accidental injury thereafter sustained.” This provision was considered in Ward v. Merchants L. and C. Co. supra, and it was there held that it worked a modification of the rule applied in Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D. 69 Minn. 236 , , and to exclude liability for injuries suffered by the insured when the policy is un

And upon this ground defendant seeks to dis *251 tinguish the case from Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D. 69 Minn. 236 , , and other like cases.

In support of which reliance is had upon the rule laid down in Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D. 69 Minn. 236 , , and other similar cases in this court.

Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D. 69 Minn. 236 , ; Leland v. Modem Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , ; Villmont v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D. 111 Minn. 201 , ; Sauerwein v. Grand Lodge O. S. H. 121 Minn. 229 , ; Dougherty v. Supreme Court I. O. F. 125 Minn. 142 , .

The question of waiver here urged is not at all like that in the following cases, cited by the plaintiff, where it was claimed that the acts of the local lodge constituted a waiver and the question was held one of fact for the jury: Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D. 69 Minn. 236 , ; Leland v. Modern Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , ; Sauerwein v. Grand Lodge, O. S. H. 121 Minn. 229 , ; Dougherty v. Supreme Court I. O. F. 125 Minn. 142 , .

Mueller v. Grand Grove, U. A. O. D. 69 Minn. 236 , ; Leland v. Modern Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , ; Sauerwein v. Grand Lodge, Sons of Hermann, 121 Minn. 229 , .

Mee v. Bankers’ Life Assn. of Minn. 69 Minn. 210 , ; Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D. 69 Minn. 236 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Kelly v. Ancient Order of Hibernians, 113 Minn. 355 , ; Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D. 69 Minn. 236 , ; Gellatly v. Odd Fellows Mut.

The rule that the grand lodge may be bound by the waiver of the subordinate lodge is applied and settled in this state by the decisions in Mueller v. Grand Grove, U. A. O. D. 69 Minn. 236 , ; Elder v. Grand Lodge, A. O. U. W. 79 Minn. 468 , ; Graves v. Modern Woodmen, 85 Minn. 396 , ; Villmont v. Grand Grove, U. A. O. D. 111 Minn. 203 , ; Leland v. Modern Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , , and Hendrickson v. Grand Lodge, A. O. U. W. 120 Minn. 3

In most cases such variation had been continued long enough to amount to a custom, as in Mueller v. Grand Grove, U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236 , , and Leland v. Modern Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , .

Proceeding upon the rule laid down in Mueller v. Grand Grove, U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236 , , plaintiff sought to prove that the subordinate council was cognizant of the custom, acquiesced therein, and in consequence the default was waived.

The case is controlled by the decision in Leland v. Modern Samaritans, infra, page 207, , and Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236 , .

538 , ; Parsons, Rich & Co. v. Lane, 97 Minn. 98 , ; Mee v. Bankers’ Life Assn., 69 Minn. 210 , ; Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236 , .

Conceding that the supreme council would be bound by the conduct of the subordinate council, — which it is not necessary to decide at this time, — it should be held, following the rule laid down in Mueller v. Grand Grove, U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236 , , that the habit of the primary branch of the order to allow its members to become delinquent from time to time to the extent of three or four instances was so general as to have justified the insured in supposing that a strict compliance to that ext

There is no conflict between the Elder case and Mueller v. Grand Grove, U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236 , .

Upon these facts appellant claims to be entitled to recover, upon the authority of Mee v. Bankers L. Assn., 69 Minn. 210 , , and Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236 , .

It was held in the case of Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236, 242 , , that if deceased “'Was permitted without objection to pay his dues at irregular intervals, this permission covering a period of more than three years, the subordinate grove accepting his money, without the slightest objection, when he got ready to pay it, there was a waiver of strict compliance wi

Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 48 Minn. 82, 88 , ; Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236 , .

This, in substance, was held in Mueller v. Grand Grove, 69 Minn. 236 , , and cases cited.

See Mueller v. Grand Grove, 69 Minn. 236 , .