Cited by

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 , .

Behnke v. Modern Brotherhood, 167 Minn. 104 , ; Leland v. Modern Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , .

Leland v. Modern Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , ; Hendrickson v. Grand Lodge, 120 Minn. 36 , .

Villmont v. Grand Grove U. A. O. of Druids, 111 Minn. 201 , ; Leland v. Modern *252 Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , ; Suits v. Order of United Commercial Travelers, 139 Minn. 246, 247 , , Ann. Cas.

In this respect the case comes within the rule applied in Leland v. Modern Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , ; and Villmont v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D. 111 Minn. 201 , , where on similar facts it was held that the question whether the payment of delinquent dues and assessments was for the purpose of gaining restoration to good standing in the order, or for .the purpose of maintaining an existing

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 , .

and 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. 36 , .

Leland v. Modern Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , .

The question of general custom was not involved in the action, and Leland v. Modern Samaritans, 111 Minn. 207 , , and other similar cases are not in point.

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 , .

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 , .