
    COLEMAN v. KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS. 
    
    No. 4667.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 3, 1934.
    P. B. Smith, of New Orleans, for appellant.
    . Isaac Wahlder, of Alexandria, for appeU )ee, ”• •
    
      
      Rehearing denied February 5, 1934.
    
   DREW, Judge.

:>Plaintiff' filed suit on - March' 10, 1933, against defendant, for the sum' of $570, with .6 per cent, per annum interest from Oetor ber.10, 1932; as the-designated beneficiary of ■her husband, who died on August 10, 1932, in a .policy .or'certificate .of insurance issued by the defendant corporation. ,- .;

; The.'answer and the agreed statement' of facts : admit-that plaintiff’s husband, • the tar Sured, had;been a'member of-the defendant Corporation /for over 30- years; that he was in good financial standing in- the local-and the .Grand ■ Lodge at the.'time..of his death..; that plaintiff was the beneficiary in the ppliey, and., that the. proof of death and claim for payment were ‘ filed' timely after the death; j'n'fáct, everything is admitted b/ defendant, except that payment is due at. this time, which ⅛.inore than six months after the death of ⅜⅜¾ insured.

• The only defense raised by defendant is the ;special defense that payments are to be jmade 90 days or more after the. filing of the .claim-, or at such time as there may be sufficient funds- in the endowment department to pay the claims in the order, in which they are filed in the office of the grand chancellor.

, The case was tried .on a statement of facts, and in said statement of facts there is no ad¡mission. or- proof to sustain the special defense. It was incumbent upon, defendant to prove, under its. special defense, which .is Ibased upon-a-resolution of the defendant corporation adopted April, 1931, that there was not sufficient funds-in the endowment department to pay the claim of plaintiff. This being the only defense and defendant having failed to offer any proof to sustain it, it necessarily follows that the special defense fails.

It therefore follows that the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with all costs.  