
    Christina Koeth, Plaintiff, v. The Knights Templars and Masons Life Indemnity Company, Defendant.
    ■ -Evidence — mutual benefit association — amendment of its constitution modifying the contract between it and the insured — the association may show that no one voted against, and that the insured voted for, the amendment.
    
    Where in an action upon an insurance policy, issued by a mutual benefit association, it is asserted by the defendant that the contract between it and the insured, ■as to the manner of giving notices of assessment and as to the time when such 'assessments became payable, was changed by an amendment of the defendant’s 'constitution, it is competent for the defendant to show that there were no votes 'cast in opposition to the proposed amendment, and that the insured voted in favor of it.
    Motion by the defendant, The Knights Templars and Masons Life Indemnity Company, for a new trial upon a case containing exceptions, ordered to be heard at the Appellate Division in the first instance, upon the verdict of a jury for $2,338.47 in favor of the plaintiff, rendered by direction of the court after a trial at the Monroe Trial Term.
    The action was brought to recover upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant upon the life of Augustus M. Koeth.
    
      George F. Yeoman, for the.plaintiff.
    
      Eugene Van Voorhis, for the defendant.
   Follett, J.:

January 14, 1896, sections 1 and 2 of the so-called constitution of ■the defendant were duly amended, by which it is asserted by the defendant that the contract between it and the insured was amended in an important particular. On the contrary, it is contended by the plaintiff that an amendment of the constitution duly adopted according to the provisions of the original t constitution, did not affect outstanding policies. The defendant offered to show that there were no votes cast in opposition to the proposed amendment, which ivas excluded on the plaintiff’s objection, and that Augustus M. Koeth voted in favor of the amendment, which was excluded on the plaintiff’s objection'. To these rulings the defendant excepted. These rulings were error. It was competent for the defendant to show that the insured expressly assented January 14, 1896, to a change of the contract existing between him and the defendant as to the manner of giving notices of assessments and when such assessments became payable.

For this error the defendant’s exceptions should be sustained and a new trial ordered, with costs to the defendant to abide the event.

All concurred, except Ward, J., not voting.

Defendant’s exceptions sustained and a new trial ordered, with costs to the defendant to abide the event.  