committee. Blanks in use for such purpose were inclosed with the communication to her attorneys. She thereupon filed this petition for leave to file a bill of review. The principal reasons assigned by her are the refusal of the committee to pass upon her claim, and the fact that this committee, which consists of three, have already passed upon the merits of her claim, and are therefore incompetent to hear it. One of them, Mr. Aitken, was the great commander, upon whose advice the officers of the local tent notified Mr. Fillmore that he was expelled. Another is the attorney who has conducted this litigation on the part of the defendants. The third, upon the date of July 17, 1893, wrote to the complainant's agent that Mr. Fillmore was not, at the time of his death, in good standing, and therefore there was no necessity of sending blank proofs of death. It is also alleged that the personnel of the executive committee has changed by the election of two of these members since the decree. The petitioner further alleges that she cannot now comply with the requirements of these proofs of loss, because they are required to be presented within one year of the date of death, which year has expired, and they now require her to furnish a certificate, to be made by the commander, the record keeper, and the finance keeper, that the deceased was in good financial standing, having paid all dues and assessments up to the date of his death, and was a member of the tent. The answer admits the refusal of the committee to act, and insists upon the duty of the complainant, under the by-laws of the order, to submit her proofs upon the customary blanks; and, as a reason therefor, they assert that their sole reason for so doing was that the hearing of said claim should be conducted according to the laws, rules, and regulations governing said order and said executive committee. They also assert in their answer, and their attorney stated upon the hearing, that they were willing and ready to proceed with the hearing of the claim, and to give her the right to appeal to the great camp. We think the committee should have proceeded to hear the claim in the form it was presented. They had expressly waived proofs of loss. It was therefore unnecessary and unreasonable to require her to use the blank form of proof, with many of the provisions of which she could not comply. It has been repeatedly decided, by this court and others, that, when insurance companies expressly waive proofs of loss or of death, it is unnecessary to furnish them, and the hearing of the claims should proceed without them. Under the former opinion in this case and the authorities there cited, it was the duty of the complainant to proceed to enforce her claim under the charter and bylaws of the defendant, and, if she has any remedy in the courts, it must be after that remedy is exhausted, unless a case of fraud or undue oppression is made out on the part of the defendant and its officers. We do not think that such a case is made. The executive committee are bound to take the evidence, and submit it, with their conclusions, to the great camp, where her claim may be heard and her proofs presented. There is no showing that the great camp is prejudiced against her claim. The question involved is an important one, namely, whether a member owning stock in a brewing corporation is engaged in the manufacture or sale of spirituous or malt liquors as a beverage, either as a principal, agent, or servant, in consequence of which his membership is forfeited. It is sufficient, for this case, to say that she must exhaust her remedy, provided by the rules of this voluntary association, by which Mr. Fillmore was bound as a voluntary member. The prayer of the petition must be denied. 143 2377 16 109 MICHIGAN REPORTS. [Mar. SMITH v. WAALKES. 1 INJUNCTION-BILL FOR DIVORCE. Complainant filed a bill against her husband and defendant, alleging grounds for divorce, and also a conspiracy between her husband and defendant, whereby her husband's property had been fraudulently transferred to the latter, and praying that, if it should appear to the court that complainant had not resided within the State a sufficient length of time to authorize her to maintain a bill for divorce, an injunction might issue restraining defendant from disposing of or incumbering his property until such time as she could legally maintain such bill. Held, that the bill was properly sustained as an injunction bill, although it failed as a bill for divorce. 2. SAME-DEATH OF PARTY-ABATEMENT OF SUIT. The death of the husband after the violation of the injunc- 3. SAME CONTEMPT OF COURT-PROCEEDINGS TO PUNISH. Appeal from Kent; Grove, J. Submitted January 14, 1896. Decided March 31, 1896. Bill by Jane Smith against Martin Waalkes, impleaded with Baltus Smith, for an injunction. Defendant appeals from an order adjudging him guilty of contempt, and awarding damages to complainant. Affirmed. Earle & Hyde, for complainant. C. O. Smedley (B. M. Corwin, of counsel), for defendant. MOORE, J. The complainant filed a bill in chancery against her husband, Baltus Smith, and this defendant. The bill shows that she and Baltus Smith were married in Kent county in 1873, and that they had been out of the State, in Kansas, Texas, Colorado, and California, and that neither had resided in the State but a short time immediately preceding the filing of the bill of complaint; that they had lived together as husband and wife until August, 1894; that complainant had borne her husband seven children, three of whom were then living, their ages ranging from 16 to 8 years; that, in the spring of · 1894, Smith and his family were living in California; that at that time Smith owned a real-estate mortgage for $1,600 upon the property of defendant, Waalkes, located in Grand Rapids; that that spring Waalkes came to the Smiths, in California, and tried to get Smith and his wife to discharge the mortgage, and let him make a first mortgage upon the property, and give them a second mortgage; that they declined to do that, and Waalkes became incensed at Mrs. Smith, and in a large measure obtained control of Smith, and began to insinuate to him that his wife was guilty of improper conduct with other men, and that Smith finally came to believe Waalkes' statements to be true; that, while Waalkes was there in California, he took up a coal-mining claim, and about the 1st of August, 1894, induced Smith to turn over to him the real-estate mortgage and other property, consisting of notes (all that he had) amounting to about $3,000, in pretended consideration of the transfer to him by Waalkes of the mining claim; that the mining claim was entirely worthless, and that the real purpose of the transfer was to get the property of Smith out of the reach of complainant and the children, and then to 109 MICH.-2. get Smith to desert his family; that about August 1, 1894, Smith and Waalkes left California, Smith pretending that he had a position in Kansas, where he was going; that complainant thereupon gave him two dollars to buy food on the journey, and bade him good bye; that, instead of stopping in Kansas, they came direct to Grand Rapids, and had, up to the time of filing the bill, re-. mained there; that, immediately upon their arrival, they stated to complainant's father, mother, brother, and sisters, and to a large number of her friends, that complainant would not return to Grand Rapids, but had run away with another man, and had been guilty of abusing Smith, and had deserted him while he was sick, and that the children had conspired with complainant to abuse and ill-treat Smith, and that she was as bad as any prostitute on Waterloo street, and had stated that she would not return with her husband, but would remain with her · paramour, and was waiting for her parents to die, to get some of their money. The bill further alleges that when complainant was deserted by her husband she had no means, and could not return to Grand Rapids, and that Smith and Waalkes succeeded in making her relatives here believe the statements about her character, but that about the 20th of January her friends in Grand Rapids sent her money, and she came back February 2, 1895; that Smith and Waalkes conspired together to defeat her in recovering alimony, and to defeat any claim that she might have for herself and children in the property and money so transferred by Smith to Waalkes; that, after the return of Smith and Waalkes to Grand Rapids, Smith also turned over to Waalkes the household furniture belonging to complainant, and that she is entirely without means, and living upon the charity of her friends; that, every statement derogatory to the character of complainant made by Smith and Waalkes is absolutely false, and entirely without foundation; that the statements were made to defraud |