Neto v. Conselho Amor Da Sociedade No. 41
Before: Burnett
Synopsis
Voluntary Beneficial Society—Condition of Membership—Expulsion for Joining Similar Society—Proper Regulation—Agreement—Presumption.—Where under the constitution and laws of a voluntary, social, fraternal and beneficial society, it was made a condition of membership therein that expulsion should follow the joining of another similar organization, it is held that such regulation is not opposed to public policy, or to any provision of law, and is within the scope of the charter provisions of the organization, which constitute the agreement of its members, each of whom is presumed to know the terms and conditions upon which he may retain his connection with the organization.
Id.—Power of Members of Voluntary Association.—Individuals who form themselves into a voluntary association may agree to be governed by such rules as they see fit to adopt, so long as they are not immoral, or contrary to public policy or the law of the land, and may prescribe the conditions upon which membership may be acquired, or upon which it may continue, and may also prescribe rules of conduct for themselves during their membership, and the tribunal and mode in which offenses shall be determined, and the penalty enforced.
Id.—Violation of Rules by Member—Expulsion—Mistake of Law— Exhaustion of Remedies Required Before Suit—Defense.— Where a member has violated the existing rules of a voluntary society by joining another similar society, such member’s mistaken view of the existing law cannot affect a judgment of expulsion, and a member who has been tried and found guilty of such violation must first exhaust all the remedies prescribed by the constitution and rules of the society regulating expulsion, before seeking relief in a state court, and the failure to do so would be a complete defense to any suit for relief therein.
Id.—Remedy by Mandamus—Equitable Nature—Improper Application.—A member who has been expelled and has failed to exhaust the remedies prescribed by the order in relation thereto, and who admits the violation of the rules of the order, providing for expulsion, and merely claims that the expulsion was irregular, cannot invoke the remedy by mandamus to compel a reinstatement of such member. The remedy so sought is of an equitable nature, which presupposes a wrong to be redressed and a right to be restored; and a petitioner therefor who, while continuing to violate rules requiring expulsion, assumes the attitude of seeking to annul an irregular expulsion, in order to be regularly expelled, is not entitled to the writ of mandate for such a vain and nugatory purpose.
Id.—Design or Writ of Mandate—Substantial Justice.—The writ of mandate is not to be issued on mere technical grounds. Its design is to do substantial justice and prevent substantial injury.
Id.—Substantial Eights op Appellant not Invaded.—It is held on petition for rehearing that no substantial rights of the appellant appear to have been invaded.
Opinion — Burnett
BURNETT, J.
Respondent, Conselho 41, is a social, fraternal and beneficial organization composed of Portuguese women. Of this appellant became a member on the fifteenth day of September, 1901, and retained her membership therein until January 20, 1907, when she was expelled. On the 1st of July, 1906, appellant became a member and the president of another similar organization known as the U. P. P. E. C., and which for the sake of brevity, will be referred to hereafter as the TJ. P.’s. For the same reason we shall designate respondent association as the S. P.’s. In July, 1901, the supreme council of the S. P. ’s adopted a resolution reciting that “Whereas, the society of Portuguese ladies known by the initials U. P. P. E. C. was organized through spite,” etc., “Be it resolved that there shall not be admitted into this society any more ladies belonging to the former society. And be it further resolved that no member of this society shall belong to the former under penalty of expulsion.” With some elaboration this was formally made a part of the constitution and by-laws by the action of the grand council of the order in July, 1903. When the local society was organized the members present, including appellant, were informed by the installing officer that it was a law of the order that a lady belonging to the S. P.’s could not join the U. P.’s under pen
[236]
alty of expulsion. In appellant’s application for membership she declared, among other things, that she accepted and acknowledged “that the statement of the laws and regulations of the society constitute an express condition without which I shall have no right to participate or enjoy the benefits or any privileges of same.” That such regulation is not opposed to public policy, does not contravene any provision of law and is within the scope of the charter provisions of the organization is not controverted nor does it admit of serious question. Nor will anyone dispute, what the authorities hold, that individuals who form themselves into a voluntary association, may agree to be governed by such rules as they see fit to adopt, so long as they are not immoral, contrary to public, policy or the law of the land. As said in
Lawson
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)