Otto v. Protective

California Supreme Court Mar 21, 1888 No. No. 11645Published

Before: Snarls

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Courts have the authority to review the expulsion of a member from an unincorporated association when the proceedings are conducted in bad faith, violate natural justice, or fail to adhere to the association's own rules.

Issues

Whether courts have jurisdiction to review the expulsion of a member from an unincorporated association.
Whether the association's expulsion of the respondent was conducted in good faith and in accordance with natural justice.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Courts will interfere for the purpose of protecting property rights of members of unincorporated associations in all proper cases”

“The courts will, however, decide whether the ground for expulsion is well taken.”

“These facts raise the inevitable conclusion that the trial and conviction of plaintiff was a travesty upon justice, and lacking in the essential elements of fairness, good faith, and candor”

Synopsis

Unincorporated Associations — Protection of Property Rights of Members. — Courts will interfere for the purpose of protecting property rights of members of unincorporated associations, in all proper cases, and when they take jurisdiction, will follow and enforce, so far as applicable, the rules applying to incorporated bodies of the same character.

Id. —Expulsion when Proper. — A member of an unincorporated association may he expelled therefrom for a violation of such of the established rules of the association as have been subscribed or assented to by the members, and as provide expulsion for such violation, or for such conduct a; clearly violates the fundamental objects of the association, and if persisted in and allowed would thwart those objects or bring the associa- ' tion into disrepute.

Id. — Review of Expulsion. — In the matter of an expulsion, the association acts in a quasi judicial character, and so far as it confines itself to the exercise of the powers vested in it, and in_gooil faith pursues the methods prescribed by its laws, such laws not being in violation of the laws of the land or any inalienable right of the member, its sentence is conclusive, like that of a judicial tribunal. The courts will, however, decide whether the ground for expulsion is well taken.

Id.—Expulsion foe Offense Punishable by Fine.—An unincorporated association, having a benefit fund in which all of its members are entitled to participate, cannot expel a member for an offense which by the rules of the association is punishable by a fine only.

Id. —Improper Expulsion. —The expulsion of a member, nominally for an • offense for which such punishment is proper, but in reality for an offense punishable only by fine, is invalid.

Snarls, C. J. J.—This is an appeal from, a writ of mandate issued by the superior court, commanding appellant to reinstate the respondent, August Otto, to membership in the society, and to restore him to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of membership therein.

The appellant is, and since 1873 has been, an unincorporated association composed of about two hundred persons, tailors by occupation, organized, for the purpose of transacting the business of a benevolent association, of improving the condition of its members, and for protection against unjust and arbitrary encroachment of capital.

The association has a constitution and by-laws, providing for its government, and has a benevolent fund to which members may, under proper circumstances, become entitled to a certain extent.

Plaintiff became a member about October 1,1883, and continued such in good standing until June 9, 1884, when, as the court finds, he was expelled without any hearing or trial whatever.

On May 24, 1884, plaintiff was a regular member in good standing of the association, and of the benevolent fund branch of the association, and entitled to its pecuniary benefits, when a- question arose in reference-to the employment of non-members of the association by a firm of tailors, and such proceedings were had that a special meeting of all members of shop meetings was called, at [312]which it was decided, by a vote of eighty-nine for and thirty-nine against, to declare a strike against the offending firm, for which plaintiff was laboring.

By the constitution and by-laws it is provided that a two thirds majority of the members shall be necessary to ordering-a strike. There were at the time 176 members entitled to vote on the question, of whom two thirds did not vote, but two thirds of those present at the meeting did vote in favor of the strike. Plaintiff opposed such strike. He at first expressed a determination to abide by the decision, but finally, upon being offered work by the offending firm, accepted such work, and was therefor expelled from the association. as hereinbefore stated, and all union members were informed thereof, whereby he has since that date, under the rules of the association, been prevented from procuring employment in union shops, which seemed to include most of the better class of shops in the city (San Francisco).

The expulsion was invalid in this: members working for parties against whom a strike is declared are subject to fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, and no other or further penalty is provided, so far- as appears by the constitution and by-laws.

Otto v. Protective

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief