Merrill Lodge No. 299 v. Ellsworth

Hayne, C. — Suit for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with certain real and personal property. The court below gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.

The case appears to have grown out of a dispute between the members of the lodge as to its management and control. The answer admits that the plaintiff is and was at the time in question a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of California, and avers that on April 1, 1886, “Will D. Gould, James H. Blanchard, C. C. Dunn, M. W. Childs, and others, members of said Merrill Lodge, got control of said lodge and elected the officers thereof, the said Gould, Blanchard, and Childs being [167]elected trustees thereof, and undertook to destroy the said order and to control the same for their own private ends.” It further avers, in substance, that the plaintiff is a “subordinate” lodge of the order; that by the constitution of the Grand Lodge it is declared that any subordinate lodge which fails to do certain things “shall be deemed an extinct lodge, and its charter shall be forfeited”; that the plaintiff, by its conduct, brought itself within this provision, and was “suspended” by the Grand Lodge; and that the defendant Ellsworth “was, by the Grand Chief Templar of the Grand Lodge of the state of California, appointed the deputy of said Grand Chief Templar, and directed by him to take possession of the books, papers, and the other property of said Merrill Lodge, and hold the same subject to and until the further order of said Grand Lodge,” which the said Ells-worth proceeded to do.

These averments of the answer (except as to the wrongful intent of the persons who “got control” of the corporation) appear to be true.

Upon the question of the ownership of the property, the court finds that “ said plaintiff, in furtherance of its objects, leased a certain hall; .... that said plaintiff is now, and has been since December 3,1874, in possession of and entitled to the possession of said hall”; that plaintiff, “ for the purpose for which it was incorporated, has expended for carpets, furniture, fixtures, books, and necessary property for the carrying on of its work, the sum of two thousand dollars; that said hall is a necessary and proper place in which to keep all of said property, and for the promotion of its said benevolent purposes”; and that “the defendants, or either of them, have no right, title, or interest in or to or any right of possession of said hall, or the furniture, books,” etc.