Lawson v. Hewell

California Supreme Court Oct 15, 1897 No. Sac. No. 227Published

Before: Beatty, Fleet, Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Courts will not interfere with the internal disciplinary proceedings of a voluntary fraternal organization when those proceedings are conducted in accordance with the organization's own rules and do not involve the deprivation of a severable property right.

Issues

Whether courts may enjoin a voluntary fraternal organization from conducting disciplinary proceedings against a member for violating internal rules.
Whether a member of a voluntary association has a severable property right in the organization's assets that warrants judicial intervention in disciplinary matters.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The contractual relation between the association and one of its members is that which exists by virtue of the rules of the association, and so long as the association acts toward him in accordance with these rules there is no violation of this contract.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. A. P. Catlin, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Benefits in a voluntary mutual benefit society constitute the property rights of members, and are subject to the control of the courts. (Dolan v. Good Samaritan Court, A. 0. F., 128 Mass. 487; State v. Nicholas, 78 Iowa, 747; Gorman v. Russell, 14 Cal. 532; 18 Cal. 688; Robinson v. Exempt Fire Co., 103 Cal. 1; 42 Am. St. Rep. 93; Olery v. Brown, 51 How. Pr. 92; Otto v. Journeymen etc. Union, etc., 75 Cal. 308; 7 Am. St. Rep. 156.) The relation sustained by plaintiff toward the order of Royal Arch Masons was contractual and governed solély by the laws of contract. (Bacon on Benefit Societies, 2d ed., secs. 28, 37, 91, p. 40; Hyde v. Wood, 94 U. S. 523; Protchett v. Shaeffer, 11 Phila. 169; Leech, v. Harris, 2 Brew. 587; Huston v. Reut-linger, 91 Ky. 333; 34 Am. St. Rep. 225.) A change or amendment of the contract could not be made without plaintiff’s consent. (Hogan v. Pacific Endowment T^eague, 99 Cal. 257; Smith v. Smith, 3 Desaus. Eq. 557.) Courts of equity will grant relief by injunction in aid of members of unin corporated benevolent associations when unjustly dealt with by the society. (3 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, 2073; Fisher ¶. Keane, L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 353; Lowry v. Read, 3 Brew. 452; Leech v. Harris, supra; Olery v. Brown, supra; Kerr on Injunctions, 562.) Courts will take jurisdiction where the property rights are only incidental to the main object of the organization. ( Gorman ¶. Russell, 14 Cal. 532; 18 Cal. 688; Otto v. Journeymen etc. Union, etc., supra; Huston v. Reutlinger, supra; Metropolitan Baseball Club v. Simmons, 17 Week. Not. Cas. 153; Robinson ¶. Templar Lodge, 99 Cal. 1; People v. Musical etc. Union, 118 N. Y. 1; Fritz v. Much, 62 How. Pr. 69.)

The allegations of the complaint as to conspiracy are not admitted by the demurrer. (Mead v. Stirling, 62 Conn. 586.) The society must enact and construe its own laws, and enforce its own discipline without interference from the court. (Nib-lack’s Voluntary Societies, secs. 74, 113, 133; Chase v. Cheney, 58 Ill. 509; 11 Am. Rep. 95; Rigby v. Connol, L. R. 4 Ch. Div. 482; Burke v. Roper, 79 Ala. 138; Supreme Lodge etc. v. Knight, 117 Ind. 497; Belton v. Hatch, 109 N. Y. 594; 4 Am. St. Rep. 495; Olery v. Brown, 51 How. Pr. 92; Hiss v. Bartlett, 63 Am. Dec. 776; Black etc. Smith’s Soc. v. Vandyke, 30 Am. Dec. 263; People v. Board of Trade, 80 Ill. 134; Robinson v. Yates City Lodge, 86 Ill. 598; State v. Odd Fellows Grand Lodge, 8 Mo. App. 148.) The power to change rules is incident to the order. (Niblack on Benefit Societies, sec. 114; Fugure v. Mutual Soc., 46 Vt. 369; Richardson v. Society, 58 N. H. 189; Stohr v. Musical Fund Soc., 82 Cal. 557; Supreme Qommandery v. Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 449; 46 Am. Rep. 332; St. Patrick etc. Soc. v. McVey, 92 Pa. St. 512; Lewis v. Wilson, 121 N. Y. 287; Supreme Lodge v. Knight, supra.) A member must first exhaust his remedies in the society before he can appeal to the court. (Mead v. Stirling, supra; Lafond v. Deems, 81 N. Y. 508; White v. Brow-nell, 2 Daly, 329; Osceola Tribe of Red Men v. Schmidt, 57 Md. 98; Chamberlain v. Lincoln, 129 Mass. 70; Karcher v. Supreme Lodge etc., 137 Mass. 368; Levy v. Magnolia Lodge, 110 Cal. 297.) The rights of a member in respect of property belonging to the association, are not property interests entitling Tn'm to appeal to the courts. (State v. Odd Fellows Grand Lodge, 8 Mo. App. 148; Niblack on Benefit Societies, sec. 126-28; White v. Brownell, supra.)

HARRISON, J. The plaintiff has been for many years' a member in good standing oí Sacramento Chapter No; 3 of Royal Arch Masons, an unincorporated association organized at Sacramento, and one of the subordinate chapters of the grand chapter of Royal Arch Masons of this state. The grand chapter of Royal Arch Masons is the governing body of the subordinate chapters and of the members thereof, and is composed ehiefiy of representatives from the several subordinate chapters, and has such powers as are granted to it by its constitution, and by-laws, rules, regulations, and decisions based upon said constitution. There are two bodies existing and active in this state, known as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, one of which was organized under the authority of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of the United States of America, their territories and dependencies, commonly known as the United States jurisdiction, and the other is organized under the authority of what is known as the southern jurisdiction of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. In 1887 the Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons adopted a resolution designating certain bodies whose degrees of Masonry and orders of knighthood it acknowledged to be legitimate and genuine, and declared that any Royal Arch Mason who should thereafter take or receive any so-called Masonic degree ox order of knighthood from any man or body of men not thus acknowledged to be legitimate and genuine, or who should be present at or assist in conferring, or should solicit anyone to take, receive, or apply for any Masonic degree or order of knighthood except from one of the bodies acknowledged to be • legitimate and genuine, should be liable to be expelled from all the rights and privileges of a Royal Arch Mason. In the Masonic bodies thus designated as legitimate and genuine the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, organized under the authority of what is known as the southern jurisdiction, was included, and that organized under the authority of what is known as the United States jurisdiction was excluded.

Section 1 of article SNIY of the constitution of the Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons provides that when any member [618]of a chapter shall be accused of unmasonic conduct, charges to that effect may be preferred in writing by any Ro3al Arch Mason in good standing, and shall be presented to the high priest of the chapter having jurisdiction thereof, and it is also provided by the rules of the grand chapter that upon the application of said high priest the grand high priest may transfer the trial of the accused from the chapter of which he is a member to some other chapter, whenever in his judgment such transfer is necessary or expedient. In May, 1895, the defendant, Vermilyea, a member of said Sacramento Chapter No. 3, presented a charge in writing against the appellant to- the defendant Boyd, who was-the high priest of said chapter, charging him with conduct unbecoming a Royal Arch Mason, in that he did in February, 1895, openly solicit another member of said chapter to apply for, take, and receive the so-called degrees in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite claiming its authority under the United States jurisdiction, and also that he was and had for a long time been an active member of a body of Masons claiming to be acting under a charter from the United States jurisdiction of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Upon the presentation of these charges, the defendant Boyd forwarded the same to the defendant Hewell, who was the grand high priest of the grand chapter, and that officer directed that the trial of the plaintiff upon these charges be transferred to Stockton chapter, No. 28. Thereupon the plaintiff was summoned by the last-named chapter to appear and answer said charges, and to be tried thereon at its hall in Stockton, on August 5, 1895. The members of said Stockton chapter are also made defendants herein. The present action was brought to restrain the defendants from proceeding with the trial of said charges. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the plaintiff has appealed from the judgment entered thereon.

Lawson v. Hewell

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief