People ex rel. Solomon v. Bhd. of Painters, Decorators, & Paper Hangers of America

• Citation: 112 N.E. 752,218 N.Y. 115
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. SOLOMON v. BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA et al.
• Decision Date: 02 May 1916
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

218 N.Y. 115

112 N.E. 752

PEOPLE ex rel. SOLOMON

v.BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 2, 1916.

Appeal from Supreme Court, appellate Division, First Department.

Application by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Meyer Solomon, for a writ of mandamus against the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paper Hangers of America and others. From an order of the Appellate Division (169 App. Div. 595, 915,155 N. Y. Supp. 438) affirming an order of the Special Term granting a motion for peremptory mandamus, requiring respondents to reinstate relator as a member and awarding damages, respondents appeal. Reversed.

Cuddeback, J., dissenting in part.

Morris Hillquit, of New York City, for appellants.

Alexander Rosenthal, of New York City, for respondent.

SEABURY, J.

The questions presented for determination upon this appeal arise out of a mandamus proceeding. That proceeding has resulted in the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus against the respondents requiring each of them to reinstate the relator to membership in its organization and requiring each of the respondents to pay the damages awarded the relator. The relator is a painter by trade, and claims to have been unlawfully expelled from membership in the respondents' organizations. The respondents are: (1) The Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America; (2) the District Council of New York, No. 9, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paper Hangers of America; and (3) Local Union No. 1011 of New York, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paper Hangers of America. The first-named organization, called the Brotherhood, is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the state of Indiana. The District Council of New York City, No. 9, and the Local Union No. 1011 of New York are voluntary unincorporated associations consisting of more than seven members each. The foreign corporation, called the Brotherhood, is a national labor union or association of local labor unions in various parts of the United States and Canada. It had under its constitution a limited jurisdiction over the local unions in affiliation with it, and is governed and controlled by these various local unions through delegates elected by the local unions. It maintains an office for the transaction of business in the state of Indiana and transacts its business in that state. It had no office in the state of New York, and none of its officers reside or transact its business within this state. It has not been authorized to do business in this state. The District Council of New York City, No. 9, is an association of local unions within New York. Local Union No. 1011 of New York is a local labor union. Membership in the local union carries with it membership in the district council and confers certain rights and privileges in the Brotherhood, with which it is affiliated. The relator became a member of the local union in 1903, and continued in such membership until June 6, 1912, when he was tried upon charges by the district council, and as a result of said trial expelled from the local union. From this expulsion the relator appealed to the general executive board of the Brotherhood, and the order of expulsion was affirmed. A further appeal was taken by the relator to the general assembly of the Brotherhood, where the order of expulsion was likewise affirmed. The writ of mandamus which the relator has been awarded by the courts below not only directed his reinstatement to membership in each of these separate organizations, but also awards him the sum of $998.50 as damages and costs against all of the respondents.

[1][2] The relator has sought to avail himself of a remedy which was not properly open to him. Mandamus was originally regarded as a prerogative writ. In modern times it has been somewhat assimilated to ordinary remedies. The power of the courts to grant a remedy by means of this writ is derived from the common law and from statutory enactments. The common-law right to issue the writ is limited to the enforcement of some duty prescribed by law as against persons and corporations within the jurisdiction. Generally speaking, foreign corporations are not, so far at least as their internal affairs are concerned, subject to regulation by the courts of this state. The question of membership in a foreign corporation relates to the internal affairs of the corporation and is subject to regulation only by the courts of the state or country to which the corporation owes its existence. When a foreign corporation accepts a license to do business in this state or does some act which subjects itself to the jurisdiction of this state, it may be treated as a domestic corporation to the extent of rendering it subject to the writ of mandamus. Matter of Wilcox, 123 App. Div. 86,108 N. Y. Supp. 483;Morgan v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 189 N. Y. 447, 82 N. E. 438. Where, however, it has not been authorized to do business in this state, and has done no act to subject it to the jurisdiction of this state, its action in reference to its internal affairs may not be controlled by the writ of mandamus. People ex rel. Ruman v. National Slavonic Society, 144 App. Div. 574,129 N. Y. Supp. 603;People ex rel. Beharka v. National Slavonic Society, 153 App. Div. 885, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1057. This is the rule of the common law (Andrews v. Miners Corporation, 205 Mass. 121, 91 N. E. 122,137 Am. St. Rep. 428), which has not been changed in this state by statute (Matter of Rappleye, 43 App. Div. 84,59 N. Y. Supp. 338;Travis v. Knox Terpezone Co., 215 N. Y. 259, 109 N. E. 250, L. R. A. 1916A, 542).

Not only is the Brotherhood a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Indiana, and not authorized by this state to do business within its borders, but the claim that it has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of this state rests upon the fact that it is affiliated with local unions which exist in this state as voluntary unincorporated associations. This single fact will not sustain the claim that is sought to be predicated upon it. The voluntary unincorporated associations and the foreign corporation are separate and distinct legal entities. The fact that each co-operated with...