Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur v. Cauble

Citation41 S.Ct. 338,255 U.S. 356,65 L.Ed. 673
Decision Date07 March 1921
Docket NumberNo. 274,274
PartiesSUPREME TRIBE OF BEN HUR v. CAUBLE et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Charles M. McCabe, of Crawfordsville, Ind., and Samuel D. Miller, William H. Thompson, and Frank C. Dailey, all of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellant.

Mr. William C. Bachelder, of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellees.

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is here upon the question of jurisdiction. Jud. Code, § 238 (Comp. St. § 1215). Appellant is a fraternal benefit association organized under the laws of the state of Indiana. It filed a bill against Aurelia J. Cauble and others, citizens and residents of Indiana, to enjoin them from prosecuting in the state courts certain suits which, it is averred, would relitigate questions settled by a decree of the United States District Court for Indiana; it being the contention that all the members in Class A in the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur, including the appellees, were bound and concluded by the federal decree.

The bill was filed upon the theory that it is ancillary in character, and justifies a decree to protect the rights adjudicated in the original proceeding. A motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was sustained. (D. C.) 264 Fed. 247.

The ancillary bill alleges that the questions decided in the original suit determined:

(1) The right of the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur to create a new class of benefit certificate holders known as Class B. (The membership in such society up to July 1, 1908, having been in the class thereafter to be designated as Class A.) (2) The right of the society to determine that all benefit certificates issued after July 1, 1908, should be Class B certificates, and that no Class A certificates should be issued after that date, and no new members taken into Class A, from that time. (3) The right of the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur to require members of Class B to pay different rates for their insurance from members of Class A. (4) The right of the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur to require that the mortuary funds of the two classes be kept separate and distinct, and that the death losses occurring therein, should be paid out of the funds of each class respectively. (5) The right of the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur to authorize members of Class A to transfer, upon a written application therefor to Class B, and to take with them into Class B. their interest in the mortuary, and other funds, of the society, created, or arising prior to July 1, 1908, and requiring the Class B members to pay a monthly payment and rate in excess of that paid by Class A members. (6) The right of the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur to require members remaining in Class A, and not transferring to Class B, to pay a sufficient number of monthly payments, or assessments, to meet the death losses in Class A. (7) The right of the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur to use the expense fund of the society for the purpose of creating Class B, and induce Class A members to transfer to Class B, and to secure new members in Class B. (8) Whether the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur had used the expense fund in a manner justified by its constitution and by-laws and a general examination of expenditures which had been made by that society, out of its expense fund, and the purpose for which these expenditures had been made, and whether any of them were made in violation of the rights of Class A members. (9) The right of the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur to use its expense fund, including all questions as to whether payments made out of it were equitable and just, or inequitable, wrongful and unlawful; and the question of whether the maintenance of a general expense fund, and the payments of the entire expenses of the society therefrom, was fair, just and legal. (10) Whether the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur had wrongfully, or unlawfully inaugurated a campaign to persuade and induce the members of the society belonging to Class A to give up their certificates in Class A, and to apply for and procure membership and certificates in Class B; or whether the action of the society, and its officers in that connection, was rightful, just and equitable. (11) The question of whether the rates in Class A, in effect prior to July 1, 1908, were adequate, or inadequate, or whether they were sufficient to provide for the current death losses in Class A, and the expenses of the society; or whether it was necessary, in order to prevent the insolvency of the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur, to create a new class, and induce the members of the old class, in so far as it was possible to induce them, to transfer to the new class, and the right of the society to take all action necessary for this purpose.

Other details of the reorganization are set forth, and it is averred that in the original suit it was finally determined and adjudged that the reorganization adopted by the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur was valid and binding upon all the members of the society, including the members known as Class A.

The ancillary bill alleges that the commencement of the suit in the state courts of Indiana will have the effect to relitigate questions conclusively adjudicated against the defendants as members of Class A in the action in the United States District Court; that to permit them to do so would destroy the effect of the decree rendered in that suit; that in the several suits commenced in the state courts plaintiffs therein challenged the rights of the society to create Class B; and that the plan of reorganization of the society to create Class B, and the questions of fact and law involved in the causes in the state court are the same questions, and none other than those conclusively adjudged and determined in the main suit.

The District Judge dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction upon the following certificate:

'I hereby certify that I dismissed the ancillary bill of complaint in the above cause of the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur v. Aurelia J. Cauble et al., solely because of the lack of jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Indiana to entertain said ancillary bill of complaint.

'I dismissed said ancillary bill of complaint upon a motion filed by the defendants thereto and also upon my own motion.

'The jurisdictional question arose as follows:

'On April 16, 1913, George Balme, a citizen of the state of Kentucky, and five hundred and twenty-three other complainants residing in fifteen different states of the Union outside of the state of Indiana, and one complainant residing in the Dominion of Canada, filed their bill of complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Indiana against the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur, a fraternal beneficiary society organized under laws of the state of Indiana with its principal office at Crawfordsville in said state and district aforesaid, and its officers, all citizens and residents of the state of Indiana to enjoin what was claimed to be an unlawful use of trust funds of said defendant, Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur in which all the complainants and other members of Class A of said Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur had a common but indivisible interest, and attacking a plan of reorganization adopted by the supreme legislative body of the Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur to prevent threatened insolvency and disruption of said society; the suit was a class suit brought and prosecuted for the benefit of all members of Class A of said society of whom there were more than seventy thousand at the time of the commencement of said suit, to wit, April 16, 1913; an answer was filed by the defendants, setting up a full answer to the facts averred in the bill of complaint; a long hearing was had before the master, the master filed a written report, and in this report it was found that this was strictly a true class suit, presenting questions of common interest to all the members of Class A and affecting their joint interests in funds and in internal management of the society, written exceptions were filed thereto both by complainants and defendants, and a final decree was entered, dismissing complainants' bill of complaint for want of equity, which said decree has never been appealed from, modified or vacated, but is still in full force and effect. No Indiana members of the society intervened or were made parties to the suit by any subsequent proceeding prior to the filing of said ancillary bill in said cause.

'In 1919 the defendants to the ancillary bill, all being residents of the state of Indiana, and all having been members of said Class A of said Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur or being beneficiaries of persons who were members of said Class A at the time of the commencement, prosecution and final decree in said cause of Balme and Others v. Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur and Others, commenced actions in the circuit court of Montgomery county Ind., and in the circuit court of Marion county, Ind., in which they seek to relitigate questions determined in favor of the defendant, Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur, in said suit brought by George Balme and others in the United States District Court for the District of Indiana.

'The ancillary bill of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
232 cases
  • Olds v. Alvord
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 29, 1938
    ... 183 So. 711 133 Fla. 345 OLDS et al. v. ALVORD et al. Florida Supreme Court March 29, 1938 . . Rehearing. Denied June 18, 1938. . . Further. ... within this rule so the objection is without merit. Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356, 41. S.Ct. 338, 65 L.Ed. 673. . . Other. ......
  • Black v. Elkhorn Coal Corp.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • March 25, 1930
    ......523, 245 S.W. 157. The principle is. [26 S.W.2d 484] . accepted and applied by the Supreme Court of the United. States. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Ibs, 237 U.S. 662, 35. S.Ct. 692, 59 L.Ed. ... Council v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 35 S.Ct. 724, 59 L.Ed. 1089, L. R. A. 1916A, 771; Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356, 41 S.Ct. 338, 65 L.Ed. 673. When. the interest of the ......
  • In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • September 25, 1984
    ...the defendants. See Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 340, 89 S.Ct. 1053, 1059, 22 L.Ed.2d 319 (1969); Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356, 41 S.Ct. 338, 65 L.Ed. 673 (1921). Plaintiffs also alleged that the amount in controversy with respect to each of the individual claims of t......
  • In re No. Dist. of Cal." Dalkon Shield" IUD Products, C-80-2213 SW.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • November 5, 1981
    ...in fact often must proceed, in the absence of personal jurisdiction over all class members. In Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356, 41 S.Ct. 338, 65 L.Ed. 673 (1921), the United States Supreme Court allowed a class action brought in federal court on behalf of persons who "resid......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Antitrust and Business Tort Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort litigation
    • January 1, 2014
    ...state for purposes of alienage jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(2)). 76. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2). 77. Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356, 365-66 (1921), overruled in part on other grounds by Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118, 138 (1941); Kerney v. Fort Griffin Fandangl......
  • Transnational class actions and interjurisdictional preclusion.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 86 No. 1, February 2011
    • February 1, 2011
    ...class action judgments"). (20) Cooper, 467 U.S. at 874 (citing, inter alia, FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(3); Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356 (1921); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS [section] (21) Id. at 869-70. (22) Id. at 871-72. (23) Id. at 869-70. (24) Id. at 872-73. (25) Id.......
  • Federal jurisdiction and due process in the era of the nationwide class action.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 156 No. 6, June 2008
    • June 1, 2008
    ...311 U.S. 32, 4243, 45 (1940)). (151) See Shapiro, supra note 110, at 937-38 (discussing Hansberry' and Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356 (152) Shutts, 472 U.S. at 810. (153) Cf. Shapiro, supra note 110, at 924-27 (discussing deterrence as a justification supporting certain le......
  • The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 in historical context: a preliminary view.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 156 No. 6, June 2008
    • June 1, 2008
    ...be a distraction. (30) See Purcell, supra note 5. (31) See Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 340 (1969); Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356, 366 (1921). The same rule applies to defendant class actions which, because of their rarity, will not be further discussed in this (32) Su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 provisions
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Actions
    • United States
    • US Code 2019 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Civil Procedure For the United States District Courts [1] Title III. Pleadings Andmotions
    • January 1, 2019
    ...to enforce rights held in common by policyholders against the corporate issuer of the policies, see Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356 (1921). See also Terry v. Little, 101 U.S. 216 (1880); John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Kinnicutt, 248 Fed. 596 (D.C.N.Y., 1917) dealing with th......
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Actions
    • United States
    • US Code 2019 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Civil Procedure For the United States District Courts [1] Title III. Pleadings Andmotions
    • January 1, 2019
    ...to enforce rights held in common by policyholders against the corporate issuer of the policies, see Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356 (1921). See also Terry v. Little, 101 U.S. 216 (1880); John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Kinnicutt, 248 Fed. 596 (D.C.N.Y., 1917) dealing with th......
  • 28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 23 Class Actions
    • United States
    • US Code 2022 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Civil Procedure For the United States District Courts
    • January 1, 2022
    ...to enforce rights held in common by policyholders against the corporate issuer of the policies, see Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356 (1921). See also Terry v. Little, 101 U.S. 216 (1880); John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Kinnicutt, 248 Fed. 596 (D.C.N.Y., 1917) dealing with th......
  • 28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 23 Class Actions
    • United States
    • US Code 2020 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Civil Procedure For the United States District Courts [1] Title IV. Parties
    • January 1, 2020
    ...to enforce rights held in common by policyholders against the corporate issuer of the policies, see Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356 (1921). See also Terry v. Little, 101 U.S. 216 (1880); John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Kinnicutt, 248 Fed. 596 (D.C.N.Y., 1917) dealing with th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT