Anacosta Tribe No. 12, Improved Order of Red Men v. Murbach

• Decision Date: 24 February 1859
• Parties: ANACOSTA TRIBE, NO. 12, IMPROVED ORDER OF RED MEN, v. ANDREW MURBACH.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

13 Md. 91

ANACOSTA TRIBE, NO. 12, IMPROVED ORDER OF RED MEN, v. ANDREW MURBACH.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

February 24, 1859

Where a member of an incorporated private beneficial association has a claim against the association for benefits under their by-laws, which was disputed and decided against him, by the decision of the proper tribunal acting under the general laws and by-laws of the order, a court of law has no jurisdiction over an action to recover such benefits.

APPEAL from the Court of Common Pleas.

Assumpsit, brought by the appellee against the appellant, a society incorporated under the act of 1852, ch 231, to recover weekly benefits claimed by the plaintiff to be due him, under certain by-laws of the society of which he was a member, and which the society refused to pay. Plea non-assumpsit.

Exception. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of this court. The defendant asked two instructions:

1st. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, from the want of jurisdiction over the matter in controversy, the same having been previously decided by a competent tribunal, acting according to the provisions of the charter of incorporation, its by-laws and usages, and the decision so made and confirmed by the Great Council of Maryland of the Improved Order of Red Men, is conclusive upon all the parties.

2nd. That the plaintiff having been regularly expelled from the said Anacosta Tribe, is not entitled to maintain this action while said expulsion is in force.

The court (MARSHALL, J.,) refused these prayers, and to this ruling the defendant excepted, and the verdict and judgment being in favor of the plaintiff, appealed.

It was agreed in this court, that all objections to the form of the above prayers, and the proper admission of the testimony, should be waived, and that the only questions intended to be raised and decided by this court, are, whether under the circumstances detailed in the record, the defendant below is liable, and whether the court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction.

The cause was argued before LE GRAND, C. J., ECCLESTON, TUCK and BARTOL, J.

Joseph C. Boyd and Charles H. Pitts for the appellant, argued:

1st. That the court below had no jurisdiction, because the matter in controversy had been heard and determined by a competent tribunal, to whose jurisdiction the parties had voluntarily submitted themselves. 2 Whart., 309, Black & Whitesmith Society vs. Vandyke. 39 Maine, 35, Came vs. Brigham.

2nd. That the plaintiff, having been expelled from the Tribe, had no right to maintain the action if his expulsion was right; and if his expulsion was wrong he had no right to maintain the action, until, by mandamus, he had procured his restoration to membership. 2 Whart., 309.

Edward E. McLane for the appellee, argued:

1st. That our courts have full and ample power to revise the proceedings of the appellant, or any corporate body created by law, in relation to an alleged improper expulsion of a member. 2 Binney, 448, Commonwealth vs. St. Patrick's Beneficial Society.

2nd. That the act of incorporation does not prohibit the members of the corporate body, from pursuing legal means to obtain redress for alleged injuries, nor divest a member of his legal rights. Act of 1852, ch. 231, sec. 1. Angel & Ames on Corp., 280, (Ed. of 1843.) Bill of Rights, Art. 17, 18. 2 Burr., 778, Ballard vs. Bennet.

3rd. That an action will lie against a corporation for an implied promise, raised by virtue of its by-laws and benefits conferred upon it. 2 Rob. Prac., 397. 7 Cranch., 305, 306, Bank of Columbia vs. Patterson.

4th. That an action on the case will lie for damages equally where there is a ground for a mandamus, and that the party injured can adopt either mode of redress. 9 Clark & Finnelly, 319, Ferguson vs. Earl of Kinnoull.

5th. That a mandamus is usually granted only where there is no other specific remedy. Douglass, 524, King vs. Bank of England.

OPINION

TUCK, J.

This record shows that the appellant was incorporated under the act of 1852, ch. 231, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Grand Council of Improved Order of Red Men; that the appellee became a member of the Tribe in October 1849, and so continued until July 1854, having paid his dues, when he was reported as sick and claimed benefits under a by-law, which the Tribe refused to allow; and that he was sick during the time for which he claimed the benefits. This was in substance the case made by the plaintiff below, on which state of facts he sought to recover his weekly allowance during his sickness.

The defendant below read in evidence portions of the general laws, for the government of the Tribe under the jurisdiction of the Grand Council. The first section of the 19th article provides,...