Baron v. Fontes

• Decision Date: 27 May 1942
• Citation: 42 N.E.2d 280,311 Mass. 473
• Parties: BARON et al. v. FONTES et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

311 Mass. 473

42 N.E.2d 280

BARON et al.

v.FONTES et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

May 27, 1942.

Suit for injunction by William Baron and others against Joseph Fontes and others. From a decree granting an injunction, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.Appeal from Superior Court, Bristol County; Walsh, Judge.

Before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, QUA, DOLAN, and RONAN, JJ.

J. Minkin and A. P. Doyle, both of New Bedford, for plaintiffs.

F. F. Perrone and E. Laycock, both of New Bedford, for defendants.

QUA, Justice.

This bill is brought in behalf of a voluntary association known as the New Bedford and District Weavers' Protective Association by William Baron as its president and by other members alleged to be fairly representative of all the membership, except the defendants. Allegations essential to an understanding of the issues argued may be summarily stated as follows:

The association is ‘an independent union’ of approximately three thousand members, possessing real and personal property in which each member has an interest. The nine defendants, all of whom are also members, have ‘set out on an illegal conspiracy’ to get control of the assets of the union and to use them for illegal purposes, to thwart the will of the membership, to create strife and dissention among the members, to nullify the effectiveness of the union to serve its membership, and to disrupt and destroy the union. The defendants are alleged to have been guilty of a series of ‘overt acts' in pursuance of the alleged ‘conspiracy.’ Among other things, they are averred to have placed the defendant Toby E. Mendes in the office of secretary-treasurer, although he was disqualified under the rules, by-laws, and constitution of the association, to have ‘placed themselves in the offices' of members of the executive board (called in the constitution the management committee) without being duly elected thereto, to have attempted illegally to remove from office the plaintiff Baron, the duly elected president of the association, to have prevented him from performing his duties as president, general superintendent, and business agent, and to be using the funds of the association contrary to its rules and without authority, to the irreparable injury of the plaintiffs' property. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have exhausted all remedies within the association. The prayers are for injunctive and general relief.

The judge entered a final decree reciting that certain of the defendants therein named had not been properly elected to offices in the association, enjoining the defendant Toby E. Mendes from exercising the office of secretary-treasurer, enjoining the defendants Toby E. Mendes, De Haze, and Frank Mendes, from exercising the office of member of the management committee, enjoining the defendant Avila from assuming to act as president pro tempore, enjoining the defendant Nunes from exercising the office of business agent, and enjoining the defendants Toby E. Mendes, Avila, Nunes, Frank Mendes, and De Haze from obstructing the plaintiff Baron in performing his duties as president. The defendants appeal.

The defendant advance two contentions only, to which we confine our discussion and decision. These are (1) that the decree goes beyond the scope of the bill and of the facts found by the master in that the bill is based upon conspiracy and relief has been granted for particular forms of alleged wrongs, although the master made no definite finding of the existence of the conspiracy for the purposes alleged, and (2) that the plaintiffs did not exhaust their remedies within the association. Neither contention. can be sustained.

1. This case does not fall within the comparatively narrow class of cases where conspiracy is in itself the gist of the cause of action. This is not a case where combination among several defendants makes unlawful a course of conduct that might not give rise to liability if carried out by a single individual. All of the wrongful conduct alleged in the bill would be equally wrongful if carried out by a single individual. In such cases as this the only effect of allegations of ‘conspiracy’ is to show such combined...