Brown v. Stoerkel

Decision Date20 February 1889
Citation41 N.W. 921,74 Mich. 269
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesBROWN v. STOERKEL ET AL.

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; CORNELIUS J. REILLY, Judge.

Action by Clifford E. Brown against Phillip Stoerkel and John Gregory. There was a general verdict for plaintiff, which was set aside on motion, and judgment rendered on special findings for defendants. Plaintiff brings error.

MORSE J.

This is an action in assumpsit. The declaration contained three special counts, but the trial was had upon the third count alone, which alleged, in substance, that the defendants had converted and appropriated to their own use moneys belonging to local assembly No. 8,104 of the Knights of Labor, which was an unincorporated association, and that the members of said local assembly had assigned their right title, and interest in said moneys over to plaintiff. The jury, in the Wayne circuit court, returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $355.50, but, in response to special questions submitted to them, found as follows: "(1) Did all the members of the 530 members contributing money to the Peninsular Car-Works Assembly of Knights of Labor intend that the money so contributed should be used as initiation fees in a local assembly of the Knights of Labor as existing throughout the United States? Answer. Yes. (2) Did all the members interested in the fund contributed join in the assignment to plaintiff? A. No. (3) Did the members, organizing under the name of the 'Peninsular Car-Works Assembly,' intend when so organized, to form another and distinct organization which should be a successor to the association so formed? A. Yes. (4) Did any member who originally joined the Peninsular Car-Works Association of the Knights of Labor ever withdraw from the same? A. No. (5) Was it ever intended that the money contributed by the 530 original contributors should become the property of Local Assembly No. 8,104? A. Yes." A motion was thereafter made by the defendants that the general verdict of the jury be set aside, and that judgment be entered upon the second special verdict found by the jury, because the jury answered to the second special question that all the members "interested" in the fund contributed did not join in the assignment to the plaintiff. This motion was granted and judgment thereupon entered for the defendants. The plaintiff brings error, and here insists that judgment be entered on the general verdict in his favor for the amount of such verdict.

Was the special verdict inconsistent with the general one? This is the point before us. In order to fully understand the question to be determined, it will be necessary to state the facts, about which there is but little, if any, dispute. In May, 1886, there was a strike at the Peninsular Car-Works. The men in the works formed a preliminary organization, preparatory to forming a local assembly of the Knights of Labor. This preliminary body was called the "Peninsular Car-Works Assembly," and was designed by its organizers to hold the workmen together until they could be initiated in squads into the Knights of Labor. When this was completed, the preliminary organization ceased to exist, and the society known as "Local Assembly No. 8,104 of the Knights of Labor" was formed, under the rules and laws of that order. The persons joining the preliminary organization were required to pay one dollar, and also another dollar when they were initiated into the local assembly of the Knights of Labor. The funds thus raised was to be used in assisting members in need. Some of it was thus used, and in paying expenses, and some was deposited in the People's Savings Bank of Detroit. The money was put in the hands of Edward Hemison and the defendants, and they made the deposit, in all of $400. The defendants, Gregory and Stoerkel, drew this money from the bank,-$50, July 8, 1886; and the balance December 20, 1886. Gregory was treasurer of the association, and Stoerkel one of the trustees, at the time the deposit was made. Hemison was recording secretary. The defendants, on demand, refused to pay the money over to a committee of the local assembly or to plaintiff. Both of these associations were voluntary and unincorporated. There were 530 members of the preliminary organization. Some of the members did not go into the local assembly; quite a large number of them. One witness testifies that not over 100 of them went into the Knights of Labor Assembly No. 8,104; others swear that about 200 joined. The assignment claimed by the plaintiff was proven by a resolution passed at a meeting of Local Assembly No. 8,104, March 26, 1887: "Committee on the defaulters' question, and Bro. Brown elected as assignee. Motion made and supported that each and every member, initiated before January 1st, that his signature be received, and signed over to Bro. Brown, and let him put it through the court. Carried." An assignment was drawn up in pursuance of said action of the assembly, and signed by 38 members. These are claimed by plaintiff to have been all the members in good standing at the time of the assignment.

The conflicting claims in the evidence were these: (1) The plaintiff claimed that the money paid in by the persons joining the preliminary organization known as the "Peninsular Car-Works Assembly" was to go into the funds of the Local Assembly No. 8,104 of the Knights of Labor. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed that the dollar paid in by each of the 530 men was contributed for the sole purpose of aiding the families of these men in distress, and was not to go into the local assembly. This dispute was settled by the jury in favor of the plaintiff by their answers to questions Nos. 1, 3, and 5 in which answers they found that the money paid in was intended by all the persons paying it in to go into the funds, and become the property, of the Local Assembly No. 8,104, which was by all of them intended to be a distinct organization from, and a successor to, the preliminary association. (2) The plaintiff claimed that all the members in good standing of the local assembly joined in the assignment to him, and that that was sufficient; and the defendant insisted that he must, in order to prevail, have an...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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