Burmaster v. Alwin
| Decision Date | 30 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 20434.,20434. |
| Citation | 165 N.W. 135,138 Minn. 383 |
| Parties | BURMASTER v. ALWIN et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; John H. Steele, Judge.
Action by Frank E. Burmaster against A. J. Alwin and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Stevens v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Ass'n, 124 Minn. 381, 145 N. W. 35,50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1018, construing a by-law substantially like that involved in this action, by which the managing officers of the association were empowered to terminate the rights of members therein without notice or opportunity to be heard, followed and applied. M. C. Tifft and W. B. Anderson, both of Minneapolis, for appellants.
Laybourn & Cary and Charles G. Laybourn, all of Minneapolis, for respondent.
The question whether plaintiff's membership in the association was legally canceled is controlled by our decision in Stevens v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Ass'n, 124 Minn. 381, 145 N. W. 35,50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1018. In that case, as in the case at bar, the by-laws authorizing the suspension of members contained no requirement that notice be given the member proceeded against, or that such member be otherwise afforded an opportunity to be heard before being condemned. We there held that the by-law must be construed in the light of the constitutional right to notice and a hearing before one may be deprived of vested legal rights. The cases cannot be differentiated, and we follow and apply the rule there stated. The fact that plaintiff was present at the meeting when his membership was canceled is not important. He was not notified that the matter would be brought up and was given no opportunity to present his side of the controversy. The notice required by the law in such cases is one that will afford a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present a defense.
The question of damages does not require discussion. Though there appears no evidence of actual damage, the trial court charged the jury that if they found that defendants acted malicously they might award exemplary damages. That instruction is in no way challenged, either by exception taken at the trial, or in the motion for a new trial, and must therefore be taken as the law of the case. 3 Dunnell's Dig. 9792. There is evidence in the record from which the jury might well find malice, and the amount of the verdict as reduced by the trial court is within the limits of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial