Burt v. Free
| Decision Date | 05 May 1887 |
| Parties | BURT v. MICHIGAN GRAND LODGE OF FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
BURT
v.
MICHIGAN GRAND LODGE OF FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS.
Supreme Court of Michigan
May 5, 1887.
Mandamus.
[33 N.W. 14]
F.A. Baker, for relator.
John W. McGrath, for respondent.
CAMPBELL, C.J.
Relator seeks a mandamus to compel the rescission of an order of respondents expelling him from the body. This was adopted in 1880. Soon thereafter he applied to this court upon the supposition that this was done in the course of an appeal from Michigan Lodge No. 50, of Jackson, and as an affirmance of the action of that lodge which he claimed to have been in violation of his rights. Assuming that this lodge was a corporation, of which he was a member, for purposes of a mixed character, the application for a mandamus was denied on the petition itself, as indicating that he had chosen his remedy by appeal to the Grand Lodge as a domestic tribunal, and must abide by it.
By the present application, which has been very long delayed, it appears that the Grand Lodge, instead of acting on his appeal, expelled him as having, by his showing in that case, declared himself not a member, and not capable of becoming a member, of that body, or any of its subordinate lodges. This being an original action of a corporation in which the petition before us indicated that relator might have rights which had been disregarded, we allowed an order to show cause. Cause is shown, and the return is not disputed. We are therefore to determine whether we have authority to relieve him.
He applies on the ground that, being a member of the Masonic body from another state, he became, on his residence in Jackson, subject to the jurisdiction of the Jackson lodge before mentioned, and was charged in that body with what was claimed to be offenses against his duty as a citizen and a Mason, and condemned without any regard to his rights to a fair hearing. On appeal to the Grand Lodge, the proper committee of that body reported unanimously that the action of the inferior body was wrong and unjust, and they exonerated relator from the condemnation as entirely unwarranted. But the Grand Lodge, finding that relator in his objections to the action of the inferior lodge had asserted his independence of their jurisdiction by reason of his holding a high office in a different order of Masons, with which the lodge had no intercourse or relations, expelled him on that account; what was nominally an expulsion being practically no more than a refusal to recognize him as a Mason of their order.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial