Chamberlain v. Lincoln
| Decision Date | 30 June 1880 |
| Citation | 129 Mass. 70 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | John T. Chamberlain & others v. Charles S. Lincoln & others |
Suffolk. Bill in equity by three persons claiming to be officers trustees, and members of Royal Arch Lodge No. 17 of the Independent Order of Good Templars, in behalf of themselves and the other members of said lodge, against three persons alleged to be the officers of an association wrongfully claiming the name and title of the Royal Arch Lodge, to obtain the records, books, charter, ritual and other property of said lodge, and to restrain the defendants from using the name of the lodge and from spending a certain sum of money belonging to the lodge. A demurrer to the bill was sustained and the bill dismissed, with costs; and the plaintiffs appealed to the full court. The material allegations of the bill and the provisions of the constitution of the Grand Lodge appear in the opinion.
Decree affirmed, with costs.
A. E Pillsbury, for the defendants.
A Russ, for the plaintiffs.
We are of opinion that the plaintiffs in their bill show no ground for the relief prayed for.
The Grand Lodge of the Order of Good Templars of Massachusetts is alleged to be a corporation, duly established by law, for the purpose of promoting the cause of temperance. Under the constitution of this corporation, which is made part of the bill, authority is given to issue charters to subordinate lodges, upon the application of ten or more persons in good standing and to suspend or revoke the same, and to demand the surrender of the charter and books of a lodge from any person in whose custody and possession they are. It does not appear that by such surrender the charter is necessarily suspended, revoked or forfeited. On the contrary, it is provided that it may be returned at any time within a year on the petition of ten members in good standing at the time of the surrender. Among the duties imposed upon the subordinate lodges thus created is the payment quarterly of a per capita tax to the Grand Lodge, and, failing to do this, or to hold meetings or make returns for twelve months, the charter is thereby forfeited and may be reclaimed by the council of the Grand Lodge. Any member of a subordinate lodge has the right of appeal to the officers of the Grand Lodge, if dissatisfied with any decision of the lodge. All appeals must be in writing, and due notice given of the same; and the Grand Lodge is empowered to receive and decide them upon hearing, and to determine all questions of law and usage.
It is clear that the rights of the members of the subordinate lodges must be determined by the provisions of these instruments. Grosvenor v. United Society of Believers, 118 Mass. 78.
Both parties in this case claim to represent the subordinate lodge known by the name of Royal Arch Lodge No. 17. At one of its regular meetings, on April 29, 1879, the members voted not to pay the per capita tax,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Hyde v. Jackson County Medical Society
... ... 92; Gorman v. O'Connor, 155 Pa. 239; Watson ... v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Chamberlain v. Lincoln, ... 129 Mass. 70; Osceola Tribe v. Schmidt, 57 Md. 98 ... ... OPINION ... [295 ... Mo ... ...
-
Leo v. Local Union No. 612 of International Union of Operating Engineers, 29792.
...will not assume jurisdiction of the controversy. Oliver v. Hopkins, 144 Mass. 175, 10 N.E. 776; Lafond v. Deems, 81 N.Y. 507; Chamberlain v. Lincoln, 129 Mass. 70; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 More recently, in Local Lodge No. 104 of International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, Etc., v. Int......
-
Washington Local Lodge No. 104 of Intern. Broth. of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders & Helpers of America v. International Broth. of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders & Helpers of America
...will not assume jurisdiction of the controversy. Oliver v. Hopkins, 144 Mass, 175, 10 N.E. 776; Lafond v. Deems, 81 N.Y. 507; Chamberlain v. Lincoln, 129 Mass. 70; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 The first of the cases cited in the final lines of the foregoing quotation, Oliver v. Hopkins, su......
-
Mulroy v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor
...appealing to a higher judicatory provided by the rules of the society, or otherwise. Karcher v. Supreme Lodge, 137 Mass. 368; Chamberlain v. Lincoln, 129 Mass. 70; La Fond v. Deems, 81 N.Y. 508; White Brownell, 2 Daly [N. Y.] 329; Poultney v. Bachman, 31 Hun [N. Y.] 49; Harrington v. Workin......