Commonwealth, ex rel. v. Union League of Phila

• Decision Date: 26 May 1890
• Docket Number: 203
• Citation: 135 Pa. 301,19 A. 1030
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH, EX REL., v. UNION LEAGUE OF PHILA
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

19 A. 1030

135 Pa. 301

COMMONWEALTH, EX REL., v. UNION LEAGUE OF PHILA

No. 203

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 26, 1890

Argued April 7, 1890

APPEAL BY DEFENDANT FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 3 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.

No. 203 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 657 March Term 1883, C.P. No. 3.

On May 28, 1883, Arthur Burt presented a petition in the court below for a writ of mandamus, directed to the Union League of Philadelphia, commanding it to restore the petitioner, or show cause why he should not be restored, to the rights and privileges of membership therein, from which, as his petition averred, he had been irregularly and unlawfully expelled. Upon the filing of the petition, the court awarded a writ of alternative mandamus, framed in accordance with the prayer of the petitioner.

On June 23, 1883, the defendant filed its return to the writ, setting forth its charter, by-laws, rules and regulations, in substance as follows:

The defendant was incorporated by the act of March 30, 1864, P.L 197, the preamble of which recites the purpose of the organization to be the "fostering and promoting the love of Republican Government, aiding in the preservation of the Union of the United States, and extending aid and relief to the soldiers and sailors of the army and navy thereof." Certain provisions of the act are as follows:

"Sec 3. That the duties and rights of the members of the said corporation, the powers and functions of the officers thereof, . . . . the mode of electing or admitting members the terms of their admission, and the causes which justify their expulsion, and the manner of effecting the same, . . . . shall be regulated by the by-laws and ordinances of said corporation, which they are empowered to make and alter, in the manner which may be therein mentioned: Provided, that the said bylaws and ordinances shall not be repugnant to or inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States, or of this commonwealth."

In pursuance of the powers thus conferred upon it, the defendant corporation, on January 6, 1865, adopted by-laws embracing the following provisions:

ARTICLE I.

Sec. 5. . . . When a person shall cease to be a member from any cause, all the interest he may have in the property of the league, by reason of his membership, shall be vested in the corporation.

ARTICLE II.

Sec. 5. A majority of the board shall have power to suspend members for a wilful infraction of the rules of the house, or of any by-law of the league, or for acts or conduct which they may deem disorderly, or injurious to the interests or hostile to the objects of the league, but the offender may appeal from their sentence of suspension, as hereinafter provided; but prior to the suspension of a member he shall be entitled to notice and a hearing before the board, or before a committee of the same, as he may elect.

ARTICLE IV.

Sec. 1. A member suspended from the league by sentence of the board of directors, may appeal therefrom within thirty days after notice thereof posted on the notice board, by filing with the secretary a written notice of his appeal, and the reasons therefor. In case of no appeal within the time limited, he shall then cease to be a member of the league.

Sec. 2. All appeals shall be tried in a meeting of the league, to be called for the purpose by the board of directors, within forty days after notice of the appeal shall be filed with the secretary.

Sec. 3. The president, or one of the vice-presidents, shall preside at such meetings, and the cause of suspension shall be reported in writing by the board of directors, with a statement of facts on which their sentence was founded, a copy of which shall be furnished to the appellant on his application to be made to the secretary at least ten days before the meeting. The appellant shall then present his defence in writing, to which one member of the board may reply orally. The appellant, or any one member on his behalf, may then rejoin, and a director may a second time speak in support of the charge, and no further discussion shall be allowed. The presiding officer shall then put the question, "Shall the sentence of the board of managers in this case be affirmed?" If a majority of the meeting shall vote in the affirmative, the sentence shall stand as the final judgment of the league, and the appellant shall thereupon forfeit all the rights and privileges of membership. If less than a majority of the meeting vote in the affirmative, then the sentence of the board shall be reversed, and the appellant shall thereupon be restored to membership.

The return further set forth that in May, 1870, the relator was elected a member of the Union League, and signed the membership book containing a copy of the charter and bylaws, thereby binding himself to the observance of the provisions thereof; that, "although the purposes for which the corporation defendant was originally created were correctly set forth in the preamble to its said charter, yet the purposes of social intercourse entered as an element into its usefulness, and, as the causes which led to its creation ceased to exist within little more than a year thereafter, the element of social intercourse increased; and, although its members are, to a large extent, composed of persons of a certain political faith, as is the case with similar institutions in other cities of the world, yet a chief purpose of the institution is, and long has been, the promotion of social intercourse between the members themselves, and between the latter and the guests of the corporation, and to this end there was and is required the adoption of, and strict compliance with, certain rules of internal discipline regulating the intercourse within its walls."

That in 1881, after a hearing and proceedings under article II., § 5, of the by-laws, the relator was regularly suspended from membership for disorderly conduct in the league house, but upon his express request, and upon giving assurance of future good conduct, he was reinstated; that on December 30, 1882, William E. Littleton, a fellow member, preferred against the relator a charge of conduct unbecoming a gentleman, in applying to him, Littleton, in the restaurant of the league, grossly insulting language; that the relator, being duly notified, elected to defend against these charges and to prove counter charges made by him against Littleton, before a committee of the board of directors, in accordance with article II., § 5, of the by-laws; that, accordingly, meetings of the committee were held, the parties heard, and witnesses examined, and on February 13, 1883, at a meeting of the board, the committee reported finding the following facts:

"1. That on December 9, 1882, Arthur Burt, in the restaurant of the league, was guilty of rude and ungentlemanly conduct and told a fellow member, William E. Littleton, that he was acting like a blackguard.

"2. That the offence was without provocation on the part of Mr. Littleton.

"3. That Mr. Littleton was not at the time under the influence of liquor."

That the committee also submitted the following resolution which was unanimously adopted by the board:

"Resolved, That Arthur Burt has been guilty of a violation of article II., § 5, of the by-laws of the Union League, and that he be and is hereby suspended from this date from his privileges as a member."

That the relator having appealed from this decision, a meeting of the league was duly called and held on April 3, 1883, at which, after proceedings had in the manner prescribed by article IV., § 3, of the by-laws, a majority of the members present voted to affirm the sentence of the board of managers.

The various proceedings set out in the return are stated with more fulness in the opinion of the Supreme Court, infra.

On September 29, 1884, the relator filed a plea traversing the return. On November 14, 1889, having, by leave of the court, withdrawn his plea, he filed a demurrer to the return, assigning, inter alia, as grounds of demurrer, in substance, that the return was evasive and not responsive to the writ; that the findings of fact made by the committee showed that the relator was not convicted of any offence against the corporation, but at most of an offence against a fellow member; that the return did not show any power given by the corporate charter warranting the expulsion of a member for the offence of which the relator was charged; that the provisions in articles II. and IV. of the by-laws, for the suspension and expulsion of members for acts which the board might deem disorderly or injurious to the interests or hostile to the objects of the league, were repugnant to and in violation of the constitution and laws of this commonwealth; and that the return disclosed no legal ground for the expulsion of the relator.

After argument the court, FINLETTER, P.J., on December 30, 1889, entered judgment for the plaintiff upon the demurrer, filing the following opinion:

The Union League was incorporated for the purpose of fostering and promoting the love of republican government, aiding in the preservation of the Union of the United States, and extending aid and relief to the soldiers and sailors thereof. The return avers that the objects of the league have passed away, and that it has become a club for social purposes. However this may be, its corporate character and the rights of the members remain the same, and can only be changed by an amendment to the charter. If the social elements enter into its business transactions, it is only an incident which confers no additional powers upon the corporation, and can in no degree interfere with the rights of the members. The business proper of the league seldom convokes a majority of the members, and those...