Correia v. Supreme Lodge of Portuguese Fraternity of United States of America

• Decision Date: 17 June 1914
• Citation: 218 Mass. 305,105 N.E. 977
• Parties: CORREIA et al. v. SUPREME LODGE OF PORTUGUESE FRATERNITY OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

218 Mass. 305

105 N.E. 977

CORREIA et al.

v.SUPREME LODGE OF PORTUGUESE FRATERNITY OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 17, 1914.

Mandamus by Manuel Correia and others against the Supreme Lodge of the Portuguese Fraternity of the United States of America to compel the reinstatement of a subordinate lodge. Petition dismissed.

Jas. N. Carter and Wm. G. Andrew, both of Boston (Walter H. Barney, of Providence, R. I., of counsel), for petitioners.

J. M. Marshall, of Gloucester, for respondent.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the reinstatement of Branch No. 9 Aurora, a subordinate lodge of the defendant fraternity of which the petitioners were members, and which has been declared dissolved and expelled by a vote of the Executive Board of the defendant. Thereby the plaintiffs have suffered financial loss in that they have been deprived of possible participation in the assets of the defendant. The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of this commonwealth for the purpose, among others, of paying death and disability benefits. Its constitution provides for the organization of subordinate lodges or branches, and confers jurisdiction and control over such subordinate lodges and members of the fraternity ‘with power to charter, suspend or dissolve subordinate lodges; and to hear and decide all appeals; to redress all grievances arising in the lodges.’ The Supreme Lodge is composed of representatives from the subordinate lodges, together with the officers of the Supreme Lodge and all ex-Supreme Presidents, each person being entitled to one vote. Annual meetings of the Supreme Lodge are required, and the general supervision of the affairs of the defendant between these annual meetings is vested in an Executive Board of ten. A further provision is:

‘That any lodge may be suspended or dissolved and its charter declared without effect by the Supreme Lodge or by the Board of Directors: First, for improper conduct; second, for neglecting or refusing to conform to constitution or laws of the Supreme or Subordinate Lodges or general laws and regulations of the Association.’

[1] The root of the trouble from which this action has grown appears to have been the expulsion from the fraternity by the Executive Board of one Cunha, a member of Branch No. 9 Aurora. It is doubtful upon this record whether the grounds and method of that expulsion were in accordance with the rules of the fraternity.But that question, so far as it has any bearing upon this proceeding, is eliminated by reason of the fact that Cunha brought a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Judicial Court in this Commonwealth for reinstatement in the defendant order. When the case came on to be heard, it appeared that he had not alleged in his petition that any of his property rights were affected and that, on being given opportunity by the Court, he declined to amend his petition by setting out such financial interest; whereupon his petition was dismissed. That judgment rendered the the matter res judicata as between Cunha and the defendant as to every issue which was or might have been litigated in that action and estopped him from contesting the matter further. Newburyport Institution for Savings v. Puffer, 201 Mass. 41, 46, 87 N. E. 562;Foye v. Patch, 132 Mass. 105, 110. This, however, did not prevent the defendant, if it so desired, from righting what its members might regard as an injustice to Cunha. Thereafter the members of Branch No. 9 Aurora passed a vote which was intended to recognize Cunha's continuing membership in the fraternity, although in form it was a vote to reinstate him in membership without conforming to the requirements of the order as to new members.

[2] Complaint against Branch No. 9 Aurora was made to the Supreme Lodge on the ground that such reinstatement was contrary to the constitution and bylaws of the defendant. Copy of this complaint together with notice of a time and place of hearing upon its subject matter was given to the branch, and, after hearing, the vote expelling it from the order was passed by the Executive Board.

There is ground for complaint as to the manner in which this hearing was conducted. The Branch was given permission to be represented by a committee of three and counsel. A committee representing the Branch requested that there be pointed out what provisions of the constitution or laws of the order had been...