Detroit Schuetzenbund v. Detroit Agitations Verein

• Decision Date: 06 October 1880
• Citation: 44 Mich. 313,6 N.W. 675
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: DETROIT SCHUETZENBUND v. DETROIT AGITATIONS VEREIN.

6 N.W. 675

44 Mich. 313

DETROIT SCHUETZENBUND v. DETROIT AGITATIONS VEREIN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 6, 1880

A mere unincorporated society, as the "Detroit Agitations Verein," cannot sue in its society name. There is no statute authorizing the creation of a corporation to oppose the enforcement, and agitate for the repeal, of a prima facie valid act of the legislature.

Error to Wayne.

Hawley & Firnane, for plaintiff.

T.D Hawley and E.F. Conely, for defendant.

MARSTON, C.J.

Action was brought by the Detroit Agitations Verein to recover a sum of money loaned to the plaintiff in error, and from which the plaintiff below received an obligation, a copy of which is given herewith:

"$900 )40DETROIT, September 1, 1870.

"The Detroit Schuetzenbund hereby acknowledges the receipt of nine hundred dollars ($900) of the funds of the Detroit Agitations Verein, which amount of $900, or any part thereof, the Detroit Schuetzenbund promise to pay to the said Detroit Agitations Verein, with interest at 10 per cent. per annum, within 60 days after demand having been made in writing by the trustees, or other competent officers, of the said Detroit Agitations Verein.

"For the Detroit Schuetzenbund:

"JOSEPH A. KURTZ, President.

"ALBERT SHEU, Secretary.

"PHILIP KLING, Treasurer.

"GEORGE KITTELBERGER,OE Trustees."

"MAX BROEG,OETrustees."

The plaintiff declared as "a body corporate organized and existing under the laws of the state," and a copy of its "constitution" or charter and laws appear in the bill of exceptions. The defence in the court below, as here, rested solely upon the proposition that the plaintiff was not a corporation. In the briefs of counsel, upon which this case was submitted, we have not been referred to any statute of this state under which the plaintiff had or could have organized as a corporation, nor do we know of any under which a corporation with such objects and aims could be formed. It would seem, from the constitution and laws of the society, that it was formed principally to oppose the enforcement of a prima facie valid act of the legislature of this state. ^[*]

There may be cases where organization and "agitation" would be proper for the purpose of effecting the modification or repeal of some obnoxious or oppressive law. That the organization in question was designed to and did go further than this, the record clearly shows. It is alleged therein that the society had collected from its members, and received from other similar societies, considerable sums of money, "and had disbursed large sums of money in furtherance of the objects prescribed by the [its] constitution; i.e., in defending prosecutions under the prohibitory law, in testing the validity of the liquor law and of some ordinances against saloon keepers, influencing legislation, and in some cases in paying the fines of those who were convicted under the laws and ordinances which the society was organized to oppose; and the Verein had also held numerous public meetings at various places for the purpose of influencing public opinion in furtherance of this general purpose."

No corporation can exist except by force of express law. As already intimated, no statute has been called to our attention which authorizes the formation of corporations to oppose the enforcement of other statutes, or to agitate for their appeal, or to influence legislation, or to give immunity to convicted parties by paying their fines for them. Every citizen has an undoubted right to agitate for such changes in the laws as he may desire, and to be charitable to those whom he may think are wrongfully punished; but it would be preposterous for the legislature to provide for organizing corporations for such purposes, since the very provision would be an admission that the laws were wrong, and ought to be repealed without...