Donovan v. Danielson

Decision Date07 June 1930
Citation171 N.E. 823,271 Mass. 267
PartiesDONOVAN et al. v. DANIELSON et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Lummus, Judge.

Bill in equity by John B. Donovan and others, against Oscar L. Danielson and others. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

Reversed, and bill dismissed.

J. M. Maloney and E. Carr, both of Boston, for appellants.

F. W. Campbell, of Boston, for appellees.

WAIT, J.

The defendants are all the persons who in December, 1919, constituted Court Gustaf Wasa, a voluntary association affiliated with the Foresters of America. The plaintiffs are the Grand Court of Massachusetts of the Foresters of America. They bring this bill in equity to obtain possession of a fund of $3,584.34 which in said December was held by the Court Gustaf Wasa. This fund was the proceeds of money collected in part from dues and fines levied upon the members of Court Gustaf Wasa in accord with laws of the Foresters of America, but chiefly from the earnings of enterainments given by the court, with their accumulations. Except in a small amount the principal had been acquired before December 1, 1913. No law of the Foresters of America required that it be collected by the court. No other organization affiliated with the Foresters of America had contributed to it. It was collected by the members of Court Gustaf Wasa, solely for the benefit of members of the court, and it had not been dedicated by any action of the court or its members to the benefit of the general order or any affiliated body. No part of it was subject by the constitution or laws of the general order of Foresters of America before January 1, 1920, to be applied to the benefit of any one not a member of the court or pursuant to the vote of the court.

In consequence of an amendment in the laws of the general order which was to take effect on January 1, 1920, the members of Court Gustaf Wasa held meetings and a post card canvass with regard to withdrawing from the Foresters of America and forming an independent voluntary sick benefit organization. By almost unanimous vote they decided to withdraw. Pursuant to vote of the court, the treasurer withdrew all the court's money from the bank and put it in the form of checks to its creditors and a check to each member for his per capita share in the surplus. This was done shortly after December 17, 1919. The members' checks were for less than $10 each. They were held by the treasurer. At a special meeting held on January 7, 1920, by a vote of three hundred and eighty to ten it was voted to dissolve; and, pursuant to a vote, all the court's belongings were placed on sale and sold. The records conclude: ‘This is the way Court Gustaf Wasa ended.’ On the same day they formed the Brotherhood Gustaf Wasa. Every member of the court became a member of the brotherhood; and everyone delivered to the treasurer of the brotherhood the check which he had received as a member of the court. Not one now objects to the dissolution of the court or makes any claim as a member of the court upon the order of Foresters.

The order of Foresters of America is organized with a supreme court with jurisdiction national in scope; grand courts, with jurisdiction confined to their several States; and subordinate courts formed in many cities and towns. Until 1917 the supreme court did not undertake the collection or payment of any benefits to members; nor did the grand courts require the subordinate courts to join in any grand court benefits. Such benefits as were paid were constituted and raised by such subordinate councilsas so chose. These benefits were provided for and controlled by the several courts under by-laws made by the court, and were met by dues levied only upon the members of the court giving the benefit. Court Gustaf Wasa made provision for benefits. In 1917 a temporary fund for benefits to members of the order in the military and naval service of the United States during the World War applicable to the entire membership of the order was created and administered by the supreme court. It is immaterial here. The dissatisfaction in Court Gustaf Wasa was due to the decision of the supreme court to establish a system of general benefits throughout the order beginning with January 1, 1920.

The title to a fund so collected and held is in the subordinate court which provides for it, and, if the fund is held upon any trust, the cestuis of the trust are the members of the court or those designated by its by-laws. Torrey v. Baker, 1 Allen, 120. It remains in the unincorporated voluntary association constituting the subordinate court unless it has passed from it pursuant to law. The plaintiffs contend that it has so passed to the Grand Court of Massachusetts, in consequence of the secession of Court Gustaf Wasa, by force of the constitution and laws of the Foresters of America applicable in the event of such secession. Since 1895 those laws have forbidden, under penalty of suspension, dissolution or expulsion, any grand or subordinate court to withdraw, except in certain cases not material here, but made no provision before December 1, 1907, with regard to the property of a court so offending. On the latter date a law provided that upon dissolution or expulsion the property of the offending court ‘shall become the property of the grand court within whose jurisdiction said court was.’ December 1, 1913, the law was changed to read: ‘No grand or subordinate court shall secede or attempt to secede from the order; nor shall any member vote for or urge his court to secede or attempt to secede; if a subordinate court secedes, all property, moneys, goods and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Liggett v. Koivunen, 34643.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 29 Octubre 1948
    ...United American Mechanics of Pennsylvania v. Emery, 219 Pa. 461, 68 A. 1023, 15 L.R.A.,N.S., 336, 12 Ann.Cas. 870; Donovan v. Danielson, 271 Mass. 267, 171 N.E. 823; Restatement, Trusts, § 411, comments m(14), n. 3. See, McFadden v. Murphy, 149 Mass. 341, 344, 21 N.E. 868, 869. 4. State v. ......
  • Hamaty v. St. George Ladies Soc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 1 Julio 1932
    ...documents and things as are enumerated in the final decree. McFadden v. Murphy, 149 Mass. 341, 346, 21 N. E. 868;Donovan v. Danielson, 271 Mass. 267, 272, 171 N. E. 823;Balukonis v. Lithuanian Roman Catholic Benefit Society, 272 Mass. 366, 372, 172 N. E. 505. It is clear, and is not denied ......
  • Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union No. 2623 v. International Wood Workers of America, Local 49
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 29 Diciembre 1938
    ... ... here determined ... The ... supreme court of Massachusetts, in the case of Donovan v ... Danielson, 271 Mass. 267, 171 N.E. 823, held that the ... title to a fund raised by a local lodge affiliated with a ... ...
  • Gross-Loge Des Deutschen Ordens Der Harugari Des Staates Massachusetts v. Cusson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 27 Octubre 1938
    ...against the defendants who voted to divide the funds. See Tiffany v. Mooney, 263 Mass. 264, 160 N.E. 808. Compare Donovan v. Danielson, 271 Mass. 267, 269, 171 N.E. 823. The decree should be so modified as to set out that all the individual defendants, except Patenheimer and Bush, are joint......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT