Grand Fountain, United Order of True Reformers of Richmond, Va. v. Murray

• Decision Date: 17 November 1898
• Citation: 41 A. 896,88 Md. 422
• Parties: GRAND FOUNTAIN, UNITED ORDER OF TRUE REFORMERS, OF RICHMOND, VA., v. MURRAY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

41 A. 896

88 Md. 422

GRAND FOUNTAIN, UNITED ORDER OF TRUE REFORMERS, OF RICHMOND, VA., v. MURRAY.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 17, 1898

Appeal from Baltimore city court; Charles E. Phelps, Judge.

Action by James W. Murray against the Grand Fountain of the United Order of True Reformers, of Richmond, Va. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before MCSHERRY, C.J., and BRISCOE, BRYAN, PEARCE, BOYD, and FOWLER, JJ.

George M. Lane, for appellant. Howard Bryant, for appellee.

MCSHERRY C.J.

The appellant is a body corporate, organized under the laws of the state of Virginia. Its charter name is the "Grand Fountain of the United Order of True Reformers," and the purposes for which it was formed are to provide a place of burial for deceased members, to defray the expenses of their funerals, to assist in the education and support of their widows and orphans, and to give aid and assistance to its members in times of sickness and distress, and for such other benevolent objects as may be necessary. It has a capital stock, and its principal office is located in the city of Richmond. There are numerous subordinate fountains in various states of the Union, and they are all under the jurisdiction of the grand fountain. These subordinate fountains have their own constitutions and by-laws, framed by the central body but the members are not members of the grand fountain. Both the grand and subordinate fountains have separate officers. The chief officer of the grand fountain is called the grand worthy master. His duties, so far as we are advised by the record, are defined in section 1, art. 4, and section 8, art 5, of the constitution of the grand fountain. These duties are the ordinary and usual executive functions of such an officer. The appellee was a member of Guiding Star Subordinate Fountain. He had leased from the appellant a stable owned by it, and situated on St. Paul street, in the city of Baltimore. His horse was killed by falling into a pit on these premises, and he demanded from the appellant compensation. Receiving no reply, he brought suit before a magistrate, and recovered a judgment for $99. After this, a letter "purporting" to have come from the grand worthy master of the appellant corporation was read at a convention of fountains in the city of Baltimore. This letter, which was not produced at the trial, nor was its absence accounted for, contained the following instruction "Remove Murray from the premises at once. Fine him twenty-five dollars, or expel him." This letter was read by W. L. Taylor, vice president of the appellant, who presided at the convention. Subsequently, at a regular meeting of Guiding Star Fountain, the same letter was read by the same W. L. Taylor, who, according to custom, likewise presided for a portion of the time during the meeting of the subordinate fountain; and the appellee was expelled. Because of this expulsion by the subordinate fountain, which the appellee insists was wrongful and unlawful, he brought the pending suit, claiming that he had sustained damage to the amount of $3,000. It is not necessary to set forth the pleadings, it being sufficient to say that the gravamen of the declaration is that the appellant, the Virginia corporation, its officers and servants, did unlawfully expel the appellee from said corporation, and that it had wantonly refused to reinstate him. The general issue was pleaded. The case went to trial before a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $125. From the judgment entered on that verdict, this appeal was taken.

There are five bills of exception in the record. The first, second third, and fourth were taken to rulings of the court in admitting evidence. But as the evidence was admitted subject to exception, and as no motion was made at the close of the testimony to exclude the evidence thus conditionally admitted, there was no final ruling that can be reviewed on this appeal. We therefore pass by these four exceptions, and come to the fifth,...