Hickey v. Baine

• Decision Date: 15 May 1907
• Citation: 81 N.E. 201,195 Mass. 446
• Parties: HICKEY MURRAY v. BAINE. MURRAY v. SAME.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

195 Mass. 446

81 N.E. 201

HICKEY MURRAY v. BAINE. MURRAY v. SAME.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 15, 1907

COUNSEL

Herbt. Parker and John W. McAnarney, for petitioners.

Edwd. F. McClennen, Louis D. Brandeis, Brandeis, Dunbar & Nutter and Edwd. S. Goulston, for respondent.

OPINION

SHELDON J.

If we assume that a writ of mandamus may properly be issued to secure possession of such offices as are here in question and that these petitions could be brought against the respondent alone, although this would involve passing upon the rights of Tobin and Lovely without their being made parties or having any opportunity to be heard, yet we are of opinion that the petitions cannot be maintained.

The rights of all the members of this voluntary association must be settled according to the provisions of the constitution which they have adopted. Reynolds v. Royal Arcanum, 192 Mass. 150, 78 N.E. 129. Accordingly, before these petitioners can invoke the aid of the court to secure them in the offices to which they severally claim to have been elected, it must be shown that they have exhausted the remedies available to them within the association and according to its rules. Oliver v. Hopkins, 144 Mass 175, 10 N.E. 776; Karcher v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor, 137 Mass. 368; Chamberlain v. Lincoln, 129 Mass. 70. The general inspectors of elections have counted and passed upon the ballots cast at the election at which the petitioners claim to have been elected, and have made a majority and a minority report thereof. The general executive board have passed upon these reports, and have ordered a new election. The power of the board to take this action under the circumstances of these cases is disputed and has been argued with much learning and at considerable length. But we have not found it necessary to pass upon this question; for if the action of the board was wrong, whether because they had no jurisdiction of the question or because they took an erroneous view of either the law or the facts, there was a further remedy open to the petitioners under the constitution by appeal under section 106 to a convention to be held under section 108. It is impossible to read this constitution without seeing plainly that it was intended and purported to supply a full system of government by which the rights of all its members and the rights and duties of all its officers among themselves should be...