Indus. Trust Co. v. Greene

• Decision Date: 30 January 1892
• Citation: 23 A. 914,17 R.I. 586
• Parties: INDUSTRIAL TRUST CO. v. GREENE et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

23 A. 914

17 R.I. 586

INDUSTRIAL TRUST CO.

v. GREENE et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 30, 1892.

Bill of interpleader by the Industrial Trust Company against Manuel Greene and others. Decree adjudging the right to the fund in controversy to be in the Associacao Portugueza de Beneficencia.

Nicholas Van Slyck and Cyrus M. Van Slyck, for complainant.

Augustus S. Miller and Arthur L. Brown, for respondents Dias and the incorporated Portuguese Beneficial Association of Rhode Island. George J. West, for other respondents.

STINESS, J. In January, 1889, certain Portuguese residents of this state formed a voluntary mutual benefit association, adopted a constitution, and carried on the work of their organization, after the ordinary manner of such societies, in the accumulation of a fund for the relief of the sick and the payment of an assessment in case of death. This fund was deposited in the Industrial Trust Company, in the name of the association, by the members of its deposit and finance committees, to be withdrawn only upon orders signed by said committee and countersigned by the president of the society. The respondent Manuel Dias was president of the society for the year 1890. In February, 1890, a proposition was made that regalia be obtained for the officers for a parade about to take place at New Bedford, which was voted down, whereupon some of the officers provided regalia at their own expense, in which they appeared at the parade. This action of the officers was regarded by some of the members as contrary to the expressed will of the society in the vote above referred to, and also to the constitution, which provided that no officer or member should appear with the society in the street except in the uniform adopted by the society. At that time no uniform except a cap and badge had been adopted. The matter caused ill feeling in some members towards the president, who was held to be responsible for the proceeding, and at the next meeting, when the minutes of the previous meeting were read, objection was made that there was no mention there of the regalia worn by the officers at New Bedford. The president ruled that the subject was out of order at that time, but it might be called up later. This ruling evoked great excitement and confusion, some of the members shouting, "Put that man out of the chair." A motion was then made that the president be expelled from the chair immediately, which motion the president, after protesting that the constitution provided only for the trial of officers upon written charges, put to vote, and it was carried. He then declared the result, and retired from the chair; the vice-president taking his place. The disorder immediately subsided, and the president remained, took part in the rest of the meeting without further objection, and also participated in several following meetings; not, however, at any time claiming his right to the chair. Prior to this time application had been made to the legislature for a charter for the society, under the same name, which was granted March 6, 1890. The president and others were named as corporators, who, on March 10, 1890, organized thereunder; but the charter was not presented to the original society for its acceptance. After that time the president and his friends ceased to attend the meetings of the original association, and finally claimed that the association had become dissolved, by reason of the illegal conduct above referred to, and that the fund herein question should be distributed pro rata among its members.

The contention is that the expulsion of the president from his office was illegal, and such a breach of the contract of organization as to constitute sufficient ground for a dissolution of the society; and such an organization is to be treated in law as a copartnership, which will be dissolved by the unauthorized and willful exclusion of a member from participation in its affairs and privileges. It is clear that such organizations, by reason of the mutual, contractual relations of the members, are not public charities, but private associations, in some respects resembling partnerships. Nevertheless they are not strictly partnerships. Formerly, when such associations were more of a novelty than now, it seems to have been thought that every organized body must either be a corporation or a partnership. So in Thomas v. Ellmaker, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. 98, and in Gorman v. Russell, 14 Cal. 531, it was held that voluntary associations for mutual relief are partnerships; but more recently the contrary doctrine has been held. Lafond v. Deems, 81 N. Y. 507; Burke v. Roper, 79 Ala. 138; Ash v. Guie, 97 Pa. St. 493; Otto v. Journeymen Tailors, (Cal.) 17 Pac. Rep. 217, 7 Ainer. St. Rep., note, 156, 160; Lindl. Partn. § 50....