Lewis v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 09 April 1890
• Citation: 24 N.E. 474,121 N.Y. 284
• Parties: LEWIS v. WILSON.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

121 N.Y. 284

24 N.E. 474

LEWIS

v.WILSON.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 9, 1890.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department.

An action by Samuel W. Lewis against Charles G. Wilson, as president of the Consolidated New York, to have decreed as illegal the New York, to have decreed as illegalt he suspension of plaintiff from said exchange. A judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed at general term, and plaintiff again appeals.

Albert Allen, Abbott, for appellant.

W. J. Curtis, for respondent.

ANDREWS, J.

There can be no doubt that this case has been correctly decided. The plaintiff seeks the aid of the court to reinstate him as a member of the Consolidated Stock & Petroleum Exchange, a voluntary, unincorporated association, notwithstanding he has been suspended from membership therein in strict conformity with the constitution of the exchange, to which he assented on becoming a member. A complaint was made against him by another member for violation of contract, and, after notice and opportunity to be heard in respect to the charge, and after an examination of the charge by the complaint committee, the tribunal which, by the constitution of the exchange, had jurisdiction to hear and decide complaints against members, the complaint was sustained; and, on failure to pay the sum adjudged, he was suspended from his membership. The principal ground upon which the plaintiff invokes the equitable power of the court is that the alleged contract, for the breach of which he was suspended, was a gambling contract, and that its violation was not a ‘breach of contract,’ and therefore did not render him amenable to suspension under the rules. This might have been urged by the plaintiff before the committee, in answer to the charge; but he refused to appear before the committee except for the purpose of denying its jurisdiction. The committee preceeded to examine the complaint. The contract claimed to have been broken was in writing, and was valid on its face. Its vice, if any, grew out of an undisclosed intent of the parties. The committee sustained the complaint, and suspension followed, as a necessary result, unless the plaintiff paid the claim adjudged within 48 hours, or took an appeal to the arbitration committee. He did neither, but comes into court to have the court adjudge him to be still a member of the association, although he has refused to be bound by the conditions to which he assented, upon which retention of...