Ludowiski v. Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Kostka Benev. Soc.

• Decision Date: 14 February 1888
• Citation: 29 Mo.App. 337
• Parties: VALENTINE LUDOWISKI, Respondent, v. POLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC ST. STANISLAUS KOSTKA BENEVOLENT SOCIETY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

29 Mo.App. 337

VALENTINE LUDOWISKI, Respondent, v. POLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC ST. STANISLAUS KOSTKA BENEVOLENT SOCIETY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

February 14, 1888

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, HON. SHEPARD BARCLAY Judge.

Affirmed.

EDMOND A. B. GARESCHÉ, for the appellant: The court erred in refusing instruction " B" asked for by defendant and in giving instruction number one, of its own motion. Hassett v. Rust, 64 Mo. 325; Glass v Galvin, 80 Mo. 297; Evans v. Railroad, 16 Mo.App. 525. There was nothing to connect the society with the act of the president. Therefore, if there can be any action at all upon this account, our statute in express terms fixes the liability upon the officer individually. Rev. Stat., sec. 721.

FRANCIS GARVEY, for the respondent: A corporation is an artificial person, and can only act and speak through its agents and servants. Wood's Field on Corporations (2 Ed.) sec. 283, and note 4; Haleck v. Railroad, 57 Mo. 17. The defendant seems to rely on the Revised Statutes of 1879, section 721, which refers to stockholders, and could have no application whatever to this case.

OPINION

THOMPSON J.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace for the purpose of recovering damages from the defendant, alleged to be a corporation, for expelling the plaintiff from the society without the preferring of charges, without notice, and without a hearing; and for refusing to allow him to exercise his rights and privileges as a member of the same. The defendant filed a written answer which was a general denial.

I. By appearing and answering in its corporate character, the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant was a corporation was admitted. Seaton v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 416; Witthouse v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 523; Sappington v. Railroad, 14 Mo.App. 86; see, also, Barbaro v. Occidental Grove, 4 Mo.App. 429. This will dispose of the argument that the corporate character of the defendant was not proved.

II. The objection, that the statement filed before the justice is insufficient, need not be discussed. It sets out explicitly the injury for which the plaintiff sues, and that is enough, especially where the action is brought before a justice of the peace.

III. At the trial in the circuit court, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that, at a meeting of the society, the names of the members were called out for the purpose of having them come forward to pay their dues, and his name was omitted that, on demanding an explanation why this was done, he could get no satisfaction from the president of the society other than that he had been suspended for talking against the priest. He tendered his weekly dues to the president, who refused the same, not because he was not the proper officer to receive them, but on the ground that the plaintiff had been suspended and was not entitled to pay them. The plaintiff's evidence also tended to show that thereafter he was denied his privileges of membership in the society and denied an opportunity of inspecting its books. The defendant's evidence conceded that the plaintiff was thus suspended from the society, and an attempt was made to justify it by the terms of the by-laws. The by-laws, which were put in evidence, confer no authority on the officers of the society thus to suspend a member without notice and without trial; nor would such a by-law, if it existed, be of any validity. The evidence shows that this was a mutual benefit society, having what is called a " sick benefit," which we understand to be an allowance to members when they are sick. The plaintiff, therefore, had property rights in the society, and the society had no jurisdiction to deprive him of those rights by the arbitrary action which took place. Mulroy v. Supreme Lodge, 28 Mo.App. 463. The by-laws put in evidence recite certain grounds of expulsion, and then further recite: " In all these cases, the president makes a motion in a quarterly meeting, that, for the good of the society, such member may be expelled; and if the majority of votes consents to it, the member is expelled." It...