People Ex Rel. A. v. Whitney v. the Masonic Benevolent Ass'n.

Decision Date14 May 1881
Citation1881 WL 10526,98 Ill. 635
PartiesTHE PEOPLE ex rel. A. V. Whitney et al.v.THE MASONIC BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

This was a petition filed in this court for a writ of mandamus, based upon an agreed statement of facts. Mr. H. P. BUXTON, for the relators.

Messrs. CRAIG & CRAIG, for the respondent.

Per CURIAM:

This was a petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus, to compel the officers of the Masonic Benevolent Society of Central Illinois to declare the adoption of an amendment to the constitution of that body. The following is an agreed statement of facts of the case:

The Masonic Benevolent Association of Central Illinois was organized by the adoption of a constitution on the 28th day of May, 1874, the 13th article of which is:

Sec. 1. These articles, or any of them, may be amended or abolished by a two-thirds vote of all the members of the association, voting either in person or by proxy, at any annual or special meeting called for that purpose, after due notice of such intended change shall have been presented at a meeting of the association at least one year previous, and due notice of said action forwarded to each member at least thirty days previous to the meeting at which such action is to be taken.”

At the regular annual meeting of the association, held June 11, 1879, the association had 2319 members. At that meeting there were present 41 members in person, and 470 represented by proxy; total, 511. At said meeting the association voted on a proposed amendment to the constitution, and the vote stood 344 for and 137 against the proposed amendment; that none of the members voting proxies were instructed by their principals how the same should be voted, on any question; that one of the members voted 200 proxies in favor of the proposed amendment, for the purpose, as stated by him at the time, of obtaining the opinion of the president as to whether it would take two-thirds of all the members of the association to carry the amendment; that the president decided the amendment was not carried, for the reason that it did not have the votes of two-thirds of all the members of the association in its favor, against which decision relator and others protested, but said member voting said 200 proxies did not protest against said decision.

It is further agreed, that if the court shall be of opinion, under all the facts of the case, that two-thirds of all the members of the association...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • The State ex rel. Hyde v. Jackson County Medical Society
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1922
    ... ... 588; Lysaght v. Operative Stone ... Mason Assn., 55 Mo.App. 544; State ex rel. v ... Merchants Ex., 2 ... Franklin Lyceum, 7 R. I ... 523; People v. Medical Society, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) ... 570; State v ... Burnham, 82 N.Y.S. 882; ... People v. Masonic Assn., 98 Ill. 635; Wellenvoss ... v. Grand Lodge, 103 ... insurance in benevolent or mutual benefit societies are ... property rights which ... ...
  • Frantz v. Wyoming County Court
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1911
    ... ... & E. Enc. L. 884; ... People v. Masonic Lodge, 98 Ill. 635; Payne v ... ...
  • People ex rel. Castle v. Wright
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1956
    ... ... Illinois, 137 Ill. 296, 27 N.E. 54; People v. Masonic Benevolent Ass'n, 98 Ill. 635).' Under the facts in the case at bar, we ... ...
  • State v. Jackson County Medical Soc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1922
    ...243 S.W. 341 ... 295 Mo. 144 ... STATE ex rel. HYDE ... JACKSON COUNTY MEDICAL SOC ... No ... 170, 180 [34 Atl. 1030]; People ex rel. v. Jeroloman, 139 N. Y. 14, 18 [34 N. E ... 134, 136; People v. Masonic Benefit Ass'n, 98 Ill. 635, 637; Sale v. Baptist ... rights in the nature of insurance in benevolent or mutual benefit societies are property rights ... St. Louis Operative Assn, 55 Mo. App. 538, 544-547, and Froelich v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT