Polacheck v. Michiwaukee Golf Club

• Decision Date: 08 January 1929
• Parties: POLACHECK v. MICHIWAUKEE GOLF CLUB ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

197 Wis. 595

222 N.W. 806

POLACHECK

v.MICHIWAUKEE GOLF CLUB ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 8, 1929.

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Otto H. Breidenbach, Circuit Judge.

Action by Max Polacheck against the Michiwaukee Golf Club and others. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendants appeal. Reversed, with directions.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Action begun May 7, 1928; order entered July 12, 1928.

This is an appeal by the defendants from an order overruling the defendants' demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was a member of the Michiwaukee Golf Club, a nonstock corporation, with a property interest therein. The defendants are officers and directors of the club. It is not alleged that they are all the directors of the club.

The defendants are charged with wrongdoing by reason of writing plaintiff a letter requesting his resignation from the club, giving no reason therefor.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy against the plaintiff on account of his Jewish religion, and against other members of the same sect, to oust them from the club. It is not claimed that there had been any overt act to deprive plaintiff of his property or other valuable rights in the organization.

Bottum, Hudnall, Lecher, McNamara & Michael, of Milwaukee, for appellants.

Lamfrom, Tighe, Engelhard & Peck, Leon B. Lamfrom, and Lines, Spooner & Quarles, all of Milwaukee (Leo Mann and Lawrence Olwell, both of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondent.

CROWNHART, J.

Conspiracy in the law is hard to define, but generally courts are agreed that to constitute such there must be a combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act in an unlawful manner.

Now, what unlawful act is here charged? Nothing but the writing of the letter. That in itself is not unlawful, however foolish or malicious it may have been. It deprived plaintiff of no valuable right. It left him free to refuse to resign and free to continue as a member of the club with all its privileges. He was free to present any grievances he may have had to the members of the organization, and if they agreed with him, they could depose defendants from office.

[1] Facts are alleged from which it may be inferred that the club will lose money by reason that members, other than the plaintiff, may withdraw from the club. That does not necessarily follow, and if it should, unless the act of defendants...