Toram v. Howard Association

• Decision Date: 22 February 1846
• Citation: 4 Pa. 519
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: TORAM <I>v.</I> The HOWARD Beneficial Association.

4 Pa. 519

TORAM v. The HOWARD Beneficial Association.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 18, 1846.

February 22, 1846.

Feb. 18.

IN error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia.

J. P. Montgomery, for the plaintiff in error.—The question is, whether the case relied on by the court is conclusive against us. That was on the ground of a particular jurisdiction given by the charter, which had been exercised; but here, there was no evidence of that kind. That the courts have jurisdiction, appears from Com'th v. Pike Society, 8 Watts & Serg. 247. The remedy by mandamus is not the proper one, as supposed by the court. King v. Chester, 1 Term Rep. 396; Drexel v. Man, 6 Watts & Serg. 398. [Per Curiam. — There is no doubt, a corporator may sue the corporation.]

Todd, contrà.—There was contradictory evidence whether the corporation had funds; but the judge preferred to raise the broad question on the record, whether an action could lie at any time. [ROGERS, J. — What remedy is given by the charter?] The charter gives none. [Then it is not the case in 2 Whart., for there was a remedy.] In that view, there is a remedy, for the board is to pay when in funds.

Reply. — The question whether or not there was funds, is not raised by the record. [The court stopped him on this point.] The charter merely provides for payment in a certain case, but gives no remedy; nor, so far as appears from the record, is there any evidence that a decision was made by the company. This is the very point of the cause.

Feb. 22. PER CURIAM.

In this case, neither an action nor a mandamus would lie. The corporation is bound by the fundamental articles, to pay only when it is in funds; and it has determined that it is not. As the plaintiff, in becoming a corporator, assented to its acts prospectively to be done, according to the charter of its constitution, he is concluded by the decision of his own forum. We are to believe that the proper authorities passed judicially on his claim, and we are not to re-judge their judgment.

Judgment affirmed.