Typothetae v. St. Paul Bookbinders' Union No. 37

• Decision Date: 10 March 1905
• Docket Number: 14,186 - (126)
• Citation: Typothetae v. St. Paul Bookbinders' Union No. 37, 102 N.W. 725, 94 Minn. 351 (Minn. 1905)
• Parties: ST. PAUL TYPOTHETAE and Another v. ST. PAUL BOOKBINDERS' UNION NO. 37 and Others
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

102 N.W. 725

94 Minn. 351

ST. PAUL TYPOTHETAE and Another v. ST. PAUL BOOKBINDERS' UNION NO. 37 and Others

Nos. 14,186 - (126)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

March 10, 1905

Cross appeals by plaintiffs and defendants from orders of the district court for Ramsey county, Orr, J., sustaining a demurrer to the complaint as to plaintiff West Publishing Company, and overruling a demurrer to the complaint as to plaintiff St. Paul Typothetae. Order sustaining demurrer as to West Publishing Company affirmed; order overruling demurrer as to St. Paul Typothetae reversed.

SYLLABUS

Party to Action.

To be entitled to recognition in the courts of this state, a party must, in the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary be either a natural or artificial person.

Unincorporated Association.

Voluntary unincorporated associations, not engaged in some business enterprise, can neither sue nor be sued in their association name. Actions in which such associations are involved must be brought in the names of the members.

Statute Construed.

G.S 1894, § 5177, construed, and held to apply to business associations, and to authorize an action against, but not by, such associations in their common name.

Plaintiff's Capacity to Sue.

The St. Paul Typothetae is an unincorporated association of persons, firms, and corporations engaged in the printing and bookbinding trade. The association is not engaged in such business, nor is it an employer of labor. The sole purpose and object of its organization is the promotion of the interests of its members in the matter of employment of workmen, and entering into, as their representative and in their behalf, contracts with their employees. It is held that it has no legal capacity to sue, and cannot maintain an action for a breach of a contract made by it on behalf of its members with their employees.

Defendant's Capacity to Be Sued.

The St. Paul Bookbinders' Union No. 37, is an unincorporated association of employees organized for purposes similar to those of the Typothetae. It is not a business concern; the members are laborers in the printing and bookbinding business, but do not labor for the association, but for themselves, and the sole object and purpose of the association is the promotion of the interests and welfare of its members. It is held that it is not, within the meaning of section 5177, G.S. 1894, a business association, and cannot be sued in its association name. The members thereof are liable for a breach of a contract made for them by the association, if liable at all, on the law of principal and agent, and must be proceeded against individually.

Point not Decided.

Whether the complaint states a cause of action against the individual members of the union in favor of the West Publishing Company, is not presented and not decided.

Stringer & Seymour, for plaintiffs.

It is conceded by the demurrers that a cause of action is stated against the individual members of the union, for the individual members did not demur for themselves, but upon the ground that a cause of action is not stated against the union. The demurrers are based on the second, fourth and sixth subdivisions of the statute. A demurrer upon the second provision of the statute will not lie unless it affirmatively appears from the complaint that plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue. State v. Torinus, 22 Minn. 272; Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Libby, 24 Minn. 327. Not only does it not affirmatively appear from the complaint that plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue, but it affirmatively appears that plaintiff has such capacity. The Typothetae is an organization or unincorporated association of individuals, firms and persons, associated for a lawful purpose and for the transaction of business in which each and all of its members are interested. For their mutual interest a contract is made. This contract is violated by the defendants and this action is based on the breach of said contract. We are unable to conjecture on what grounds it can be urged that the Typothetae has not legal capacity to sue; that is, that it has not authority to make a contract as entered into between it and the defendants. Whether or not the contract is enforceable, whether it is valid or void and whether the complaint states a cause of action or not, does not affect the legal capacity of the Typothetae to bring this action. If the Typothetae is a myth, as counsel suggests, then every copartnership in which the full names of the copartners do not appear is a myth and has no legal capacity to sue.

The second alleged ground of demurrer is that there is a defect of parties plaintiff. But the statute does not make this a ground of demurrer. G.S. 1894, § 5410; Hoard v. Clum, 31 Minn. 186. But counsel now say that, not only is the West Publishing Company a necessary party, but that each member of the Typothetae in whose establishment the defendants instituted a strike is a necessary party. There are two reasons why this objection is untenable: First, the complaint does not state that any damage occurred to any other member of the Typothetae than the West Publishing Company. Second, for the reason that all the members of the Typothetae are parties plaintiff to this action. The reason stated by the court in Gale v. Townsend, 45 Minn. 357, 360, as to defendants under a common name, applies equally to plaintiffs suing under a common name. Dimond v. Minnesota Savings Bank, 70 Minn. 298.

The last ground of the demurrer is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Bookbinders' Union No. 37. Under section 5177, G.S. 1894, an association as such, under any name it has assumed, may be sued without bringing in as defendants all the individuals comprising the association. A judgment in such action would affect only the property of the association; but the right to maintain action against an association by service of process upon each and every member of the association was a right at common law which has never been abrogated by statute. The statute is not in derogation of the common law, but is supplemental and additional thereto. There never existed any reason against, there never was any legal objection to, suing an association of individuals unincorporated, if all the individuals were brought within the jurisdiction of the court. But oftentimes justice was thwarted because it was impossible to bring in all of the defendants, and therefore section 5177 was enacted for the purpose of avoidance of this obstacle, and as additional to the common-law right. Gale v. Townsend, supra; Cornfield v. Order Brith Abraham, 64 Minn. 261; Dimond v. Minnesota Savings Bank, supra; Taylor v. Order Railway Conductors, 89 Minn. 222; Jenkinson v. Wysner, 125 Mich. 89.

The word business is not limited to organizations created for the purpose of money-making. State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474. The contract is specific and definite with reference to the field it covers and there is no lack of mutuality concerning the same. Sturges v. Crowninshield. 4 Wheat. 122; Spear v. Orendorf, 26 Md. 37; Potter v. Holmes, 72 Minn. 153; Staples v. O'Neal, 64 Minn. 27; Goward v. Waters, 98 Mass. 596. Labor unions have been sued, both in actions in tort and for injunctions. Barr v. Essex, 53 N.J.Eq. 101, and cases cited.

Daggett & Todd, for defendants.

Neither the St. Paul Typothetae, nor the Bookbinders' Union No. 37, is an association for the transaction of business such as is contemplated by G.S. 1894, § 5177; Burnetta v. Marceline, 180 Mo. 241. The common-law rule is that a labor organization as such could not make a contract, neither could it sue or be sued, and unless our statute is broad enough to comprise and encompass an organization of this kind, the common law would still apply. These organizations, in contemplation of the law, are mythical beings. They are not in esse, have no legal existence, and not being associations for the transaction of any common business cannot sue or be sued. It is likewise patent, that if they cannot sue or be sued, neither can they make a contract.

The contract lacks mutuality and is void. Bailey v. Austrian, 19 Minn. 465 (535); Tarbox v. Gotzian, 20 Minn. 122 (139); Stensgaard v. Smith, 43 Minn. 11; St. Louis v. Mathews, 64 Ark. 398; Moon v. Mayor, 89 Law Times R. 595. The contract is void, as being in the nature of a contract of employment, made by the St. Paul Bookbinders' Union No. 37, for and on behalf of its members, and such an association cannot make a contract binding upon its members for their employment. Burnetta v. Marceline, supra; Jefferson v. Asch (53 Minn. 446) 25 L.R.A. 257, note; Ferris v. Carson, 16 Nev. 44.

OPINION

BROWN, J.

This action was brought by the St. Paul Typothetae, an unincorporated association of persons, firms, and corporations engaged in the business of printing and bookbinding, and the West Publishing Company, a corporation and member of the association, against the St. Paul Bookbinders' Union No. 37, an unincorporated association of printers and bookbinders, and the members thereof, to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. Separate demurrers were interposed to the complaint, one by the Bookbinders' Union, and one by the individual members thereof, the grounds of which are (1) that plaintiff St. Paul Typothetae has no legal capacity to sue, and (2) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the union in favor either of the Typothetae or the West Publishing Company. The demurrer as to the West Publishing Company was sustained, but overruled as to the Typothetae. Both parties appealed.

The complaint alleges that the persons, firms, and corporations named therein, twenty five in number, are...