Case ID: cal_18/html/0688-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GORMAN et al. v. RUSSELL et al.
    
    The “ Riggers’ and Stevedores’ Union Association of San Francisco ”—a voluntary association for mutual relief—having excluded plaintiffs from the association, because of their refusal to take an oath not required by the constitution or by-laws of the association and foreign to the objects thereof, plaintiffs as members brought suit for dissolution of the association and distribution of its funds, and the Supreme Court having decided on demurrer to the complaint that the association was a partnership, and would be dissolved by a Court of Equity for improperly excluding a member, and the cause having been remanded for further proceedings, the defendants rescinded their resolutions requiring an oath, and filed an answer offering to admit plaintiffs to all their rights and privileges in the association: Held, that this action of the association suffices to prevent a decree of dissolution, and that the bill was properly dismissed.
    Appeal from the Twelfth District.
    The facts appear in 14 Cal. 531. On the return of the cause the association rescinded their former resolutions requiring the oath mentioned, sent plaintiffs notices thereof, and invited them to return and take their seats in the association in the full enjoyment of their rights and privileges; and these facts were set up in the answer filed to the complaint. The Court below held that this action on the part of the defendants defeated the bill for dissolution and account, and accordingly dismissed it.
    Plaintiffs appeal.
    
      Stanly & Hayes, for Appellants.
    
      Merrill, Clement & White, for Respondents.
   Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. concurring.

When this case was here before, (13 Cal. 531) we intimated that if this association, in the acts complained of, retraced their steps on being advised of their duties, and admitted a member and removed the unauthorized restrictions upon the exercise of his rights as a member of the society, the Judge below would be authorized to refuse a dissolution and account. This course seems to have been pursued, and we think the decree of dismissal was right.

Judgment affirmed.