Case ID: walker_4/html/0182-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SCHOLLENBERGER’S APPEAL.
    An unincorporated society whose benefits are confined to its members is in contemplation of law a partnership.
    Such a society may be dissolved by tbe majority of members present at a regular meeting, at which a majority of the members of the society are present.
    
      Appeal from Common Pleas of Berks County. In Equity-No. 189 July Term, 1882.
    Bright Star Association No. 59, Independent Order-of Philogatheans, is an unincorporated association, founded at Hamburg, Berks County, in 1868. The object of the Association is the moral and intellectual improvement of the female sex and mutual aid among the female members of the body by the payment of benefits during sickness and death. Discussions arose and frequent quarrels took place until finally a project of dissolving the association was suggested, on December 8th, 1880. At this time the lodge had accumulated a. fund of about $1,000. A notice was sent to all the members, then numbering thirty-one, to be present at the meeting 0» March 16, 1881. Twenty were present. The by-laws provided that eleven should be a quorum. A motion to dissolve the society and divide the funds equally among the members, was then made; and those who were in favor of so doing were asked to rise. Fourteen rose. Then those opposed to disbanding were asked to rise, and none rose. The majority considered the society disbanded. The minority, consisting of seven members, received new books, pass word, &c., and claim?, they are the society. The minority then filed a bill in equity to prevent the dissolution of the society and the distribution of the money. After the appointment of a master and taking of testimony, the Court dismissed the bill. Fietta Schollenberger and others then appealed.
    
      'John Ralston, Esq., for appellants,
    argued that it required a majority of all members at least to disband the society, and. cited Livingston vs. Lynch, 4 Johns Ch. 573; 5 Brown’s Parliament Cases 489.
    J. H. Jacobs and C. H. Ruhl, Esqs., contra,
    
    argued that this, association was in reality a partnership: Babb vs. Reed, 5 R. 151; Swift vs. Beneficial Society, 73 Pa. 362; Pritchett vs. Shafer, 2 W. N. C. 317.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Common Pleas on March 12, 1883, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam

This contention arises between members of an unincorporated association. It was composed exclusively of females. No sound objection can be made to its declared objects. They were worthy and commendable. All its benevolence and benefits, however, were confined exclusively to its members. The report of the Master shows conclusively that the association had outlived its usefulness. The want of harmony, and the exhibition of bickerings manifested among th members, clearly justified a dissolution of the Association. In contemplation of law it was practically a partnership in which the members were interested. It was legally disbanded. Each member is entitled to her proper share of the funds. The appellants are not entitled to the whole.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellants.