#### St. Joseph’s Beneficial Society of Columbia, Pennsylvania.

*Corporation*— Charter—Similarity *of names*— Discretion *of*court— *Review.*

On an appeal by one member of St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Beneficial Society of Columbia, Pennsylvania, from a decree dismissing his exceptions and granting a charter to St. Joseph’s Beneficial Society of Columbia, Pennsylvania, the appellate court will not review the discretion of the lower court in granting the charter, where there is nothing to show that the decree involved an abuse of discretion.

Argued Nov. 13, 1907.

Appeal, No. 35, Oct. T., 1907, by William Herbert, from decree of C. P. Lancaster Co., Charter Book, No. 1, p. 363, granting a charter to St. Joseph’s Beneficial Society of Columbia, Pennsylvania.

Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.

Affirmed.

Exceptions to application for charter.

Hassler, J., filed the following opinion:

All the requirements of the act of assembly and rules of court have been complied with in the application for this charter. It is also in proper form, and for a purpose for which corporations of the second class may be formed, according to the provisions of the Act of April 29, 1874, P. L. 73, sec. 2. Exceptions have been filed objecting to our granting it by William Herbert, who signs the same “on behalf of himself and other members of St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Beneficial Society.” We cannot consider the exception filed by anyone but William Herbert,- as it is necessary to set out the names of the others for whom he acts: In re Road in Strasburg Township, 23 Lane. Law Rev. 94.

*81Two of the exceptions object to our granting the charter, for the reason that it is but an amendment of a charter of another corporation, and that certain provisions of that charter relating to amendments have not been complied with. Whatever may have been the intention of the applicants, this is not an amendment of another charter; it is not applied for as such; none of the requirements for the amendment of charters have been complied with; but it is asked for as a charter for a new corporation, and, if granted, will not change or affect the rights or liabilities of any other corporation, but will form an entirely new one. Whether or not the intention of the petitioners is to take over the property and business and affairs of another corporation is something with which we are not concerned in this application. So long as the purposes are within the purposes allowed by the act of assembly, we cannot inquire into or be concerned with what the intended corporation purposes to do, provided it does not exceed the powers given it by law.

The other exception is that the charter should not be granted because its name is very similar- to an existing corporation, the name of which is “St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Beneficial Society of Columbia, Pa.” It is the practice of the courts, and of the state department of this commonwealth, to refuse' charters to intended corporations of the same, or nearly the same, name as existing corporations: American Clay Mfg. Co. v. American Clay Mfg. Co., 198 Pa. 189, and cases therein cited on page 196. The reason for this is that corporations having similar names are liable to interfere with each other’s rights and confuse those having business with them. St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Beneficial Society of Columbia, Pa., does not object to the name of the new corporation, but, on the contrary, when the proposed charter was read at one of their meetings, they approved it, name and all. Eighty-nine of the ninety members of that corporation ask us, in petitions, to grant it, and one of the members only, who is the expectant here, objects. It is. a corporation of the second class, and, while it may have business with people, other than its own members, and may be confusing to them, it is not a corporation *82intended to do business, but it is organized for the purpose of the social benefits and intellectual improvement of its members, and to afford them moral and material aid, and is not likely for this purpose to have much business with outside parties, so that little confusion, if any, would be caused by the similarity of names. While the name of this corporation, therefore, is very similar to the name of an existing corporation, they are not exactly alike, as the proposed corporation omits the words “Roman Catholic” from its name. In view of the almost unanimous request of the members-of the old corporation to us to grant this charter, and of the approval by the old corporation, at its meetings, of the charter, and the unlikelihood of much confusion arising in the transaction of its business because of the similarity of title, we dismiss the exceptions and grant the charter.

December 12, 1907 :

Exceptions dismissed.

*Error assigned*was decree of the court granting the charter.

*William H. Keller,*with him *John A. Coyle,*for appellant.—

The name of a corporation is a property right, which will be protected by law: American Clay Mfg. Co. v. American Clay Mfg. Co., 198 Pa. 189; First Presbyterian Church of Harrisburg, 2 Grant, 240; Waverly Ladies of the Red Cross, 1 Pa. Dist. Rep. 605; Bradley Fertilizer Co. of Phila., 6 Pa. Dist. Rep. 423; Sons of Progress, 14 W. N. C. 31; United Brethren Hebrew Congregation’s Charter, 11 York, 89; Yaux’s App., 109 Pa. 497; Fort Pitt B. & L. Assn. v. Model Plan B. & L. Assn., 159 Pa. 308; Grand Lodge of the A. O. U. W., 110 Pa. 613.

*D. F. Magee,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal by one member of St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Beneficial Society of Columbia, Pennsylvania, from a decree dismissing his exceptions and granting a charter to St. Joseph’s Beneficial Society of Columbia, Pennsylvania. The names of the two corporations are not identical, therefore *83the case of American Clay Manufacturing Co. v. American Clay Manufacturing Co., 198 Pa. 189, does not absolutely rule the question presented on this appeal. Nevertheless, there is such similarity between the name of the older corporation and that of the proposed corporation that, under ordinary circumstances, a court would be clearly justified in withholding its approval of the later application. On the other hand, the pertinent circumstances and local conditions might be such that no confusion would result. The question was addressed primarily to the discretion of the common pleas, and, if the proceedings be regular, it is only where there has been a plain abuse of discretion, either in granting, or in refusing the application for a charter, that the appellate court will reverse. See Philadelphia Lying-In Charity v. Maternity Hospital, 29 Pa. Superior Ct. 420, and cases there cited; also In re Polish National Catholic Church of St. Francis, 31 Pa. Superior Ct. 87. Having regard to the nature and object of the proposed corporation, and the reasons which the court below assigns for overruling the appellant’s exceptions, we cannot say as matter of law that the granting of the charter involved abuse of discretion. The fact that eighty-nine out of the ninety members of the old corporation assented to and petitioned the court for the granting of the charter, was properly taken into consideration by the court in determining whether confusion in the public mind, and consequent loss to the old corporation, would be likely to result.

The assignments of error are overruled, and the decree is affirmed at the costs of appellant.