The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-06-15
II COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-June 13, 1886.
POINTS OF DECISION.

fclr~is VI pkticioc.
No. 1877. Christian Bauer Us. Samson Lodge,
No. 80, K. of P. Clark G. q. Reversed. Elliott,
J.-Christian Bauer was a member in good stand
ing in the organization of Knights of Pythias.
The bylaws of the Grand Lodge provide benefits
to members sick or disabled. The constitution
provides, among other things, that any member
aggrieyed by any action of a subordinate lodge
may have his grievances redressed by a commit
tee on appeals and grievances. Bauer brought
this suit to recover benefits from his lodge. The
lodge answered in abatement, alleging that
Bauer was compelled by the law of the organlza-
ton to pursue the method of procedure laid
down by ii, and submit his grievances to the
committee. One who becomes a member of the
Knights of Pythias is chargeable with q knowi-
edge of it's laws, and is bound by them unless
they are illegal. There is conflict how far such
an organization may go in restricting actions for
benefits promised its members. The reasonable
rule is that such an organization may provide
methods for redressing grievances and deciding
controversies, and may compel members to re-
sort to the prescribed method of procedure before
invoking the power of the courts, but that it
may not entirely prohibit members from suing to
recover benefits accruing to them under its by
laws. The organization is not purely charitable,
while to a great degree SO, for it receives a con-
sideration for the benefits in dues. It is not
within the power of corporations to create judi
cial tribunals for the final settlement
of controversies. IN agreement to sub
NIT a matter to arbitration is valid
VbNA h4tAoO AQVA QA0 GROSlAG AiQS
actually arisen, and not valid when made in ad-
vance, and certainly not when one of the in
terested parties shall be sole arbiter. AS all
persons having q money demand against a cor
poratlon have q right to resort to the courts, it
must clearly appear that the right has been
abridged or surrendered before it can be deemed
not to exist. Such persons occupy essentially a
different position from one who presents a ques-
ton Of discipline, OF policy or of doctrine of the
order. The policy of the law is to open freely
the courts TO those seeking money! due lNOD con-
tract. The defendant must clearly show that
the plaintiff agreed to a curtailnent of this
right. Only a stipulation to that effect will
abridge the right. If a man has a legal right,
and a corporation of which he becomes a mem
Der adds another, that of appeal to its superior
governing bodies, the added right is merely ac-
cumulative. it is not exclusive. H. A defend
ant cannot plead in bar and then in abatement;
but a demurrer is not a plea in bar and may be
followed by a plea in abatement
No. l234l. The Security Company VS.. Samuel
o. Ball. Rush G. G. Affirmed. collars, j.
Appellee applied to Day & Co., of Indianapolis,
as agents for appellant, for a loan, agreeing to
give as security therefore a mortgage on his
land, the title to which would be perfect. APP
pellant agreed to the terms and sent Day g. Co.
the money, which the latter deposited in Fletcher
q Sharpes Bank, in indianapolis. An agent
of Day 81 Co. then went to appellee in June and
it was agreed that appellee should execute the
mortgage and notes, and the agent placed a
check in the hands of a third party to be turned
over to appellee when he had the membranes
released, which he agreed to do by July 5.
However, he failed altogether to have the in
cumbrances released, and the check remained in
the hands of the third party. July l5 the bank
failed. Suit by appellee to have the notes and
mortgages Cancelled. Held: That the answer
failing to aver that the bank had not recovered
from its embarrassments and paid it's liabilities;
that no loss is shown for which appellee is liable.
Held, also: That assuming that the bank failed
to pay its debts, the loss ofappellant was not the
natural and probable consequence Of appellee's
wrong or neglect.
No. 1912. Michael Baltes VS.. Brass Foundry
and Machine Works, ct al. Rehearing granted.
DENIED.
No. 11767. Monroe Mayer eft al VS.. Isaac
Brand. Tippecanoe G. c..
No. lI69l. Benjamin Judy VS.. James S.. Citizen.
Warren G. C.
No. 1880. Alexander B. Conduit ct al. VS..
Julia A. Ross. Marion S. c..
No. llll7. Benjamin F. Binford VS.. Thomas
FL. Minor, ct al Hancock G. c.
No. 1892. Carbon Block Coal Company VS..
John T. Murphy ct al. Clay c. c.