The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-11-07
GREAT VICTORY
FOR THE {: ARCANUM
Able Opinion is Handed Down in
ths Tennessee
Case.
--.--
WRITTEN BY JUSTICE CLARK

WRITTEN WI: By JUSTICE CLARK
me following extract is taken rron IN.
decree OF he Supreme Court OF thn s,o,,,
OF tennessee In the case OF .Jatnea + 8
Grimes and others VS.. the Supreme t-rnn.
ell OF the Royal Arcanum. in which lIa
latter won hands down. the Injunction oh
tained having been dissolved aid The BIZ
of Grimes dismissed. The option. very
exhaustive one, was writer ~ Mr.. jus
tice Clark, AID VIII be widely read BY
members OF the order IN TINS state. Inc
fonowirig extract taken from the opinion
Will give a clear idea OF the grounds
upon which the court reached it's con-
ciusIOns:
Tine defendant Is an association organ
ICED under the laws or the Stats OF
Massachusetts ana that is the state Ut
the defendants domc.le and chief office.
e No fraud or bad faithf Is charged In tho
bill, nor insisted upon. and the case, upon
close study, reduces itself 10 the single
question:, whether the modification OF the
new regulations, or the new system. AZ
It may be called, impairs the obligation OF
the original contract with the members
who become such on the basis of til.
old system OF assessment based on the
age Of admission. ana whether the Ger
titicate or membership completed q con-
tract for assessments .on thai basis DUR
Ing life.
II must be apparent that 1t Is an ex-
tremely delicate question for tn. courts
of3any jurisdiction other than siassachu-
sets, the State OF defendants creation.
and the State OF i,s domiciic. 10 inter-
fere By Injunction with the Internal regu-
#lation and management Of the affairs OF
this benevolent association.
The contract Is. Of course. found not on
ly IN me certificate of membership. bp,Ain
the properly adopted bylaws and reg A.
tons OF the laws or Massachusetts undt7r
which the association is incorporated.
and II Is obvious enough that the !aw ~
Massachusetts furnishes the rule Tor the
decision OF the question now up for dis
position. and all similar questions relating
TO this association and its powers and
authority.
AS to Vested Rights.
II The court may interfere by iniumc-
tinctly upon the closely drawn issue
whether vested and consti,utlonally pro-
;ccted rights are being 'ntcrfercd with
or impaired. y the courts OF any State
pose outside OF tho State IN which the
defendant association was created and
has It's principal Office and 3domicilc. It is
three or forty-fourll different States.
where DJnmbes may be- cnn exrrisc slmi-
lar powers and authority; y sliss were
done II would speedily bring about such
sprGposit!pn hat the courts Of my state
other than Massachusetts should only
exercise Hut horitN to Interfere by Injunc-
.tlon with the internal mana cement and
operation OF the association upon tho
aclearest and most cogent grounds, For
these reasons. and tccause IN us last
analysis, ms ! have said the single prac
5tically dnterminative question. one Of con
tract impairment, in violation Of the con-
stitutlnn And, Notwithstanding the mag
,nitlides OF the ease. IS disposition on he
present occasion and for the purpose OF
the issue now presented, II does not seem
TO require any elaborate opinion, although
IL has received careful and extended
study 56R
Massachusetts, Law.
lconcnde. Ms already plainly minated
that the law Of Massachusetts furnishes
the rule for the decision of this question.
ard ! further conclude lint under the
laW&of Massa chusrtIs, i'll accordance With
the expedition Of It's court OF highest
authority, the defendant, might, In view
Of its contract, make the change which
IL has made, Notwithstanding tho qlIes-
ton is close, and that the change Is quite
Fundamental and has resulted 10 a large
ncntion. but In reconstruction, by which
n practically new system 4. " brought
about. i seems that such reconstruct
tlon as this Wns nat. ~ I, necessarily 10
and to prevent q necessary wind up in
court or otherwise,
Al AL evrntsait is net snlhclenlly clear.
this plnn or assessment, and tho effect
on members. impairs the obligation ofths
contract, and unless y did 70 appear.
obviously this court should not inter-
fere.
OF Much Magnitude.
Now, the case stands, az course. on the
eouns sell have vary properiy "th TX
agreed that for the purpose Of any dis
position which he court may NJ, make OF
to to" support tho application for pre-
iimnnry injunction by tho plaintiffs, as
well rs re e ~ ~, presented to resist
tho ease would then be In. position for
re " Soa by, n sos,,oI am anx
Hitdc. and the rulings are to AFFECT 'd H.
terests OF much public concern
IJpon the record rs now made IN. III
conclude that the compainants are With.
out right to tho Injunction. and for er-
nctly the same reason that they are
wGv ra f Is y nee Gna ha onS ,o
Of relief which will finally be Of any
A1 For the reasons thus very briefly, but
denied. and the court on its own motion,
as It may. do on this interlocutory appli-
cation. dlsm'sses the bill upon the
t titled to relief in eauitY, but this ' dis dis
Il may not be susxeste,l as in the way
Il nS similar Ply me t iours o.
plainants or others In Ike situation
should determine to do SO;
Tho Injunction Is then denied and the
hill dismissed ut the costs OF the COM
plainnnts Tt is accordneiy SO ordered;