Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-01-05
COURT ou6TAlRs
0eMuRRER IN SUIT
OVER R. r. FUNDS
Continued from p.s, /

Continued from page
1T does not follow. however, that
auits to assert rights or to redress
wrong claimed for or done against
such an Asoooiation must. in all cassa
b. conducted In the names Of AL the
individuals oomposing the association.
When the members Are 30 numerous
that to require the presence as parties
OF every individual composing II would
result In = practical denial OF justice.
the suit may be conducted by one or
more Of the parties interested. In be-
half OF all. In such case. OF course.
the draughtsman OF bill must take
paina TO 10 frame It AZ to bring its
averment within the applicable pre-
cedents.
An that l am now called upon to
decide. however. Ia whether the United
Brotherhood. being an unincorporated
association OF individuals may sue
in Its own name. allow that 1t cam
not. (Story'S Equity Pleading; 9th
ed, par. 4s7) 1-Daniel's Chancery
Practice; 4th ed. page 25). Lloyd VS..
L-oarins. 9Th Vos, Jr. 773; Wormersley
Va. Merritt, l.. r. 4 go. cas-. 694.
1T was further urged that in the
argument that the bill fails to aver
that there was a meeting OF the broth
erhood at which action was taken
authorizing tho bringing OF this suit
In its behalf. In view OF my holding
that the brotherhood cannot sue in
It's own name. 1t becomes unnecessary
For me to pass upon this contention
?. OBJECTIONS further made that
the complainant. Roberts, has not
shown (a) that he has any right to
any relief paid for any said bill and
(h) that he sues not by his full Chris
tian name. but by his initials, as fol-
lows: w. ID. Roberts 1t is by this
ncmo and style that he files the bill
md signs and verifies the same
with respect to (b). that is. the de-
fective name. the objection is well
taken. Roberts knows his fun name
and should sue by it.
with respect To objection Cal my
views are as follows: The amended
hill complains that the money and
property OF the brotherhood are being
unlawfully taken and paid by the
defendants. and that the defendants
are doing certain other things which
are alleged TO constitute wrongs
against the brotherhood. they in no.
wise passing upon the question OF
whether the alleged wrong doing OF
the defendants constitutes com.
plant cognizable in equity. II is, ap.
parent upon the face OF the bin that
i Roberts. who Is member in gooC
~ o nd, 40 a - int ASe
member in the affairs and finances o,
the brotherhood as entities him IL
proper cases TO right such wrongs
His bill ought. however. as indicated
under ] (above) he brought within
the rules governing suits wherein un.
Incorporated associations are involved
/ II there be a proper ground OF com
pIaint against the defendants Ca ques
ton which, | suppose, remains vet I,
be decided). am Of tho opinion tina
Roberts, being a member in goo,
standing. has such right In the con
stitution and bylaws. which are at
tached to the amended bill. as en-
titles him TO file a bill But he mus
do 80 I'm the proper way, as indicated
3. TT Is further objected, with re
spect 10 the complaint, that Armou
tn addition TO the same objection
that is made TO Roberts. as to inter
ext in the subject matter of the suit
does not appear by the bill TO be
member in good standing, the aver
ment being that he is simply mem
ber. The constitution and bylaw
show that man may be member o
this organization and yet not be
member in good standing. Suspension
OF members Gas distinguished from ex
pulsion) is recognized. and for non
payment OF dues members are depriv
ed Of the financial benefit. As gath
er from the law of the organization
unless member is in good standins
he is not in a position to claim IN
privileges and benefits OF the organ
ization. / shall not burden this opin
ion with citations from constitution
and bylaws. which seem TO me I
Justify this statement. Armour ougf
not only TO show by averment that h
is member, but he should also sho,
that he Is q member in good standin,
II the averment of Armours men
bership be perfected. then, on I'll
! point that he his not instituted in III
relief prayed, he stands on the san
, footing as does Roberts. need. there
fore. say nothing on that point furth,
than what ] have already said r,
: spec.ing Roberts.
For The reasons herein stated, III
: demurrer must be sustained"
Friends OF the defendants claim tn;
the legal effect OF the chancellor
: opinion Is to throw the United Brotl
erhood out OF court. II is understoc
that counsel for the complainants w
ask for permission TO further amer
the bill of complaint TO bring suit
the names Of individuals.