Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial. (Wilmington, Del.) 1878-1928, 1922-03-09
SUPERIOR COURT
REFUSES PLEA OF
EXPELLED FIREMEN
Continued from page /

toxIcated condition. and convicted. lie
was subsequently expelled from men,
bcrshp In snid company for non
payment OF fines, aggregating twenty
tive dollars, imposed for said ofrenses.
The rclator alleges that his expulsion
was made In his absence without sur
fcicnt or proper notice to him and
without just cause or provocation. but
the respondents return states that
what was done by the company In re-
gard to the notice. hearing. imposition
OF fines and expulsion. was In strict
accordance with tho constitution and
: bylaws
On June Z. 1921, the relator applied
for reinstatement, and his npplicat ton
was rejected: on July B. 1921, he agnin
applied for reinstatement. and tender
ed with his application check FOR
: the amount OF his fines, but hi, APP
: plication was again refused. The re-
. later asks that peremptory writ OF
mandamus be issued by the court d.
recting tho respondent company TO
rcinstate him ms member. The case
IL before the court on n motion 20
uuesh respondents return to the al
by-laws OF the respondent company
In existence mt the time the relator
became member were superseded by
, u new constitution and bylaws
adopted In 1908, after tho reincorpor-
alton of the company. The new oom-
pany took over the property belong
ing TO the old company. and most OF
the members signed the new constitu-
ton In 1908, and continued a. mem
bers Hereunder.
The relator bases his claims largely
on the constitution. rules and bylaws
, In force prior to September, 1908. but
respondents return states that the
) Constitution, rules and bylaws re-
ferrcd 60 by the relator were not In
, force ut the time he was fined and
a expelled. but had been repealed, and
T n new constitution, rules and by
r laws adopted and substituted there
,. FOR since the tenth Of September. 1908. -
u We think there was no substa initial
(. difference between the FIRST coustitu-
ton and the later one I'm respect 20
10 matters material TO the present case
J. but even II there was, the REALTORS
q rights must Doe determined under the
J, constitution I'm force at tho time OF
D. his expulsion.
10 The respondent company was not q
x stock company. Each member wa'
liable 10 such fees ns the bylaw,
D. might prescribe. a person wishing
y 60 become a member was required e
pay s125 when proposed and fs7I
on signing the constitution. Al
honorary member was entitled 90 al
the privileges OF an active member
II and exempt from all duties except at
tending two stateJ meetings I'm eacl
a year. The company owned the prop
p erty II occupied.
nj Many OF the cases cited by counse
& do not appear 10 he relevant TO tn
he real Issues I'm the case.
- The company was not organized 10
l. profit or gain, IL Issued no stock, an
T. was maintained for n public municipa
IL purpose IL seems To- be well settle
Ia that corporations organized for gal
a. have no power Of expulsion or forfeit
80 ture unless granted by their charter
OF or by general municipal law or b
agreement other corporations hav
l. tho power TO remove members 10
q, good cause. provided they do not there
n by violate charter or statutory prov
!, s,ons This power need not be eS
pressly conferred by the charter.
:. is incident TO any corporation othe
than stock corporation IA Corpu
Juris SAL; Am. 4 Eng. Enc. OF La
6S4-6S6.
Had Right TO Expel.
Under its constitution, the compan
r. was expressly authorized to eIpel an
eli member for improper conduct or tn
IN nonpayment OF fines. and no distinc
OF ton was made between active an
nd honorary members. The relator wa
KS expelled for the nonpayment OF fine
IN and there can be no question nbou
a the companys power In that regar'
ng But, as above stated. he claims tina
the procedure was unauthorized an
en- Illegal because his expulsion WAS mad
IL In his absence, without sufficient {
at proper notice to him and without Jus
as cause or provocation. The responder
nd AYERS In It's return that what was dor
by the company in regard TO motto
IN hearing. imposition OF fines and es
tn pulsion, was in strict'accordance wit
Ike the constitution and bylaws.
ID, The court thinks IL Is not show
~ that the expulsion OF the relator wa
Illegal or improper.
at While the relator was expelled II
by the nonpayment OF fines, neverthele'
Il: the indirect cause was his repeat'
Is acts OF intoxication, and II Ii was ne
essary TO pass upon the question Il
rs court would be constrained 10 no
lg, that continued and persistent intox
l. cation. such as described in respol
dents return. constitutes such in
a proper conduct as would justify Il
no expulsion OF a member OF a fire cor
me pany from the organization, and pr
at vent his reinstatement under an G
fu- der OF the Court. The conduct OF {
relator, os shown by the responder
OF return, and which we must take 10
IN true, was not only improper but gros
Ing ly go. II IL difficult TO conceive OF
The Organization IN which sobriety is me
at essential than IN a fire company {
ganized for the protection OF the pro
zen erty OF the citizens and the public.
18th business requires the services OF m
rn- in the best physical condition. and
lie. toxication Is calculated not only
denoralize the members but seriou.
srs affect tho efficiency OF their servic
Tx Certainly in fire company like |
;pi- respondent intoxication should not
ing tolerated and expulsion may be (
sral only remedy, IL Is true the relator v
not expelled, directly for intoxicati
an but for the nonpayment OF fines
a Il. IL 81. L.