Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1929-03-30
Supreme Court
and the Masons

week handed down an opinion affirm
ing a decree which Judge Spratley
OF the Circuit Court of the City OF
Newport News, Virginia had entered
in favor of Widows Son Lodge, NO.
81 A. F.. and A. NJ. against Isaac
n. Phillips, John Clark james
Washington and others, final dis
postion was made or dispute
h.ch had disturbed the craft OF
Masonry for quite some time.
The whole dispute conferred around
objections to- an endowment plan
which had been adopted by the
Grand Lodge of Virginia A. F. and
A Masons. The suit came to court
in a bill filed by Widows Son Lodge
No. "a A. F. and A. NJ. to compel
the majority of that lodge which
seeded and established a lodge
known as Lodge No. IA, A. F ana
"A NJ, Colored to return to the
local branch of the Grand Lodge OF
Virginia, that is lodge No. 81, the
monies, properties, paraphernaila
and other personal effects. =,
I The opinion was handed down by
Chief Justice Robert R. Prentis
who. after reciting the allegations
in the bill filed by Widows Son
Lodge, No. 81 said:
The chief argument for the ap-
nelIants seems to be based upon the
contention that the endowment plan
was not properly adopted and hence
that they were not bound by IT, ana
vet somewhat inconsistently as It
seems to us, they at the same time
claim that the endowment plan put
them out Of the order without fur'
, Their action suspended them because
they had failed to comply Win the
requirements made by the endow-
ment plan. They, therefore, and
thereupon claimed that they contin
ned to constitute the true Loages
No. "a, with power to do as they
pleased including the right to lg-
more ali Of their other brethren, and
TO affiliate with the new Grand
Lodge and take all of the property
OF No. "a with them. The answer 10
this is that at the time OF the vote
thew were either in or out. II legal'
" OUT. they lad no further interest
while if they were then legal mem.
bers Of the order. and in control OF
Lodge No 81 they were still gov
erned by that section Of the Consul
tuition OF the Grand Lodge, when
proyides that when lodge ceases
to function, all Of It's property vests
in the Grand Lodge, in trust, upon
condition that if and when such
lodge shall be reorganized the pro-
perty VIII be returned.
.If the endowment plan had peeh
nro,-rlv adopted, then these reDel-
lions members had either been or
were subject to suspension IN ac'
cordance with the laws of the order.
After legal suspension, they mad no
further interest in Lodge No. "a or
its property.
"Whather the endowment plan was
legally adopted Or not is immaterlal
in this case, because in ether event
tier action in undertaking to trans
fer all of the funds of Lodge NO.
"a to themselves and to WIDOW
Son Lodge, No. ii was without
warrant of law and shocks the con-
science.
"The decree Of the court com"
nlained of, which held that WIDOW
Son Lodge, No. "a continued 60
function even after the action Oh
January 9, 1925 that It's loyal mem"
hers continued to be affiliated as
Lodge No. 81 with the old Grand
Lodge, and that the title to the
money and property remains WIN
widows Son Lodge, No, 81, IS
clearly right In every respect. II
before their withdrawal from Lodge
No, "a these protesting members
had any legal claim to any part OF
these funds, such claims should have
been legally asserted. BY their rev
dictionary secession Of January 3,
1926 such possible rights have been
forfeited"
A fair Interpretation Of this far
reaching decision is that members
seeding from local lodges Of the old
Grand Lodge of Virginia can take
nothing with them and the loyal
members are entitled to all Of the
properties accumulated while affil'
lated with the old Grand Lodge.
Judge Spratley entered an order
forbiddtng the use of the name,
Widows Son Lodge No. IA A. F.
and A. NJ, Colored" on the ground
that it was confusing and tended to
lead the public to believe that this
latter lodge represented tie COM
plainants in the suit.
This suit was holly contested,
with W. R. walker. J. G. Robert
son and J. Thomas Newsome repre-
senting Lodge No. 81, the winning
lodge. and Messrs. J. Winston Read
and R. H. Pree representing the
defendants.
It is said that several lodges in
Virginia who went out from the old
Grand Lodge under circumstances
similar to the secession of the ma
jority of the members Of Lodge No.
"a will be affected as well as con-
trolled by the decision Of the SUI
preme Court upholding the conten-
tfonc oe tho 1oya1 local lodge affll'