Case Name: HEATON et al. v. HULL et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-05-02
Citations: 64 N.Y.S. 279
Docket Number: 
Parties: HEATON et al. v. HULL et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 64
Pages: 279–281

Head Matter:
HEATON et al. v. HULL et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
May 2, 1900.)
1. Greek Letter Fraternities—Charter—Withdrawal—Grounds.
The fact that a college has not the proper material for the maintenance of a Greek letter fraternity is no ground for the withdrawal of its fraternity charter by the head council, where there is no provision in the constitution or by-laws authorizing such withdrawal, except for a violation of the rules and usages of the fraternity.
2. Same.
A disclosure by charter members of the constitution of a Greek letter fraternity, and of certain secrets relative to an attempt, by the grand council, to withdraw a charter, was not such a violation of the constitution and by-laws as would authorize the fraternity to forfeit their charter, where such violation was rendered necessary by the fraternity itself.
3. Same—Right to Enjoin.
Members of a college fraternity chapter may enjoin the unauthorized withdrawal of its charter, though they would still retain membership, notwithstanding the withdrawal.
Parker, P. J., and Merwin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, St. Lawrence county.
Bill by Lucia E. Heaton and others against Mary J. Hull and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs (59 N. Y. Supp. 281), defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
The plaintiffs are, some of them, charter members, some active, and some alumine members of the Beta Beta Chapter of the Kappa Kappa Gamma fraternity, a secret society, with 27 chapters in different women’s colleges in the United States. The defendants compose the grand council of that fraternity, with substantially plenary powers during the interim between the national conventions of the fraternity, which are held in alternate years. The judgment appealed from restrains the defendants from proceeding to withdraw the charter of the Beta Beta chapter existing in the St. Lawrence University, in this state, so long as the chapter conforms to the rules and usages of the fraternity.
Argued before PARKER, P. J., and HERRIOIC, MERWIN, SMITH, and KELLOGG, JJ.
E. A. Denton, for appellant.
Ledyard P. Hale, for respondents.

Opinion:
SMITH, J.
The charter which gave life to this chapter provides that the grand chapter of the fraternity have granted unto this plaintiff and others, as a chapter of the fraternity, "full power to perform all duties and ceremonies appertaining to the same whilst they conform to the rules and usages of the fraternity; otherwise, this chapter shall be declared null and void." The acceptance of this charter made the contract between the mother fraternity and the chapter, ^ind would seem to give to the plaintiffs, constituting the chapter, the right to permanence so long as they shall conform to the rules and usages of the fraternity. It is undoubtedly, true that any charter granted to a chapter in one of these fraternities is subject to the constitution and by-laws of the fraternity, which, to that extent, are deemed a part of the contract. But nowhere in the constitution or by-laws of the Kappa Kappa Gamma fraternity is there any provision authorizing the withdrawal of a chapter, except for the violation of the rules and usages of the fraternity. There are three grounds upon which the defendants have attempted to annul the plaintiffs' charter: First. That the college itself has not proper material for maintenance of a chapter. If, however, the charter accepted constitutes the contract between the fraternity and the chapter, power of revocation is not therein given for any such reason. That is not a violation either of a rule or a usage of the fraternity, for which alone, under the contract, a charter can be annulled. The second and third grounds are a disclosure of the constitution and a divulging of certain secrets of the fraternity relative to the attempt of the defendants to withdraw the plaintiffs' charter. Assume, for the argument, that these secrets were divulged, and for it the chapter can be held responsible, nevertheless there do not appear to have been any disclo sures that have not been rendered necessary for the defense of the chapter against the attempted illegal action of the fraternity officers. The violations of the plaintiffs' obligation will not authorize the fraternity to declare forfeited the charter when such violation is rendered necessary by the fault of the fraternity itself. With this attempt of the defendants to withdraw this charter unauthorized by the constitution or rules of the fraternity and in violation of the charter, have the plaintiffs a standing in court to complain? No* member is sought to be expelled from the fraternity. No property rights are appropriated. What is sought is to restrain the chapter from taking new members. This means an extinction of the chapter after the present members of the fraternity in the college have been graduated. The material loss of the plaintiffs is the loss by the alumnte of a home chapter of their fraternity. Is this loss substantial? The friendships of college days are generally the strongest of one's life. More strongly stiff are those friendships cemented by fraternity life. In after-life not only are they the source' of social and intellectual enjoyment, but many times of material advantage. Moreover, this tie holds more strongly among graduates of the same institution. Their interests are in common. Their chapter is to all its graduates a club home, where a friendly greeting is always, assured, and which operates to call back the graduates, especially at commencement times. The loss of this club home is not merely sentimental; it is a substantial loss, which has always been markedly felt whenever a chapter of a fraternity has been withdrawn from a college. If there be aught of substance in the right of one to membership in a social club apart from his property right, by parity of reasoning there is equal substance in the right of a fraternity man to the maintenance of his club home. It is the same wrong to extinguish one's club as to expel him from his club. We are not unmindful of the fact that this reasoning applies with more force to the relations among men than those among women. But the difference is in degree, and not in kind. This action may be without actual precedent. No case is cited, however, where the court has refused to interfere when an attempted expulsion has been unauthorized by the rules of the club. Until, therefore, this chapter has violated some rule or usage of the fraternity, it would seem to have the right to live, and an attempt by the fraternity to withdraw the charter in violation of its contract should be and is a proper subject of judicial cognizance. For these reasons we think the judgment was right.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except PABKEB, P" J" and MEBW1N, J., dissenting.