Case Name: The People ex rel. Isidor Grunwald v. The Independent Order Ahavas Israel
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-06
Citations: 13 Misc. 426
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. Isidor Grunwald v. The Independent Order Ahavas Israel.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 426–427

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. Isidor Grunwald v. The Independent Order Ahavas Israel.
(New York Superior Court—Special Term,
June, 1895.)
Expulsion from a society, if a property right is involved, must always be on notice, and, if no other method of notice is prescribed by the by-laws, it must be served personally. .
Where the constitution of a benevolent society provides that before a member shall be expelled he must be given eight days’ notice, an expulsion based upon a notice of three days, given by mail, is illegal.
Where expulsion proceedings are not in accordance with the by-laws of the society, the member is entitled to a mandamus to compel his reinstatement.
Application for writ of mandamus.
G. IL Smith, for relator.
A. B. Ja/worower, opposed.

Opinion:
McAdam, J.
The relator, a member of Joseph Grosner Lodge Ho. 4, was, on May 9, 1895, expelled for nonpayment of dues.
It appears that the defendant's grand lodge is a corporation, and that its constitution provides that before a member shall be expelled he must be given at least eight days' notice previous to the meeting. The defendant has no by-laws, and must, therefore, be governed by those of the grand lodge.
On May 6, 1895, the defendant mailed a letter to the relator stating that unless he paid his dues at a meeting to be held on May ninth he would be suspended, and tins notice is the only authority for its action. Expulsion, if a property right is involved, must always be on notice, and, if no other method of notice is prescribed by the by-laws, it must be served personally. Bacon Ben. Soc. § 101.
By the constitution of the grand lodge the relator was entitled to the sum of $500 on the death of his wife. She died on May 12, 1895, so that there is dependent upon the legality of relator's expulsion the right to the aforesaid $500.
If the defendant had adopted by-laws of its own, and the relator had subscribed to them so as to become bound thereby, a different question might have arisen. But on the case as presented it is clear that he did not get the notice required by the constitution of the order, and was, therefore, illegally expelled. He did not attend the meeting held May ninth, and, therefore, waived none of his rights.
The relator exhausted all the remedies provided by the society of which he is a member. He appealed to the grand lodge and that body refused to recognize him in any manner, so that the only course open to him is by mandamus. It is well settled that where such proceedings are not in accordance with the by-laws of the society the relator is entitled to this remedy. 14 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 153, 154.
The application will, therefore, be granted.
Ordered accordingly.