Case Name: APPEAL OF AARON SPERRY ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1887-05-16
Citations: 116 Pa. 391
Docket Number: No. 377
Parties: APPEAL OF AARON SPERRY ET AL.
Judges: Before Mercur, C. J., Gordon, Trunkey, Green and Clark, JJ.; Paxson and Sterrett, JJ., absent.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 391–405

Head Matter:
APPEAL OF AARON SPERRY ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY—IN EQUITY.
Argued April 22, 1887
Decided May 16, 1887.
1. Upon the complaint of a member of an unincorporated beneficial society that he has been wrongfully suspended and deprived of the benefits of his membership, and praying that he be restored thereto, equity has jurisdiction to inquire into the regularity of the proceedings under the constitution and laws of the society, but not into the merits of what has passed into judgment in a regular course of proceedings.
2. When, however, it is found that irregularities existed in the proceedings resulting in the act complained of, yet that they were waived by the complainant at the time, equity will not grant relief.
Before Mercur, C. J., Gordon, Trunkey, Green and Clark, JJ.; Paxson and Sterrett, JJ., absent.
No. 377 January Term 1886, Sup. Ct.; Court below, No. 6 March Term 1884, C. P. in equity.
I. D. Rosenberger filed a bill in equity in the court below against Aaron Sperry et al., members of Springhouse Lodge, No. 329, I. O. O. F. of Pennsylvania, setting forth a wrongful suspension from the lodge and praying for a decree of restoration to membership and an account of benefits to which he Was entitled. An answer having been filed, Mr. F. G. Hobson was appointed Master, who found the following facts:
That the plaintiff was a member of said lodge from September 1, 1849, and in good standing until July 1, 1881; that on April 30, 1881, he was reported sick to the lodge and on May 14*1881, he demanded by letter two weeks benefits; that on July 9, 1881, James M. Walters, a member, preferred charges against him, alleging that he was attempting to defraud the lodge by a feigned sickness and disability; upon which charge an investigation or trial committee was appointed in conformity with the laws of the order, and notice served; that at the date and place the committee were to meet, the plaintiff attended, but as only three members of the committee appeared nothing was done; that on August 13, 1881, the lodge ap pointed a new committee of five members, to investigate the charges, and at their meeting, the plaintiff did not attend, and on August 27, 1881, he was reported to the lodge as in contempt ; that on September 10, 1881, the plaintiff was expelled from the lodge for his failure to attend the trial committee; that he then appealed to the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, which body reversed the action of the lodge below and recommended that the plaintiff be tried on the original charge; that then the lodge proceeded to try the plaintiff upon the original charge and by the committee already appointed, one of whom then resigned and another member was appointed in his stead; that at a full meeting of the committee on March 28, 1882, the plaintiff and Ms counsel were present and testimony was taken; that at this hearing the plaintiff called Dr. B. K. Johnson, whose testimony was rejected by the committee on the ground that he had not attended the plaintiff until after the charge had been filed in the lodge; that the committee found and reported that the plaintiff was guilty on all the specifications of the charge and on April 15, 1882,'the plaintiff being present at the lodge meeting, the report of the committee was considered and its finding made the judgment of the lodge; whereupon a motion to expel was lost, but a motion to suspend the plaintiff for two years was carried by the necessary vote; that plaintiff then appealed to the Grand Lodge, and thence to the Sovereign Grand Lodge, and his appeals were dismissed, whereupon he filed this bill.
The master further reported:
1. That the charge made, if true, was not found to be sufficient to expel, or to suspend, the plaintiff.
2. That the appointment of the investigation or trial committee was not in conformity with the constitution and laws of the order, in that the N. G. had appointed two members, the V. G. two, and the N. G. the fifth member, whereas the plaintiff had the right to appoint the fifth member; but that the plaintiff had expressly waived' this irregularity.
3. That the proceedings before the said committee were irregular in this : (1), that the committee refused to take and report the testimony of Dr. Johnson who had attended the plaintiff in his sickness, on the ground that the attendance was after the charge was filed; (2), that the lodge itself ap pointed counsel to prosecute, and (3), that the evidence taken was not read to the lodge, — all which was contrary to sections 3 and 4, article VIII., of the constitution of the lodge.
4. That the master had no right to inquire into the merits of the case on the charge made.
5. That the plaintiff had a right to an account of the benefits he should have received, which were found to be $600.50.
The master recommended a decree that the plaintiff be reinstated in his membership and that the defendants pay the said sum of $600.50 as benefits to which he was entitled from April 30, 1881, to April 10, 1884.
The following are provisions of the constitution of the lodge:
Article VIII.
Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the committee to examine the parties, their proofs and witnesses, giving the member charged notice and full opportunity to be present at the examination. The accused and the accuser shall each have the right to be represented before the committee, by a member of the order. The committee shall keep a correct journal of its proceedings, and shall also reduce the testimon}1- taken to writing, to be signed by the witness ; after having heard the evidence they shall reduce their opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the person charged, on each charge, to writing, and report the same, together with the journal and the original copy of the testimony, to the lodge at its earliest meeting.
Sec. 4. After the presentation of the report of the committee to the lodge, the brother charged shall be notified thereof, and at the next stated meeting of the lodge the report shall be considered; after consideration a ballot shall be taken, and if a majority of the votes approve the finding of the committee, it shall be recorded as the judgment of the lodge. If found guilty the lodge shall then prescribe the punishment to be imposed; the vote thereon shall be by ballot in all cases; but for an expulsion the assent of two thirds of the members voting shall be required.
The defendants filed exceptions to the report of the master, which were overruled by the Court, B. M. Boyer, P. J., and the decree made as recommended; whereupon the defendants took this appeal, and assigned that the Court and master erred :
1. In holding that there was irregularity in the appointment of the trial committee.
2. In holding that the rejection of the testimony of Dr. Johnson was an irregularity.
3. In taking jurisdiction of causes of complaint not raised by the plaintiff in his appeals to the tribunals of his own order.
4. In not holding that the judgments of these courts were conclusive.
Mr. Amos Briggs (with him Mr. J. P. Hale Jenkins and Mr. Charles Hunsieker), for the appellants :
Accepting the facts as the master has found them the con-" elusions he deduces may be reviewed and reversed: Phillips’ App., 68 Penn. St. 138; Kutz’s App., 100 Idem 75.
The master finds that the irregularity, if any, in the appointment of the fifth member of the committee of March 18, 1882, was expressly waived by the plaintiff, but then concludes that the committee had no power to rule on the competency of the testimony offered, but were bound to take down all that was offered and to report it to the lodge. The written law of the order, however, is expressly otherwise: sec. 3, Art. VIII. of the constitution of the lodge; which makes the committee trial judges and not merely examiners.
1. When the law of procedure is observed, an error in ruling is attached to the ruling and cannot be reviewed but by direct appeal or writ of error to review the ruling itself: Thompson v. White, 4 S. & R. 135; Com. v. LaFitte, 2 S. & R. 105; Walls v. Wilson, 28 Penn. St. 514; Wynn v. Bellas, 34 Idem 160; Wells v. Scott, 1 Miles 125; Williams v. Danziger, 91 Penn. St. 232;. Lewis’s App., Idem 359.
2. The correctness of the ruling can be reviewed only by an appeal to the forum of the order. The charter of the order is its law, and it is of its very essence that all controversies within the order shall be adjudged within its own forum: Black & White-smiths’ Soc. v. Vandyke, 2 Wh. 309; Toram v. Beneficial Soc., 4 Penn. St. 519; Com. v. Beneficial Soc., 8 W. & S. 247; Hopkins v. Marquis of Exeter, L. R., 5 Exch. Div. 63; People v. St. George Soc., 28 Mich. 261; Poultney v. Blackman, 31 Hun 49; Woolsey v. Odd Fellows Lodge, 61 Iowa 492; Eritz v. Muck, 62 How. Pr. N. S. 69; Anacosta Tribe v. Murback, 13 Md. 91 (21 Amer. Dec. 625) ; Osceola Tribe v. Schmidt, 57 Idem 98.
3. This is the law of common law submissions: Messick v. Ward, 1 Gr. 437; Bowen v. Cooper, 7 W. 311; Benjamin v. Benjamin, 5 W. & S. 562; Speer v. Bidwell, 44 Penn. St. 26; Connor v. Simpson, 104 Idem 440; Neal v. Shields, 2 P. & W. 301; Navigation Co. v. Fenlon, 4 W. & S. 205; Hartupee v. Pittsburgh, 97 Penn. St. 107; Ferdicker v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 62 N. Y. 392; Pollock v. Sutherland, 25 Gratt. 78; Leech v. Harris, 69 N. C. 532; Buckman v. Ransom, 23 N. J. Eq. 118; Jenkins v. Meagher, 46 Miss. 84; Sabin v. Angell, 44 Vt. 523; Sanborne v. Murphy, 50 N. H. 65; Morse v. Bishop, 55 Vt. 231; Smith v. Kaolin Co., 1 Mo. App. 453 ; Halstead v. Seaman, 52 How., N. Y. Pr., 415; Snodgrass v. Gavit, 28 Penn. St. 224; Hostetter’s App., 92 Idem 132.
4. Honesty and fairness are the tests of the proceedings of these voluntary associations: cases cited in (1), (2), supra, and Society v. Com., 52 Penn. St. 131; St. Patrick Ben. Soc. v. McVey, 92 Idem 510; Tuigg v. Treacy, 104 Idem 499; Neal v. Shields, 2 P. & W. 301; Worrilow’s App., unreported.
5. Here we have a sentence against the complainant by the highest tribunal of his own order in the last resort, without even an allegation of its irregularity, and that sentence shows that the very grievance complained of by the bill is in rem judicatum: Com. v. Ben. Soc., 8 W. & S. 250.
Mr. W. H. Larzelere (with him Mr. M. Gcibson), for the appellee :
This was a case of amotion and disfranchisement; a divestiture of legal rights, the plaintiff’s property. The irregularity in the appointment of the committee is sufficient of itself to give jurisdiction and to entitle the plaintiff to restitution of his rights.
1. The committee had no power to reject the testimony of Dr. Johnson. The constitution says, “It shall be the duty, etc.” The duty was imperative: Malcom v. Rogers, 5 Cow. 183; City v. Board of Health, Camp. 402; Hogarden v. Raux, 72 N. Y. 583.
2. The principle of the cases is that equity will not reverse the proceedings of a corporation upon the merits, when acting within the powers granted by the 'charter ; and not that the regularity of the proceedings is not open to inquiry. The fact of the amotion being distinctly shown, the court may judge of its sufficiency, both as to the cause and the form of the proceedings: Com. ex rel. v. The German Society, 15 Penn. St. 251; Green v. The A. M. E. Soc., 1 S. & R. 254; Com. v. Guard, of the Poor, 6 Idem 468; Society v. The Com., 52 Penn. St. 133; Ang. & Ames Corp., 709; Worrilow’s App., unreported.
3. The master found that the lodge acted upon the committee’s report without hearing a line of the testimony read. Sec. 4, Art. VIII., prescribes that the lodge itself is to determine the case and say whether the accused is guilty or not of the charge preferred. The neglect was an irregularity: Com. v. Guard, of the Poor, 6 S. & R. 473.
4. The plaintiff objected to the whole proceedings from beginning to end. What more could he do? Being represented by a layman, not a lawyer, he was not expected to take formal exceptions and raise demurrers with legal accuracy.

Opinion:
Opinion,
Mr. Justice Gordon :
We are inclined to think that this case was not properly disposed of in the court below. The' learned master, properly apprehending that he must, under the authorities, confine himself to those questions which inYolved some infraction of the organic law of the society to which the plaintiff belonged, in other words, to some material irregularity in the proceedings which resulted in the complainant's suspension, found two such infractions or irregularities. . The first of these is, that in the appointment of the trial committee there was not a strict compliance with the by-laws; but as this irregularity was, as he seems to admit, cured by Rosenberger's appearance before the committee without objection, we cannot understand in what manner it was made to affect the case. The second, that certain testimony, offered on part of the complainant, was ruled out. We give the whole matter in the language of the master, thus: "The only allegation against the regularity of the proceedings before the trial committee was the refusal to hear the testimony of Dr. B. K. Johnson. The official report of the trial committee shows the following facts, viz., " B. K. Johnson obligated: I am a physician in North Wales, and a graduate in Pennsylvania in 1861; I know Brother I. D. Rosenberger, and have attended him; I first saw him professionally in August, 1881. P. W. G. M. Borie objects to the testimony of Dr. Johnson because the offence charged against the defendant is alleged to have occurred prior to Dr. Johnson's professional connection with him. The question being put before the committee, the objection is sustained. Brother Gearhart, for the defence, objects to the ruling of the committee." It will be observed that what is here alleged is, that the committee made a mistake in ruling out relevant testimony as irrelevant. Admitting that this evidence might have been relevant for some purpose, and ought, therefore, to have been admitted; nevertheless, it does not appear that it was anything more than a mistake in the judgment of the committee, nor does it appear that any complaint was made of this ruling on the subsequent trial in the lodge, of which trial we have the following report by the master: "April 15th, 1882, Rosenberger was present in the lodge meeting, and the report of the committee was considered. The findings of the committee were then made the final judgment of the lodge. A motion to expel was lost, but a motion to suspend Rosenberger for two years was carried by the necessary two thirds." Here, if we are to believe the master, was an appearance, a regular adjudication, and no complaint made of the action of the committee, a clear waiver of the defect complained of. It is said, however, that the evidence taken by the committee was not read. This assertion does not accord with the finding; but no matter; he could have required its reading had he so desired, and if he chose to waive it, that was his own business. But with these matters we have nothing to do, for, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice Gibson, in the case of The Black and White-smiths' Society v. Vandyke, 2 Wh. 308, "into the regularity of these proceedings it is not permitted us to look. The sentence of the society, acting in a judicial capacity and with undoubted jurisdiction of the subject-matter, is not to be questioned collaterally. If the plaintiff has been expelled irregularly, he has a remedy by mandamus to restore him; but neither by mandamus nor by action can the merits of his expulsion be re-examined. He stands convicted by the sentence of a tribunal of his own choice, which, like an award of arbitrators, concludes him." So, in the case of The Commonwealth v. The German Society, 15 Penn. St. 247, held, per Rogers, justice, citing from 8 W. & S. 251, "the courts entertain a jurisdiction to preserve these tribunals in the line of order and to correct abuses, but they do not inquire into the merits of what has passed in rem judicatam in a regular course of proceedings." It thus seems to be settled that neither the mistake made by the trial committee nor by the lodge can be noticed or reviewed by the courts.
" He stands convicted by the sentence of a tribunal of his own choice, which, like an award of arbitrators, concludes him."
The mistake made in the court below was in treating the case as an appeal, whereas it was a collateral action, like a suit-brought on a claim which had been finally disposed of by an arbitration at common law.
The decree of the court below is now reversed and set aside, and the bill dismissed at the costs of the appellee.