Case Name: Mary G. Conboy, as Treasurer of Court No. 57, Our Lady of Peace, of the National Order of the Daughters of Isabella, Appellant, v. Julia T. Mathews, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-07-28
Citations: 174 A.D. 523
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary G. Conboy, as Treasurer of Court No. 57, Our Lady of Peace, of the National Order of the Daughters of Isabella, Appellant, v. Julia T. Mathews, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 174
Pages: 523–525

Head Matter:
Mary G. Conboy, as Treasurer of Court No. 57, Our Lady of Peace, of the National Order of the Daughters of Isabella, Appellant, v. Julia T. Mathews, Respondent.
Second Department,
July 28, 1916.
Corporation — membership corporation having subordinate branches — when treasurer of branch cannot sue to recover moneys of corporation.
As the National Order of the Daughters of Isabella is a membership corporation organized under the laws of this State, the treasurer of a subordinate branch, called a “ court,” which is not incorporated, but which consists of more than seven persons, is not entitled to sue to recover moneys alleged to be due to the local court, for the title to the money and the right of action is in the corporation itself, there being nothing to show that the subordinate court has any derivative rights.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Mary G-. Conboy, as treasurer, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 6th day of April, 1916, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the opening, and also from the order entered in said clerk’s office on the 11th day of April, 1916, dismissing the complaint.
P. H. Fitzgerald, for the appellant.
Francis A. McCloskey, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Thomas, J.:
The National Order of the Daughters of Isabella is a membership corporation incorporated under the laws of this State, and has subordinate branches, called courts, one of which, located in the county of Kings, is called " Court No. 57, Our Lady of Peace," which is alleged to be an unincorporated association of more than seven persons. The plaintiff is treasurer of the court, and as such seeks to recover from the defendant moneys alleged to be owned by the court which came into her hands as its treasurer. The trial court decided that the complaint did not state a cause of action and dismissed it. The answer alleges that the corporation has classed its members in courts, of which Court No. 57, Our Lady of Peace, is one, but denies that such court is an unincorporated association of more than seven persons, although the answer shows that the court has more than that number, and denies that the plaintiff is treasurer and alleges that under a by-law of the corporation the board of trustees of the corporation is entitled to receive the moneys in question. The by-law is not returned. If Court No. 57 could be an unincorporated association of more than seven members, the plaintiff as treasurer could maintain the action if the members could do so. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1919.) This court is not even advised of the statute under which the corporation was formed, and is in no wise informed of its origin, except that it is a membership corporation having branches, which have their own officers. With that single clue, the power of a membership corporation to ordain subordinate branches may be examined. The appellant does not indicate any provision in the Membership Corporations Law that confers such authority, and I do not discover it. In fact, the corporation has groups of members that have something of self-government, but how amenable to the corporation does not appear. But under the Membership Corporations Law the property of the corporation belongs to it, and it would be the proper party to bring this action, unless the plaintiff shows some derivative right, which she does not. If Court No. 57 exists pursuant to the Benevolent Orders Law, section 2, the complaint should show it. But the appellant does not suggest that.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
J udgment affirmed, with costs.