Court Opinion

ID: 9661055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:27:54.829893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:25.082883
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
AIn its Motion for Rehearing, consisting of forty-one pages, the Temple Corporation has included much reargument of the issue determined in the opinion and presented some new propositions and complaints not made in its original brief and raised for the first time in its Motion for Rehearing. These matters are not in compliance with Civil Rule 83.16 V.A.M.R. and will be disregarded. Ackerman v. Globe-Democrat Pub. Co., Mo., 368 S.W.2d 469, Suhre v. Busch, 343 Mo. 170, 120 S.W.2d 47.
The Temple Corporation contends that we overlooked the fact that the lodge was under compulsion as a subordinate of the Grand Lodge to participate in both hearings and that the Temple Corporation, although not subordinate to the Grand Lodge, was under the compelling fraternal obligation to cooperate with the request of the Grand Lodge to participate in both such hearings and, therefore, such parties did not voluntarily enter into any contract of arbitration. The Temple Corporation further contends that we overlooked and misinterpreted the fact that the hearings held before the committees were Grand Lodge proceedings. We think we have amply demonstrated in the opinion that they could not have been Grand Lodge proceedings inasmuch as the Temple Corporation admits that it was not subordinate to the Grand Lodge and, therefore, was not subject to any proceeding of the Grand Lodge. Its contention that it did not voluntarily enter the proceedings has been amply refuted in the opinion. The fact is that it was the Temple Corporation that voluntarily solicited the aid of the Grand Master when it asked that he “somehow” interpose his influence in its behalf. There is not the slightest bit of evidence in the record to support the contention that the Temple Corporation was under any obligation, fraternal or otherwise, to enter into *114the hearings. The record demonstrates clearly that it entered into these hearings voluntarily and not under any compulsion.
The Temple Corporation further contends that the purpose of the hearings “ * * * was to enlist the influence of the Grand Lodge over West Gate, as its subordinate Lodge, in aiding Temple Corporation to persuade West Gate of the continuing validity of the obligation of West Gate to contribute its share of the cost of maintenance of the Temple Building * * * ’’ and that Temple Corporation participated in the hearings “ * * * without surrender of the right of Temple Corporation to resort to the Courts * * * ” if the decisions of the hearing committees were not in its favor. Such a contention amounts to saying that if we (Temple Corporation) gain a favorable decision from the committee we will insist on West Gate Lodge executing the determination and award of the committee but if the determination is not such as is in our favor or suits us then we are free to resort to the court. Such a contention contains its own refutation. No doubt the Temple Corporation was confident of success before the committees and no doubt this confidence caused it to enter into the proceedings. It voluntarily submitted to the hearings, although it could have refused to do so, inasmuch as it was not subordinate to the Grand Lodge or its authority or to the Grand Master or his authority.
The Temple Corporation points to the fact that the word “arbitration” was not mentioned by it. It is true that the Temple Corporation did not use the word “arbitration” and it was not used in the proceedings until the report of the Jurisprudence Committee was made. But as we have pointed out in the opinion the Temple Corporation initiated the hearings, voluntarily submitted to the hearings, participated in them and urged the committees to finally determine the controversy. In the proceeding before the Jurisprudence Committee the President of the Temple Corporation indicated the hearing before the committee was analogous and comparable to a proceeding of a court. We think the proceedings contained all the attributes of arbitration hearings and the same thought was entertained by the Jurisprudence Committee in its report.
The Motion for Rehearing is overruled.
ANDERSON, P. J., and RUDDY and WOLFE, JJ., concur.