Court Opinion

ID: 6236431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 20:33:36.401098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:03.870976
License: Public Domain

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered, January 27th 1879,
Per Curiam.
The constitution and articles of a voluntary association, such as the Philadelphia Board of Brokers, are law as to the members. The plaintiff below was not a member, but had furnished the money by which Richards obtained a seat. His contention is that he was the equitable owner of the seat, and had title to what was received for it, and that the defendant had no right to apply the proceeds to debts due by Richards to other members, in pursuance of the terms of the constitution of the club. But why not ? Richards was the member of the board, the legal owner of the seat, and the plaintiff an entire stranger, unknown to the association. The members gave credit to each other in part, no doubt, upon the faith of the liability of a member’s seat to them for his debts. There is nothing unlawful or unreasonable in this regulation. The seat is not property in the eye of the law, it could not be seized in execution for the debts of the members. It is the mere creation of the board, and, of course, was to be held and enjoyed with all the limitations and restrictions which the constitution of the board chose to put upon it. Judgment affirmed.