39 Mo. App. 583 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1890
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a proceeding by injunction to restrain the Merchants’ Exchange, of St. Louis, and its directors, from interfering with the rights of plaintiff as a member of such exchange. A preliminary injunction , was
The questions presented for decision have been raised entirely by the pleadings, and no question of fact is in dispute. The Merchants’ Exchange, of St. Louis, is a corporation, and the plaintiff is a member of it. The plaintiff was fined in the sum of fifty dollars by the board of directors, upon a charge preferred by the floor manager of the exchange room, — the latter not being a member, but an employe of the corporation, — for smoking in the exchange room between the hours of one and 1:15 p. m., in violation of a regulation established by the board of directors. The plaintiff appeared before the board, in pursuance of a citation, and objected to the formality of the proceeding against him, on the ground that the charge had been preferred by a person not a member. This objection was overruled by the directors, and thereupon, at the request of the plaintiff, he was allowed four days in which to present his defense. At the time, to which the hearing was thus adjourned, he appeared and presented his defense in writing, in which he admitted that he had smoked on two different occasions in the exchange room between the hours of one and 1:15 p. m., in'violation of the rule, and in which he set up as a defense that the directors had no authority to make the rule. This defense was overruled, and, as the plaintiff had no other defense, the directors sentenced him to pay a fine of fifty dollars within five days. This fine he refused to pay. Thereupon the board of directors cited him to appear, and show cause why he should not be suspended from membership for his failure to pay the fine. Thereupon he appeared before the directors, and presented a defense in writing, in which he submitted that the fine imposed upon him was illegal, and that it would be illegal to suspend him for refusing to pay it. On being asked if he had anything further to say in the
I. Before passing to the more important questions, we may advert to the incidental question, whether the plaintiff was properly suspended upon a charge preferred by a person not himself a member. Even if the plaintiff had not waived this matter by making his defense upon the merits, after he had raised this objection and the directors had overruled it, we should still regard it as a matter relating to the details of the procedure with which the judicial courts will not interfere. It is well settled that corporate bodies and voluntary societies, in the proceedings taken for the suspension or expulsion of members, are not bound to act with the strict regularity which obtains in judicial proceedings, but that the courts will limit themselves to inquiring whether they have acted within their powers, áfter giving notice to the accused and affording him an
II. A preliminary question is presented for decision, whether, assuming that the plaintiff was improperly suspended, he is entitled to a remedy by injunction. The position of the defendants is that, as the Merchants’ Exchange” of St. Louis is a corporation, he has a complete remedy at law, in the proceeding by mandamus, to 'compel the corporation to re-instate him in his rights as a member. We find, on examination, that nearly all the cases of expulsion from societies, in which the remedy by injunction has been successful, or where the jurisdiction of equity was conceded, were cases where the society was not incorporated. Leech v. Harris, 2 Brewst. 571, 576; Rorke v. Russell, 2 Lans. 244; Powell v. Abbott, 9 Week. Notes of Cas.(Pa.)231; Bouldin v. Alexander, 15 Wall. 131; Bates v. Houston, 66 Ga. 198. That mandamus is the regular remedy to restore a member of a corporation, who has been illegally disfranchised, has certainly been the settled law since the decision of the King’s Bench in the case of Bagg, in the year 1616. Bagg’s case, 11 Co. Rep. 93. In the supreme court of New York the distinction has been
But we apprehend that this question must rather be determined with reference to the provision of our statute relating to injunctions, than with reference to the grounds on which the courts of other jurisdictions have generally proceeded. That statute is as follows : “The remedy by writ of injunction or prohibition shall exist in all cases where an injury to real or personal property is threatened, and to prevent the doing of any legal wrong whatever, whenever, in the opinion of the court, an adequate remedy cannot be afforded by an action,for damages. ” R. S. 1879, sec. 2722. The terms of this statute limit” our inquiry in respect of the question under consideration to whether an adequate remedy could have been afforded to the plaintiff “by an action for damages.” It is plain that such a remedy could not be afforded, unless the position taken by the learned counsel for the defendants, of which we shall speak in the next paragraph, is a sound one. It is shown by the
But counsel for the defendants seek to meet this objection by suggesting that the plaintiff might reduce his damages to a certain amount by paying under protest the fine of fifty dollars, which the directors have laid upon him, in which case he would be restored to his rights as a member, and might then bring an action at law to recover it back. If the plaintiff had paid the fine under protest, and to save himself from suspension as a member, he could have maintained an action at law to recover it back. Westlake & Button v. City of St. Louis, 77 Mo. 47. But it does not lie in the mouth- of the defendants to say that he cannot have an injunction against the consequences which they have annexed to his refusal to pay it, because he might, by' paying it, have acquired the chance to maintain an action against them to recover it back; since the defendants might have collected the fine, if validly imposed, by an action of debt.
But is argued that an injunction is not the proper remedy, because the act sought to be enjoined has already ~been done, that is, because the plaintiff has already been suspended, and that the office of an injunction is to prevent threatened injuries, and not to undo injuries which have already taken place. If this argument were allowed to prevail, it would show that a great mass of decisions in the English and American courts, where, in the case of unincorporated societies, and in some instances in the case of corporations, the
In this case, the form of the decree, which the court rendered, enjoins the defendants from “in any manner'
III. This brings us to the real merits of the controversy. The charter of the Merchants’ Exchange of St. Louis provides that, “the rules, regulations and by-laws of the said association (by which we understand the association which existed prior to the act of incorporation) shall be the rules, regulations and by-laws of the corporation hereby created, until the same shall be regularly repealed or altered in the mode therein provided ; * * * and the board of directors of said association shall have power to suspend or expel any member of said exchange for misconduct, or for violation of any of the rules or regulations or by-laws, or for other causes specified in said rules.” We must keep the language of this provision in view, because a part of the argument of the defendants is that the refusal to pay the fine which had been laid upon the plaintiff was “misconduct” within the meaning of this provision. From the voluminous rules, regulations and by-laws, which have been put in evidence, we extract the following, as the only ones which have a direct bearing upon the question before us:
“Rule 4, sec. 8. The directors shall cause to be provided suitable reading and exchange rooms for meetings of members, which shall be kept open during the usual business hours; they shall have control over such rooms and may establish and enforce such rules and regulations jin regard to the use of the same,*593 as may seem proper; provided, however, that from eleven a. m. to one o’clock p. m., daily, the same shall be set apart and applied for the general meeting for the transaction of business.
“ Rule 4, sec. 9. It shall be the duty of the board of directors to examine charges preferred against any member of the exchange, when made to the board in writing by a member of the exchange, and to examine into misconduct of any member, in any way coming to their knowledge; and when any member shall be found guilty of any violation of any rule, regulation or by-law of the exchange * * * such offending member shall be censured, suspended or expelled by the board of directors, and for disorderly or improper conduct in any of. the rooms of the exchange may be fined, censured, suspended or expelled as they may determine * # >>
“Rule 16. None of the rules and regulations, or by-laws of the exchange, shall be rescinded or altered, nor any new ones made, unless by a vote of two-thirds of the members voting at a special or regular election ordered by the board of directors, and after notice of the proposed change shall have been conspicuously posted in the exchange room for at least ten days; except that section 14 of rule 4 shall not be repealed or amended, except as therein provided.”
“By-Laws, article 8. Smoking in the exchange room, between the hours of eleven a. m. and one p. m. is prohibited. Violations of this rule shall be reported by the floor committee to the secretary, and any member violating this rule shall be subject to discipline, as provided in section 9 of rule 4.”
Prior to the doing of the act, for which the plaintiff was suspended, it became expedient, in the opinion of the board of directors, to change the hours of keeping the exchange open for business, so as to conform to the hours established by other similar bodies in other cities,
First. The first question is, had the directors power to make a new regulation on the subject covered by by-law 8, extending the time of the prohibition contained in that by-law? The plaintiff has argued that the directors have no power to enact by-laws, unless power thereto is given by the charter. This is undoubtedly the rule (Carroll v. Bank, 8 Mo. App. 250, 253; State Savings Ass’n v. Printing Co., 25 Mo. App. 642); but it has no application to this case, for, by the terms of the charter above set out, the regulations of the association were to continue in force until regularly repealed or altered in the mode therein provided, and one of these regulations (rule 4, section 8) provided, in express terms, that the directors “shall have control over such rooms, and may establish and enforce such rules and regulations in regard to the use of the same as may seem proper.” The same regulation contained the proviso, “that from eleven o’clock a. m. to one o’clock p. m., daily, the same shall be set apart and applied for the general meeting for the transaction of business.” It was with reference to this last regulation that the corporation, in its constituent capacity, enacted by-law number 8, above quoted, prohibiting smoking upon the floor of the exchange between the hours of eleven a. m. and one p. m. In view of the fact that plenary power is given to the directors to
Second. Rut it does not at all follow from this that he has been lawfully suspended. It is perceived, on recurring to the provisions of section 9 of rule 4, in which the power to discipline the plaintiff for the act in question is sought, that it recites that “for disorderly or improper conduct in any of the rooms of the exchange (the offending member) may be fined, censured, suspended or expelled, as they (the directors) may determine.” Here the regulation undertakes to grant'an indefinite power to fine, without placing any limit upon the amount of the fine. It is an old and well-settled rule in regard to the power of corporations to impose fines or penalties, that the penalty must be a sum certain, and not left to the arbitrary assessment of the company, under the circumstances of the particular case. Ang. & A. Corp., sec. 360; Wood v. Searle, J. Bridg. 141; Mobile v. Yuille, 3 Ala. 137; Piper v. Chappell, 14 Mees. & W. 624, recognized in Master-Stevedores' Association v. Walsh, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 14; and in Huntsville v. Phelps, 27 Ala. 58. In an early and leading case on this subject the rule was laid down so strictly as to hold that a corporate by-law imposing a fine would be void for uncertainty, even though the utmost limit of the same be fixed; for this would allow
Third. But, if section 9 of rule 4, giving this discretionary power to fine, was one of the rules and regulations continued in force by the provision of the
Fourth. But, if we are wrong in this, there is another principle of the common law equally well settled, which shows that the suspension of the plaintiff for the non-payment of this fine was illegal. No power to suspend for the non-payment of such a fine is found in the charter or regulations of the corporation, unless it exists in the word ‘ ‘ misconduct,! ’ which we have already quoted in a provision of the charter and italicized. But we are of opinion that the misconduct referred to in the provision is not the misconduct of refusing to pay a pecuniary fine, where the member in good faith takes the position that the directors have no power to impose the fine. Such a refusal cannot, in our opinion, be deemed misconduct within the meaning of the charter provision. The rules of the common law concede to corporations the inherent power of enforcing their by-laws by pecuniary penalties, provided that they are certain, within the rule above stated. The Chamberlain of London's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 63b.; City of London's Case, 8 Co. Rep. 253. But, in the absence of larger authority by force of custom, they could only enforce them by pecuniary penalties, and could not add to such penalties a forfeiture of goods, since forfeitures were contrary to Magna Charta. City of London's Case, supra, recognized in Master-Stevedores' Ass'n v. Walsh, 2 Daly, 14. See also, Leathley v. Webster,
The judgment of the circuit court will accordingly be affirmed. It is so ordered.