*1 The evidence shows that night accident was clear defendant’s lights were on. If had deceased looked he must seen have them he approaching, should protected have himself not until he cross undertaking safety. could do so with If he did look but out stepped he blindly was equally clealrly guilty contributory negli- gence. case,
In this view of the other not be need con- questions sidered. reversed, costs,
Judgment without a new trial.
NINER, v. HANSON etc. et al. Appeals Record.) In One
(Two Term, 267, September 1957.] [No.
Decided June 1958. Motion opinion July as costs for modification of filed denied July *5 Bruñe, The cause was before argued J.,C. and Hender- son, Hammond, Horney, and Prescott JJ. Ford,
Thornton and C. J. Francis Land with whom was Joseph brief, H. A. Rogan on the for the appellants. Jr.,
Melvin Sykes J. and Francis D. Murnaghan, with whom were Fred Weisgal and Weisgal & on B. Sollins brief, for the appellee.
Henderson, J., delivered opinion the Court.
These are appeals from a decree of the Chancellor declar- ing complainant, Hanson, Gotthard (appellee) union, member of the defendant Brother- Local United America, hood Carpenters and enjoining and Joiners the defendant its (appellant), officers and from agents, di- rectly or indirectly interfering with plaintiff’s rights as a member of the that he be requiring recognized as a member and issued appropriate evidence his membership. an opinion, extended the Chancellor found that Hanson Local, was improperly expelled but by stated that “This course opinion of does not preclude the Defendant union or of its members from preferring charges against Plaintiff accordance with the Constitution and By-laws of union in regard said any alleged infirmities prior to the alleged expulsion of the Plaintiff.” The appellee filed a cross- from appeal this “adjudication”.
The not appellant does challenge the jurisdiction grant court to relief Nor equity it prayed. does challenge of fact finding Chancellor’s that Hanson’s expulsion was compliance Constitution and By-laws it is although contended strongly that he was never eli- for The gible membership. appellant further contends that barred from the relief appellee sought on the grounds of res judicata, estoppel by judgments prior litigation and conduct, limitations and laches and unclean hands. but may are voluminous facts be as summarized fol- came to country lows : Planson this from Sweden in applied membership thereafter shortly Local Union York He was because he did not rejected City. 2236 New but English language, understanding have sufficient *6 the union card of one thereafter came into of possession used while on union illegally working which he Helgeson, the in as to whether or testimony was a conflict There jobs. Sweden, to have returned to gave who seems Helgeson, event, illegal to its use. In any him the card and consented 941, in turned the card to Union subsequently Hanson Local a new card in Helgeson’s in New and received Jersey, located 1931, he name In he had name Helgeson’s which used. name Arthur Hanson. the card to the of B. on changed Local into 349. Thereafter officials was consolidated 941 Local Hanson for against filed and others charges of that union scale, $100, he and fined below union he was working he then to and has tendered paid, although refused never pay time of the suit prior present some to institution payment in 1956. Hanson, 1935, drive,
In a union made during membership name, in correct 101 his own to application, join Local in He did not answer certain questions pro- Baltimore. form, in the with reference pounded application prior Brotherhood, in other of and whether membership Locals to, been rejected suspended by, he had ever indebted application other His was but a accepted, year Local. he later was for of dues but was rein- dropped nonpayment stated of an initiation fee. In he trans- upon payment 1937 C., 1938, in in Washington, ferred to 132 D. and trans- Local on ferred Baltimore a “clearance” card. back to was elected At president 1943 Hanson Local 101 under in that time and “trusteeship” charge Local appointees United Brotherhood Carpenters America, the union with parent headquarters Joiners Indiana, Indeed, hereinafter referred to as International. been under since 1926. Hanson “trusteeship” had Local to obtain had a movement instigated autonomy at time the International investigated had his record and information as the “infirmi- past conveyed Local, ties” in but no taken his to the action was membership Hanson, against him as the elected by president the Local. Local, of the books and sought of the obtain possession been the International who had act- appointee records from Local, some president as and made efforts to collect ing $200,000 by of funds claimed have been embezzled appointees of A suit was instituted Indiana International. Hanson, as which was president of Local settled payment to 101 of sum of approximately $256,000. Hanson at the represent was selected the Local convention International Florida held April 1946, and prior to sent circulars to all meeting printed other of International forth its differences setting Locals Hutcheson, convention, At general president. Hanson, Credentials refused the gen- Committee to seat detail, eral president took the floor to state in other among matters, how Hanson himself misrepresented Helgeson as had and been fined New Jersey. thereupon convention *7 passed a resolution Hanson from expelling International. 26, 1946, April
On Hanson and seven others filed suit Circuit Court No. of Baltimore as members and City, officers of on behalf of themselves and all others Local situated, similarly Hutcheson and others against twelve indi- vidually International, and as members and officers of pray- that the ing purported action of the be convention declared void, and an for accounting. On same International day, filed suit in the same court against Hanson and Local praying an injunction against interference with its “trustee- A ship”. was hearing held on a motion to a tempo- dissolve International, injunction obtained rary by at which Hanson that testified never went he under the name of Helgeson, and name; never knew a man that that he never belonged to or to or other any 101; Locals union except Local that he had been never fined by local any union. The hear- ing was adjourned, and when later, a resumed few weeks Hanson again took stand and admitted that his previous false, was testimony and that on the day following last he hearing had revealed his counsel, to perjury upon being confronted with a prospective witness who expose could him. He further admitted that the statements Hutcheson had made about him before the convention were substantially correct.
It was testified Hanson had revealed at a meeting counsel, Local, his revelation following testimony to that his false, been had the full had told questioned story Nevertheless, events. had him a given rising vote Local this appellant confidence. The contends that a “rump” was meeting, and attended. Hanson was not sparsely prosecuted for his admitted The court perjury. refused to dissolve an An injunction, and ordered election of officers be held. agreement of settlement was between the entered into Local International, which was a final decree. incorporated effect, local agreement, granted autonomy Local “The is not 101. It recited that to be past forgotten and be used as a further action complaint basis of Court or International their mem- against other or by Local It a recital Hanson had been expelled bers.” contained settlement had been con- proposed from International. The Local, general meeting sidered and counsel Hanson then stated that the settlement did not agreement ex- resolve the whether International question properly had Hanson, pelled but that Hanson “still had his own rights However, the International regard”. advised that it expulsion would the latter’s of Hanson and recognize or treat” him as A new “regard president a member. elected, to the pursuant settlement and decree. agreement International Hanson sued August, individually Indiana, He into court attacking expulsion paid order. all the fine Apparently, back dues and levied New Jersey. forwarded, forward, the clerk of the court attempted International on the payments these defended in his his alleged membership, infirmities grounds *8 case, the in the Baltimore effect of settle- perjury binding ment The trial and his unclean hands. court agreement, However, Hanson reinstatement. on found for and ordered Indiana, Hutcheson v. to the Court of appeal Appellate Hanson, 2d court held that (Ind.) (1951), N. 688 98 E. that International had was on expulsion ground void members, interfere with the and no authority no individual was modified so as of its But the decree autonomy Locals. Hanson’s to mem- right expressly question reserve
307 to the in the all back dues bership Hanson tendered Local. union, but not his right were nor was they accepted, Local 1948, In April, brought Hanson membership recognized. Indiana, a libel in action Hutcheson and others against was settled of a substantial sum of by payment money Llanson, suit thereupon who executed a release. The was “with suits brought dismissed Hanson also two prejudice”. for dismissed, 1956, an accounting, which were 1955 and on Hanson that 101 ground necessary was a party. Local Hutcheson, v. 217 F. 171 and Hanson v. 7th), 2d A. (C. 564, Hutcheson, 134 N. Hanson was advised (Ind.). 2dE. 1952, the then 101 in that he barred by president of was from membership agreement under settlement 1946. No were him charges by ever preferred against union, an been official had although entry made Local’s file, respect card his membership “Expelled status: in April, This, course, action 1946”. reference to the had taken International Florida. reinstatement appellant contends Hanson’s suit for Sullivan,
is limitations laches. In Rettaliata barred v. 621, 617, 208 Md. “The is we said: Statute Limitations applied in where con equity by analogy the remedies are Bernard, 608, 611; current. v. 184 Brash Grandberg Md. Collison, ears v. 207 has been said Md. 352.” It also the analogy where the applies jurisdiction equitable involved in right, aid but where the legal equitable Todd, is exclusive. remedy Russell v. U. 309 S. also Pomeroy, Equity
See Jurisdiction e (5th ed.), 419 §§ argues 426 a. The that the suit in appellant the instant tort”, Curran, “speaks case fundamentally citing v. Lucio suit, however, Y.N. 2d 167. That was a wrongful for reinstatement, expulsion as well as there was a strong dissent from the majority holding statute limiting Likewise, tort actions at law Inter applied. Lowry Brotherhood, Etc., national 220 F. 2d A. 5th), (C. was for suit for Barn damages wrongful suspension. Co., 898, 904, hart v. Md. Ry. Western F. Ches Judge S. nut laches, held that limitations applied, as well as suit where brought nineteen wrongful discharge before years
308 But F. 2d 714 appeal (128 (C. suit was instituted. on ; Appeals the Court of 4th) 671), A. cert. denied 317 U. S. on solely with the suit was disagreed brought finding a common action as which theory damages, of law for limitations affirmed of laches. apply, ground would and on but damages, bill in instant
The
case did not
for
pray
is
that mandamus
for reinstatement.
It
held
only
generally
unincorporated
not lie
at
an
purpose,
against
will
for that
least
Monumental
association such as a labor
Burke v.
union.
C.,
Div.,
Md.).
No.
B.
On suit, be a showing but that there must of time will not bar reason of the or opposite party delay, of to the prejudice it entertain the suit. Cf. making inequitable circumstances to Sullivan, 270, 278, Rettaliata v. Jones v. 176 Md. Burgess, 126, no supra, 136. We find Croyle Croyle, v. 184 Md. that, be in the instant case. It also noted showing may such suit, of in period present most during delay filing his diligently asserting rights, supposed rights, Hanson was This re litigation, if not related to the directly Indiana. lief at least sought, now served to clear way pres ent suit. that appellant strongly contends the suit should have
been
because Hanson
not
into court with
dismissed
did
come
card,
hands,
clean
reason of his use of
union
Helgeson’s
obligations,
defiance
in the
of union
and his admitted perjury
1946 case. The first two reasons would seem to be pertinent
to the
question
his
to
and not
only
eligibility membership,
bar his resort
court
relief
It has
for reinstatement.
been
that the
said
clean hands doctrine is
in the
resting
one
court,
discretion of the
sound
not for the
applied
protection
but
parties,
for the court’s own
Mas
protection.
v. Coca-
Co.,
It
Cola
It has been
said that
opposite
must show
party
injury,
in order
Klemm,
to invoke the maxim. Thomas v.
185 Md.
136;
Carter,
218;
First Nat'l. Bk.
Catonsville v.
132 Md.
2 Pomeroy,
399;
Equity Jurisdiction (5th
note 4
ed.) §
A.
R. 44.
also
See
Stockwell
McAlvay,
R.
P. 2d 504
den.,
Smith,
(Cal.), cert.
304 U.
Messick v.
S.
659, 668,
Markell,
court,
Md.
Judge
for the
took occasion
test,
criticize the injury
as it
insofar
to be
sought
ap
plied
statute,
to conduct
violative
out
pointed
the Klemm
holdings
and Carter cases were that there
was no fraud and hence no basis for
applying
maxim.
He found the
true rule
be that “When a plaintiff’s wrong
*11
ful conduct is not contrary to law or
he
not
public policy,
is
it
the
injures
barred unless
that
the
defendant.”
In
case
in the
parties had
participated
illegal conduct and were
delicto,
pari
hence the plaintiff
could
“maintain
not
suit—
law or in
at
the
equity—directly arising out of
misconduct”.
case,
In the instant
we think it is clear that the
was
appellant
the false
The
injured by
testimony.
terminated
litigation
in a settlement
the
wholly favorable to
appellant,
leaving
in abeyance.
Hanson’s status
Hanson was not an adverse
here,
former
in the
case to the
party
appellant
and his testi
recanted,
mony was
under
although
before
pressure,
the
agreement
settlement
was entered into and before the matter
to the court for
submitted
decision. Hanson was not
.was
for the
for
offense or cited
prosecuted
contempt, and we fail
to see that
the false
had
influence
testimony
any
upon
case,
it
that
that
is
outcome of
or
material
the issue in the
instant
The
principle underlying
case.
maxim is that
not aid an applicant
will
or
“equity
securing
protecting
or in
wrongdoing,
from his
gains
escaping consequences Men’s Home
wrongdoing.” Aged
Marley,
his
v.
156 Md.
478, 482;
Co.,
73,
v. Balt.
Tar
Gas
Co.
Coal
65
Eq.
Md.
Lt.
Sterling,
311
fraud,
required even where the complainant was
guilty
evidence,
or
perjury
suppression
wrongdoing
where the
not result in
does
benefit
as a
operate
wrongdoer,
is
imposition
relief
upon
sought.
fraud
court
Berman,
Hunt,
699, 704;
Berman v.
191 Md.
Hunt v.
160
Devlin,
358
J.);
A.
v.
163 P.
(N.
Langley
(Wash.);
395
Co.,
Refining
Supply
White
Co. v.
&
Holly
Star
Lumber
Eisner,
We The Planson’s to reinstatement is res right judicata. tion of left the question open. Indiana decision N. 2d (98 688) E. Indeed, the lower court was the modification of the decree of 101 was not upon proposition based squarely adjudicate and that the court lacked jurisdiction a party decision, other Indiana as well as the de- question. court, likewise made no adjudication cision in the federal *12 of The re- necessary because of the lack a party. that issue suit, libel with of the Indiana dismissal prejudice lease and others, claims for dam- only Hutcheson and covered against not, and statements did alleged defamatory out of arising ages not, here The the question presented. adjudicate and could in Baltimore Court passed the consent the in decree recital International, 1946, from expelled Hanson had been action, the of that and validity to adjudicate not did purport in the subse- established conclusively was invalidity in fact its decision cited. Indiana quent however, contends, the “in- alleged appellant
312
inanities” in
his-
eligibility
Hanson’s
to
membership,
1946,
from
perjury
its action
his name
justified
striking
the
rolls. That action was not taken on the basis of
fact,
of
the
charges, hearings
findings
or
but
on
basis-
simply
that he had been
the
properly
by
International.
expelled
the
of
action
ju
International’s
has been
invalidity
Since
with,
determined, the action
101
dicially
of
must fall
Local
it. We
it
find
to
the
whether
unnecessary
question
resolve
the
“infirmities” or his
alleged
conduct would have justified
it,
its action in a
or
extent
proceeding instituted
to what
requirements
process
provisions
of due
of
con
stitution
of
were
by-laws
which
promulgated,
Local
International,
prevent summary
would
action on
grounds-
other than
the one relied on. We are
aware of anything
in that
constitution
an
support
solely
would
expulsion
because of
which was
with sufficient
perjury
confessed
prompt
it
prevent
ness
from
to the detriment of the
operating
thereon,
its action
reliance
however
influencing
Local
detrimental
personal
character and
of
credibility
We
that in
agree
Hanson.
Chancellor
Hanson
at least
member
a de
101. Not
did.
only
Local
facto
in his
acquiesce
status with full
membership
Local
knowl
edge of the
“infirmities”
alleged
eligibility,
in his
during
period from 1939 to 1946 which he was elected president
occasions,
on
but
several
form of the
very
expulsion
International,
resolution
and the
in the
entry
minutes
Local,
he
was a tacit
was in fact mem
recognition
Cas.,
at that
ber
time.
note 17 Ann.
1146. A non
See
member could
be
hardly
“expelled”, and the expulsion was
not the action
but
of the International. For
it
present purposes
enough
to hold that Hanson had stand
ing
equity
invoke
aid
an action
against
that was-
clearly
illegal
arbitrary
any view
case. See
Merriott,
Brown,
453;
v.
130 Md.
Smith
v.
Evans
519;
Ass’n.,
Md.
Etc.,
Martin
United
supra;
Slate
note
think,
21 A.
R. 2d
however,
1421. We
L.
that the
defective,
form of the decree was
and should have provided
that the order of reinstatement was without
prejudice action,
right take
in accordance
with its con-
*13
regard
to
infirmities
any alleged
and by-laws,
stitution
union,
membership
the
said
plaintiff
eligibility
the
expulsion.
purported
subsequent
prior
merit
there is no
in the contention that
the cross-appeal,
In
reinstatement was
determined
conclusively
Hanson’s
right
The
in the
left
and we now
question
open,
Indiana case.
it
the basis that
decide
on
relied on
simply
ground
by
101 was
and hence
wholly inadequate
arbitrary.
cross-appellant
contends
is estopped from
for discipline or
because
bringing any proceeding
expulsion
of its waiver or
We
acquiescence.
question
leave
open.
We
that Hanson has sufficient
merely hold
standing
ques-
noted,
tion the action taken in
As
we have
courts are
reluctant
to interfere in
internal affairs of unincorporated
associations,
cases,
in the
do so
clearest
and after
only
other
remedies
Camp
have been exhausted.
No. 6
Cf.
Arrington,
We shall accordingly direct the decree Chan- cellor be modified as indicated herein and affirmed as modi- fied.
Decree modified, and as modified,
affirmed, costs to be paid two- thirds appellants one-third appellee. Horney, JJ., filed following dissenting Prescott opinion. Hanson,
Gotthard appellee-plaintiff, who once admitted that he had committed court perjury very equity relief, which he is now does seeking that his deny mem- in the union bership he claims he still a member *14 was originally obtained deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud. the Actually appellee did not “recant” his perjury, as we word, understand the of the meaning the ma- although says that he jority did. The fact is that when confronted witness by a who was present expose the appellee’s per- jury, he then admitted it.
After a series of suits in this and other jurisdictions con- the same matter as cerning to which this suit is another only phase, the lapse and of ten over years, had appellee file temerity to same court in he which committed his admitted bill of perjury the extra- complaint seeking ordinary remedy mandatory of a injunction compel appellant-defendant, No. 101 Brother- United America, hood of Carpenters and to restore his Joiners membership of which he claims the International Union illegally deprived him.
The Chancellor held that he was entitled to the injunction Court, and so ordered. The majority modifying this after the order so as to reinstatement permit without prejudice, has affirmed decree of the Chancellor. We disagree. opinion hands, our plaintiff is court with unclean and is, therefore, not to enforce the ill- entitled restoration of his gotten union membership. true,
While it is
does not
that suitors
equity
require
lives,
shall have lived blameless
un
especially
regard
matters,
related
it has often been held that no action arises
deceit,
out
nor
of fraud
does a
accrue to
one
right
are
wrong.
out of his own
There
innumerable cases in which
See,
these
of law have been
principles
applied.
for example,
Heath,
;
Bein v.
47 U.
228
Kitchen v.
(6 How.)
(1848)
S.
Rayburn, 86 U.
254
Deweese
(19 Wall.)
(1873);
S.
v.
Reinhard,
Picture
165 U.
386
Theatre Co.
(1897);
Plays
S.
Williams,
556, 78
674
Rust v.
75 Fla.
Gilles
(1918);
So.
59,
pie,
O’Gasapian
Okla.
The same have principles by many In 2 of equity jurisprudence. law writers of subject 401, it Equity Jurisprudence ed. Pomeroy, (5th 1941), Sec. is stated: be the nature plaintiff’s
“Whatever of the claim seeks, relief if he his claim grows out with, depends upon, connected inseparately * * * his prior fraud, own court of will equity remedies law leave him whatever and defenses at he have.” may (Emphasis added.) Note, 32 also B. U. Rev. 68 (1952). See L. Chafee his
Professor Problems Equity p. (1950), stated: aptly
“The real is not objection one man’s unclean *15 hands, but to the whole enterprise. court does not want to touch an unlawful transaction with always ten-foot It pole. refuses it help carry out, often it refuses to pick up pieces after enterprise apart. has fallen up Courts were set law, not to violations law.” enforce enforce (Emphasis added.) it As see of the maxim we applicability upon depends between the appellee’s connection iniquitous acts and the conduct. other words be appellant’s question to re in this action whether the solved is appellee’s con wrongful with, to, duct connected or related and not dispute been Carpenters’ whether has appellant Cf. injured. Comm., 333 Ill. Union v. Citizens’ 164 N. E. (1928).
We believe decree Chancellor should be should be the bill dismissed. reversed and