Opinion
07-17-1907
STATE COUNCIL, JR. O. U. A. M. OF NEW JERSEY v. HOLLYWOOD COUNCIL, NO. 29, JR. O. U. A. M. OF NEW JERSEY. SAME v. ENTERPRISE COUNCIL, NO. 6, JR. O. U. A. M. OF NEW JERSEY.
Alan H. Strong and Fergus A. Dennis, for complainants. Barton B. Hutchinson and John T. Dooling, for defendants.
Two bills by the State Council, Junior Order United American Mechanics of New Jersey— one against Hollywood Council, No. 29, Junior Order United American Mechanics of New Jersey, and the other against Enterprise Council, No. 6, Junior Order United American Mechanics of New Jersey. Decree in each case for complainant.
See 64 Atl. 561.
The bill in the first of the above-stated causes was filed on the 9th day of June, 1904, and in the second cause on the 27th day of June, 1904. Shortly before those dates, namely on the 16th day of May, 1904, a bill was filed by the same complainant against the National Council, Junior Order United American Mechanics of North America. The three causes proceeded pari passu to issue and were brought to a hearing, and the testimony in the three causes was taken together; but the consideration of the merits of the two causes above stated was deferred until after the consideration and determination of the merits of the case against the National Council. That was determined in August, 1906, as reported in State Council, etc., v. National Council, etc., 64 Atl. 561. Several months having elapsed without an appeal having been taken from the decree which followed that opinion, the two causes above stated were also brought to a hearing.
Alan H. Strong and Fergus A. Dennis, for complainants. Barton B. Hutchinson and John T. Dooling, for defendants.
PITNEY, Advisory Master. These causes were brought on to a final hearing before me on the 14th day of March, 1907, before my resignation as Vice Chancellor had taken effect, at which time the testimony was closed. The argument, however, was postponed to the 2d day of May, which was after the date of my resignation, and when I was sitting as Advisory Master. At that time counsel for the defendants appeared and protested against my further proceeding with the consideration of the causes on the ground of an alleged lack of jurisdiction. Adjournment was then had to the 20th day of May. In the meantime the causes had been formally referred to me as Advisory Master. On that day the defendants again objected and withdrew from the causes, so that I have not had the benefit of their argument.
The case made by the bill and proofs against each defendant is substantially the same. The two defendants are subordinate councils of the State Council. Their relations to it are dealt with to some extent in the opinion above referred to in 64 Atl. 561. After the separation between the National Council and the State Council, as set forth in that opinion, the two defendants herein refused to follow and obey or in any manner recognize the authority of the State Council, whereupon the State Council instituted proceedings against each of the defendants, which were carried on strictly in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the complainant, and after due notice to the defendants their several charters were revoked, with the result that all the property of the several defendants became vested in the complainant.
The object of these bills is to reach and recover possession of that property. The defendants by their answers admitted all the material facts in the case, and such as were not admitted by the answers were either admitted or proven, either on the original hearing in the suit against the National Council or at the hearing in these two causes on the 14th day of March, 1907. In fact, it is quite plain that the defendants by their several answers placed their defense wholly on the same ground that the National Council did, and in substance elected to stand or fall with it in its defense to that suit. No motion has been made to make any other defense, and I am unable to find any other in the case as disclosed. The cases are clearly within the well-defined line of decisions found in our own Reports and collected by me in Knights of Pythias v. Germania Lodge, etc., 56 N. J. Eq. 63, at page 73, 38 Atl. 341, of which I will here cite State Council, etc., v. Sharp, 38 N. J. Eq. 34, and Schubert Lodge v. Schubert Lodge, 56 N. J. Eq. 78, 38 Atl. 347, which followed the case of Knights of Pythias v. Gemania Lodge, supra.
I will advise a decree in each case, granting the complainant the relief prayed for.