Hibernia Fire Engine Co. v. Commonwealth ex rel. Harrison

H. was an active member of a volunteer fire company in 1864, and until 1867, when he left the state, but not with the purpose of changing his residence. He paid his dues regularly until April 28th 1871. In March 1871, by reason of the creation of a paid fire department, the company ceased to run to fires, and the next month converted its effects into cash, realizing several thousand dollars, and leased their engine-house. In August following they passed an amendment to their by-laws, changing the rate of dues from 12£ cents to $2 per month. H. did not pay these increased dues, and his name was erased from the. books. In a proceeding by mandamus at his relation, Meld, that the amendment to the by-laws increasing the rate was unreasonable, and a member who did not assent thereto was not bound to pay them. Meld, further, that such a member had rights in common with the other members, and upon a dissolution of the company and the distribution of the property among the members, he was entitled to his share as a member. 2. Whether a by-law is reasonable or not is a question for the court solely. But its unreasonableness should be demonstrably shown. Courts, in construing by-laws, will interpret them reasonably, if possible, not scrutinizing their terms for the purpose of making them void, nor holding them invalid, if every particular reason for them does not appear.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1880, No. 138. This was a proceeding by mandamus brought by the Commonwealth at the relation of George Harrison against the Hibernia Fire Engine Company. Upon the presentation of the petition of the relator, a writ of alternative mandamus issued, and the defendants filed a return thereto, to which a replication was filed and issue joined. At the trial, it appeared that the engine company was instituted February 20th 1752, and was incorporated by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, September 20th 1841. The relator joined the company as an active member in July 1864, and remained upon the active roll until May 1867, when, at his request, bis name was placed upon the absent roll, and he went to the state of Missouri. In the autumn of 1866, the company adopted, among others, Section 16, of By-Law 17, providing, “That if any member shall neglect or refuse to pay his indebtedness, exceeding three dollars, after receiving notice in writing from the assistant secretary, the president shall erase his name from the roll unless a satisfactory reason be given to that officer for such neglect.” The relator left the city in the spring of 1867, and made no payment to the company until June 80th 1871, when he forwarded to the secretary the sum of $8.35, the amount-of his indebtedness from April 1866, until April 1871. On December 29th 1870, the councils of the city of Philadelphia passed an ordinance to create a Paid Fire Department, which substituted such fire department for the voluntary organizations theretofore existing, and after March 1871, the Hibernia Fire Engine Company ceased running to fires. At the stated meeting of May 26th 1871, an amendment to the bylaw, fixing the rate of dues was proposed, and at the stated meeting of August 25th 1871, vras adopted by a vote of 84 in favor of it, to 6 against, in accordance with by-law 32, authorizing amendments to be made by a vote of two-thirds of the members present. This amendment fixed the rate of dues at $2 per month, instead of 12J cents, as they had previously been. In the course of the year 1871, the company converted its personal effects into cash, and leased its engine-house to the city for $1000 per annum. In the fall of 1871, the assistant secretary sent through the mail to the relator’s address, at St. Joseph, Missouri, a notice of indebtedness amounting to $4.50, to which no answer was received. In January or February 1872, another notification of his indebtedness, in the same amount, was mailed to him, containing the warning that unless it was paid by the next stated meeting his name would be dealt with in accordance with section 16 of by-law 17. To this an answer was received from the relator by the secretary, refusing to pay the amount and asserting that he was being unfairly dealt with. The secretary wrote in reply, assuring him that no wrong was being done, and informing him of the amount of property in the hands of the company and the number of members entitled to participate in its distribution. At the next stated meeting, February 23d 1872, the roll of delinquents was called; the secretary and assistant secretary reported to the meeting that notifications had been sent to the relator, his letter refusing to pay his indebtedness was read, and no one appearing to answer for him, the president erased his name from the roll. Some weeks afterwards, a former assistant secretary of the company received from the relator a post-office money order for $4.50, dated St. Joseph, Missouri, March 20th 1872, which he retained in his possession until the relator’s return to Philadelphia, when ho drew the money from the post-office and handed it to relator. In May 1872, he came back to Philadelphia, and sometime afterwards sent a letter to the company, requesting to be restored to the roll, which was read in open meeting and laid on the table. In pursuance of the Act of Assembly of 28th May 1872, the company, on the 27th of February 1874, passed a resolution to dissolve and surrender its charter, and a committee was appointed to carry the resolution into effect. March 27th 1874, ten members declared their intention to accept the provisions of the Act of 1872, and continue the existence of the corporation as a loan association, under section 1, of said act. December 11th 1874, the last meeting of the company was held, and a report of a committee received, stating the assets to be $42,946.15, and the number of members on the roll entitled to share in the distribution to be 54. In the meantime, various membei’s resigned from the company, receiving different sums of money, regulated by the date of their resignations. This suit was brought by the relator September 23d 1873. The third and fourth points of the defendant, both of which the court refused, were as follows:— 3. That if the relator was indebted to the company in a sum exceeding three dollars, on the 23d of February 1872, and was notified in writing of that fact by the secretary, and refused or neglected to pay his indebtedness after such notification, the verdict must be for the defendant. 4. That the relator, by his absence from this state for five years, lost an essential qualification for active membership of the company, and hence the verdict must be for the defendant. In the general charge the court, Pierce, J., said: “If you find there was no necessity for this increase of dues, the amended bylaw authorizing it was unreasonable and void. If it was made for the purpose of turning out members, then it was oppressive and unreasonable,- and they had no power to make it. The validity of the by-law depends upon the intent with which it is adopted. A by-law endeavoring to get rid^of a member is invalid. “ But I rest this case upon the fact that there was no legal trial of the relator. He had no day of hearing before the company. He had no intimation of the increase of. dues until the bill for them was sent to him. If he had been given an opportunity to be heard, he might have contended that the by-law was passed in his absence, and he did not know the reason-of it; that he reasonably hesitated about payment, and that he had come and tendered payment, and that the erasure be stricken off. That might have induced the company not to erase him. I therefore instruct you that the company had no cause to strike him from the roll. They could not disfranchise him or destroy his membership, if that is erasure, without an invitation or summons to appear before the company. The verdict should be for him. “ The only remaining question is that of damages, which you must determine. Some of the members got $780, and some over §800. There appears to have been about §48,000 to be distributed, and fifty-four members on the list. The relator’s membership entitled him to an equal share in the distribution.” The verdict was for plaintiff for §780.10. After judgment, defendant took this writ, and alleged that the court erred in the refusal of defendant’s points and in the portion of the charge noted above.