Haacke v. Knights of Liberty Social & Literary Club

Sunday law — Money collected on Sunday — Promise to Pay money Received on Sunday — Assumpsit—Violations of Charter of Corporation. The defendant was a member and the treasurer of a social and literary club, and as such treasurer he received from time to time, on Sundays, and on week days, money belonging to the club. He made a statement in writing of the moneys so received, and of the sums expended by him, showing a balance in his hands due the club, and this balance, after first refusing, he subsequently promised, to pay. In an action of assumpsit on the common counts brought by the club to recover this balance, he made defence upon the grounds that the money, was the result of work done or sales made, on Sunday in violation of the Sunday law ; that such work or business was illegal and ultra vires; that the charter of the plaintiff was fraudulently obtained, and that the election of its officers was illegal. Held : 1st. That assuming that the funds of the club came into the hands of its officer, the defendant, as the result of business done in violation of the Sunday law, and of the charter of the plaintiff, the defendant should not be allowed to escape liability on any such pretexts. 2nd. That the defendant, being a member of the club, and having participated in the violations of law and the infringements of the charter relied on by him as a defence, neither the alleged fraud of the plaintiff in obtaining its charter, the illegal election of its officers, nor the alleged violations of its charter by the plaintiff constituted a valid defence under the circumstances of the case. 3rd. That, even if the original transaction or contract by which the defendant obtained the money in question were in violation of the Sunday law and the charter of the plaintiff, yet the promise made by the defendant on a week day to pay said money to the plaintiff, in connection with the other evidence in the cause, was sufficient to support the action, and entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. JException.-^At the trial the plaintiff offered the four following prayers: 1. That if the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant had money in his hands belonging to the plaintiff, and on Thursday, the 30th of October, 1891, rendered the account offered in evidence to the plaintiff, whereby it appears that the sum of $161.44 in his hands was money belonging to the plaintiff, and the defendant then and there, and on other days (not being Sundays) promised to pay and deliver said amount of money to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said sum of $161.44, and interest thereon in the discretion of the jury. 2. If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant for safe-keeping received money belonging to the plaintiff, and that a part of said money was illegally collected and delivered to him on Sundays, and that thereafter on week days the defendant admitted to the plaintiff that he had money in his possession belonging to the plaintiff, and on a week day rendered the account offered in evidence showing a balance in his hands of $167.44 belonging to and the property of the plaintiff and that thereafter the plaintiff by writing delivered to the defendant on the 22nd day of January, 1891, duly requested the defendant to pay and deliver said money and all other property in his hands belonging to the plaintiff to the duly authorized agents of the plaintiff, and the defendant neglected and refused to do so, and still remains in possession of said money and all other property belonging to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover said money and the jury in their discretion may allow interest oil the said amount from said 22nd day of January, 1891. 3. If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant was entrusted with the safe-keeping of money belonging to the plaintiff, and that part of said money was delivered to him on Sundays, and the defendant thereafter on a week day admitted the sum of $167.44 to be in his hands belonging to the plaintiff’, and promised to apply the same in payment of the rent for the premises mentioned in and under the contract of lease offered in evidence, but neglected and failed to apply said money in payment of said rent, then the jury must find for the plaintiff for said amount of money in the hands of the defendant, and in their discretion may allow interest thereon from the time the defendant failed to pay the same as promised by him. 4. If the jury believe from the evidence in the cause that, the defendant was the alleged treasurer of the plaintiff and as such received an amount of money of not less than $200, money belonging to the plaintiff from a certain Hoffmeister, his alleged predecessor in office, and the sum of $91.30, proceeds from a ball held by the plaintiff on a week day, and the initiation fees of $2 from each member, and the annual dues of $1 from each member, collected on week days, and has failed to deliver said money to- the plaintiff after he ceased to hold said alleged office as treasurer, when duly requested to do so, and has failed to account for the same to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant such sum of money as the jury may find to be still in the possession of the defendant of said moneys so received by him and not expended for the use or by the authority of the plaintiff, and the jury in their discretion may allow interest on said amount of money, if they find any so to be in the hands of the defendant, from the 22nd day of January, 1891, the day when the request in writing, offered in evidence, was served on the defendant, if they believe such request was actually served on the defendant. The defendant offered the ten following prayers: 1. That if the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff filed a certificate of incorporation in the record office of the Superior Court of Baltimore City, by which they asked for authority to organize as a “ Social and Literary Club ” in the City of Baltimore, and in the said certificate, the said Social and Literary Club limited their place of business to Baltimore City, then they could not transact the business of the club in any other place than Baltimore City, and such business as was transacted at any other place was illegal and void. And if the jury find that an election of the officers of the club was held in Baltimore County on the banks of the Middle river, on a Sunday, to wit: the first Sunday of November, A. D. 1890, and also on the first Sunday of November, A. D. 1891, that the said elections were void, as in violation of the charter of the club. 2. That the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant because there is no legally sufficient evidence that any money he has in hand, if the jury find that he has money, came into his hands from the revenue of a social and literary club, and that the drinking of lager beer, and the rolling of ten-pins for pay, is not what is meant by “social and literary.” 3. If the jury find that the “Knights of Liberty of Baltimore City ” intended, when they obtained the certificate oí incorporation exhibited in evidence in this case, to set up and conduct a place or places for drinking, dancing and rolling ten-pins, and especially for the purpose of such indulgences and games on a Sunday, then the said certificate was fraudulently obtained, and affords no protection for doing, nor confers any right to do, the enumerated acts, and it is unavailing as a foundation for an action in this case, and the verdict must be for the defendant. 4. That “Social and Literary” in the certificate of incorporation offered in evidence, means associating together for literary purposes, and any other thing is not within the powers conferred by the said certificate, and if the jury find that the money claimed by the plaintiff was not the result of a social and literary club within the meaning above set forth, then the plaintiff cannot recover. 5. If the jury find from the evidence that the defendant received money which is claimed by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had no right or power to take the said money under and by virtue of any rights conferred on it by the certificate of incorporation offered in evidence,, and that the defendant did not at any time promise to pay the said money to the plaintiff, even though the jury find that it was incorporated as a social and literary club within the City of Baltimore, then their verdict-must be for the defendant. 6. If the jury find from the evidence that “ the Knights-of Liberty of Baltimore City” is a body corporate, as a social and literary club, and that it leased from James-Gilmore the grounds known as Indian Grove, to give entertainments to members of the club, and such others-as might attend, which entertainments consisted of selling lager beer, selling cigars and rolling ten-pins, and that these entertainments were given on Sundays; that the lager beer was paid for by the parties — members of the club and others — who visited the grounds, by money collected at the entrance to the grounds, which was termed an admission fee, but which was meant to be and was in fact, payment for the beer that the party paying the fee was entitled to demand, because he paid the admission fee; and that the beer, cigars and ten-pin alley were* sold and kept for the purpose of making profit, and that the money in question in this case was collected from these sources; and that such doings and actings were in violation of the laws of the land, then the said club cannot recover in this case, even though the jury find that the defendant promised to pay the money— $167 — to the plaintiff. 7. That money collected from visitors to the grounds leased from J. Gilmore for tickets of admission to the grounds, and which entitled the holder to demand lager beer at the bar, for cigars sold at the ten-pin alley, and for the privilege of rolling ten-pins on Sunday, was not collected in pursuance of the charter-rights of the plaintiff, if the jury under the instruction of the Court find that it is a body corporate, and that the money so collectod is not due to said body corporate as such; and their verdict must he for the defendant. 8. If the jury find that the operations and transactions of the plaintiff (if they find that it has legal existence in Baltimore County) were carried on and transacted on Sunday, then they were done and carried on in violation of law, and cannot form the grounds of a suit at law. 9. If the jury find under the instructions of the Court that the plaintiff has legal existence as a social and literary club in Baltimore City, then the defendant asks an instruction that elections held in Baltimore County, where the annual meetings were held were illegal, both on account of the place where they were held and of the day — Sunday—on which they were held, and the officers claiming to be so elected are not entitled to the office. 10. If the jury find that the plaintiff club, provided they find under the instructions of the Court there is such a club — consists of sixty members, and that it proceeded at its'annual meeting in 1890 to elect officers for the succeeding year when there was not a majority of all the members present, and that the treasurer, who pretends to have been elected at the said meeting, is the claimant of the money in question from the defendant, is not an officer of the said club, and his election was void, there is no person to whom the defendant could legally pay money on behalf of the said club, even if he admitted that he had money in his hands to which the club had a right. The Court (Phelps, J.,) granted the prayers of the plaintiff, and rejected those offered by the defendant. The defendant excepted, and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed.