
    In the Matter of the Application by Ernest T. Haebler, for a Writ of Mandamus.
    
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 18, 1895.)
    
    Exchanges—Suspension oe a membeb. *
    An exchange cannot suspend a member, under a by-law authorizing it, for non-iuiflliment of a contract, before the rights of the parties to the contract have been settled by an action, nor under a by-law providing therefor in case a member is accused of a proceeding inconsistent with just and equitable principles of traefe, where the exchange has taken no steps to carry out the purpose, recited in its charier, “to inculcate just and equitable principles of trade.”
    Appeal from an order granting an application for a writ of mandamus.
    Baldwin & Blackmar (Abel E. Blackmar, of counsel), for app’lt;
    Shiland & Honeyman (Robert B. Honeyman, of counsel), for resp’t.
   PER CURIAM.

order appealed from should he affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion at special term.

The opinion of GILDERSLEEVE, J., at special term, is as follows:

The law as laid down in the prevailing opinion in the case of People ex rel. Johnson v. New York Produce Exchange, 8 Misc. Rep. 552; 59 St. Rep. 531, must control the special term of this court until it shall have been disapproved hy a higher tribunal. The complaint and proceedings in that case were practically the same as in the one before me; and the facts so nearly approach those herein disclosed that I feel constrained to regard it as a controlling authority in the matter of this application. In both cases the complaint charged “proceedings inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade,”-—in the one case, hy “breach of” a specified contract; in the other, hy failure to comply with “the terms of” a specified contract. In both cases the board of managers proceeded, in regular conformity with the by-laws, to investigate the matter; and in both cases they concluded that the accused party had in their opionion been guilty of condiict inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade; and in both cases the accused was suspended, in perfect accordance with the by-laws. The two cases, therefore, being nraetically identical, and the general term of this court, having decided, in the Johnson Case, that the exchange was without jurisdiction to suspend the accused, I have no other alternative than to grant the application herein asked for. The application granted, with $50 costs and disbursements to the applicant.  