
    FRATERNAL SOCIETIES.
    [Franklin Circuit Court,
    January Term, 1892.]
    Shauck, Clark and Smith, JJ.
    
      WM. A. HERSHISER ET AL. v. S. STACKER WILLIAMS ET AL.
    1. Offense of Membership After Prohibition by Grand Lodge, is Severae.
    Where several persons become or remain members of certain fraternal organizations, such as the symbolic lodges of Free and Accepted Masons, after prohibition by the grand lodge, the offense is several, not joint.
    2. Aeeegation of Intention to Exfee Peaintiff by Ieeegae Vote does not Warrant the Interference of a Court of Equity.
    The allegations that certain members, in their efforts to expel plaintiff, expect to succeed by depriving them of their right to vote, and that some of thejjJ have announced their - intention so to do, does not warrant the interference of a court of equity.
    3. Court wiee Presume that the Triad wide be Fair and Impartiae.
    Notwithstanding such averments, the court will presume that the trial will be in accordance with natural rights and the rules of the order, and that members will not be expelled for disregarding any requirements which the grand lodge had no authority to make.
    4. Expeeeed Members Shoued Resort to Judicatories of the Order for Redress
    And should the trial result otherwise, it will be the duty of the members expelled to resort to such modes of redress as may be had in the judicatories of the order.
    Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county.
    The plaintiffs, thirty-six in number, m their petition and the amendments thereto, allege, in substance, that they are members in good standing of Goodale Lodge, No. 372, Free and Accepted Masons; that said lodge is a charitable, benevolent, beneficial and social organization; that they have each paid large sums as admission and other fees and dues; that their membership is valuable to each of them; that the defendant, Gilbert, is the worshipful master of said lodge; that the defendant, Kinsman, is a member thereof; that the defendant, Williams, is the grand master of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, and that he assumes the right to enter said Goodale Lodge- at any time, and to control it to the exclusion of said worshipful master; that Kinsman has presented charges against the plaintiffs, that they have been guilty of unmasonic conduct in being members of Cerneau bodies of Scottish Rite, and soliciting members of such Cerneau bodies — setting out the history of the controversy between the Cerneau and De La Motta bodies — and alleging further that the defendants and other persons have entered into a conspiracy to expel the plaintiffs upon said charges, expecting to succeed by denying to the plaintiffs the right to vote thereon, and that some of them have announced their intention of depriving the plaintiffs of their right to vote. They further allege that there is nothing in the constitution or by-laws of Goodale Lodge forbidding to its members membership in the Cerneau bodies; that such membership is forbidden only by the action of the grand lodge, which was without authority in that behalf; that its action in that regard is destructive of the landmarks of Ancient Craft masonry, and further that, unless the defendants are enjoined from carrying out their conspiracy, they will in the manner and for the causes aforesaid, expel the plaintiffs from Goodale Lodge to their great and irreparable injury; and they pray that such action may be enjoined.
    The case is submitted on demurrer to the, amended petition.____
    
      Harrison, Olds & Henderson, Gilmore & Gilmore, and Frank A. Davis, for plaintiffs.
    Morey, Andrews & Morey, J. T. Holmes and John E. Sater, contra
    
      
       The judgment in this case was affirmed by the Supreme Court without report, 53 Ohio St., 663. For common pleas decision, see 11 Dec. Re., 76.
    
   SHAUCK, J.

Assuming the truth of the allegations of fact contained in the petition, it is clear that the controversy between De La Motta and Cerneau bodies does not in any way concern ancient craft masonry; that the action of the Grand Lodge prohibiting membership in the Blue Lodge by those who are members of a Cerneau .body was not prompted by any consideration of the interests of the symbolic lodges, and that the charges upon which the plaintiffs are about to be tried with a view to their expulsion from Goodale Lodge, do not' allege against them any conduct inconsistent with honorable and faithful membership in that lodge.

It is equally clear that by becoming or remaining members of Cerneau bodies after said action by the Grand Lodge, the offenses of the plaintiffs were several and not joint.

But the allegations that the defendants, in their efforts to expel the plaintiffs, expect to succeed by depriving them of their right to vote in all the cases contrary to natural right and in violation of the rules of the order, and that some of the defendants have announced their intention to do so, do not warrant the interference of a court of equity. Notwithstanding these averments, we must presume that the trial of the plaintiffs will be in accordance with natural right and the rules of the order, and that they will not be expelled for disregarding any requirement which the Grand Lodge had no authority to make. Should the trial result otherwise, it will be the duty of the plaintiffs to resort to such modes of redress as may be bad in the judicatories of the order.

This doctrine was held by this court in the case of Kent v. Odd Fellows’ Beneficial Association, 9 Dec. Re., 522, and is recognized in Gregg v. Mass. Medical Society, 111 Mass.; McAlees Supreme Sitting etc., 13 Atl. R. 755, and 129 Mass. 70.

We do not anticipate questions that may hereafter arise, by expressing any opinion as to the circumstances under which, if at all, a court of equity may interpose in behalf of those who feel aggrieved by the final determination in the judicatories of the order.

The demurrer will be sustained.  