
    HUGH McLAUGLIN BENEFICIAL SOCIETY VS. SWEENEY.
    A member of a beneficial society cannot be expelled fpr litigating against a society, in the absence of an express provision in the constitution or by laws making expulsion the penalty.
    Error of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County. No. 27 July Term, 1884.
    
      This was a petition for a mandamus by Hugh Sweeney against the Reverend Hugh McLaughlin Beneficial Society, stating that he had brought suit against the society for sick benefits, and that they had expelled him in consequence; and praying to be reinstated. The Society made answer that by bringing suit without exhausting the remedies within the society he had violated the by-laws, which provide as follows: “Each and every person, on being elected a member, and also those who may be members at the time of the passage of this amendment, shall pledge himself to submit all causes of dispute, with all the facts relating thereto, to the committee appointed under the law, and abide by the decision of this committee.” That upon a written charge of violating this by-law, Sweeney was tried and defended himself, but was found guilty in due form and expelled. Sweeney demurred and the Court entered judgment in his favor on the demurrer, and awarded the mandamus prayed for. The Society then took this writ of error complaining of the granting the mandamus.
    
      Messrs. J. I. Farley and P. Archer, Esqs., for plaintiff in error,
    cited Society vs. VanDyke, 2 Wharton 309; Commonwealth vs. Society, 8 W. and S. 247; Toram vs. Association, 4 Pa. 519; Commonwealth vs. Society, 5 Binney 486; Commonwealth vs. Guardians, 6 S. and R. 469; Commonwealth vs. Society, 2 Binney 441; Rex vs. Richardson, 2 Burr 536; Lafond vs. Deems, 81 N. Y. 514; Ellison vs. Bignold, 2 Jacob and W. 511; Fire Co. vs. Commonwealth, 93 Pa. 264; Commonwealth vs. German Society, 15 Pa. 251.
    
      Messrs. G. H. Earle, Jr., and R. P. White, Esqs., contra,
    
    argued that a by-law or provision in the constitution making a a resort to legal proceedings a ground for expulsion would be illegal; Mulkern vs. Lord, L. Rep. 4 Ap. Cas. 190; Carlin vs. Drury, 1 Vesey & B. 158; Gray vs. Wilson, 4 Watts 41; Insurance Co. vs. Morse, 20 Wall. 445; Mentz vs. Insurance Co., 79 Pa. 480; Evans vs. Club, 50 Pa. 107; Commonwealth vs Society, 2 Binney 448; Commonwealth vs. Fisher, 15 Pa. 251; Muldoon vs. Rickey 103 Pa. 114; Hope vs. Society, 4 Ch. D. L. Rep. 327; State vs. Union, 2 Mo. App. 96.
    
      The by-law does not provide expulsion as a penalty for its violation; and that the authority to expel a member must be clear; Evans vs. Club, 50 Pa. 115; Queen vs. Sutton, 10 Modern 76.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on February 2nd, 1885, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

Judgment was entered against the plaintiff in error on demurrer to his answer,' and we think rightly. The answer contains no averment that either the constitution or by-laws specify expulsion of a member for a violation of a by-law. The fact that a member pledges himself to submit a cause of dispute to the committee, and abide by the decision thereof, and disregards his pledge, does not justify his expulsion, in the absence of an express provision making expulsion the penalty. Such a penalty pan not be inflicted without some express and specific authority therefor being shown.

Judgment affirmed.  