p. 462decreed that the plaintiff was eligible as a member of said committee at the time of such election ; that he was duly elected and entitled to be recognized as such and entitled to all the benefits and advantages to flow therefrom, and that he be admitted ás such member; that the action of the general committee was unlawful and that it be set aside ; that the committee and its members be enjoined from keeping him out, and that he have possession and benefits of said office and the rights and privileges thereof, and such other judgment as the facts shall justify, and the costs.
The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
James Troy, for the' demurrer, contended,
that the defendant was a voluntary association whose members, as such, were not burdened with duties or responsibilities, property or privilege, and were free to follow the dictates of their own judgment whenever they saw fit so to do.
While not contrary to law the association had no existence which the law could recognize; and it was contrary to public policy that the power and authority of a court of justice should be extended to aid, maintain, regulate or interfere with such associations, so long as they refrained from violating the positive laws of the land.
As the privileges of membership in a voluntary unincorporated association were not conferred by the sovereign power, but were merely created by the organization itself, courts of law could not compel the admission of an applicant for membership, -or interfere to restore a member who had been deprived for non-compliance with the conditions on which membership was-made to depend.
Abrum H. Dailey, opposed,
contended that the plaintiff had an interest in the funds of the general committee, amounting to about $4,000. Tie had been a member for a good many years, and by the payment of dues had helped to create the fund. If the committee were to disband he
p. 463•could maintain an action for the division of its property. All the obligations required for membership had been met by the plaintiff, and he was therefore entitled to the seat to which he was elected by the authority created by the general committee itself, namely, the association of the town of Gravesend.
In excluding the plaintiff, the committee had violated its own by-laws, which provided that any expulsion or rejection of a member should be by a two-thirds vote of the members, whereas the plaintiff was rejected by a majority vote only. He was a legally enrolled member of the town association. The enrollment had been accepted by the general committee which had ordered it, had supervised it through its agents, knew that the plaintiff was enrolled and approved the enrollment. The plaintiff was, therefore, •eligible for election to the central body and, when elected, he was entitled to his seat.
No actionable fact is averred in the •complaint. The general committee had power to disband any town association which acted in hostility to it. .Under this provision and according to the forms provided by the •constitution of the general committee, it disbanded Graves-end and ordered a new enrollment of voters. So far no ■complaint can be made.
Under the new enrollment an election was had, and at this election the plaintiff was elected a delegate to the committee. The defendant association refused to receive him. Having disbanded the town for hostility to the purposes of the organization, and the new election having resulted in the return of the objectionable person, it was competent for •the committee, by a majority vote, to refuse to receive the •same person who had been ousted by the regular proceedings for the disbandment of his town. To go through another process of disbandment, another enrollment and election and with the same result, would be without any useful purpose. The object sought to be obtained was the
p. 464organization of the town by persons in harmony with the Democratic party, and if a town failed to elect such a person, the committee could lawfully refuse to accept the delegate proposed to be sent by the town as a delegate.
The rights of the plaintiff are but such as will give him an action fbr restoration, even if he was improperly refused1 admission to the general committee.
A political oi’ganization must have as members those-who favor' the common cause. If an enemy be elected to it as a delegate, the general body, may act without the observance of the strict forms governing such cases in courts of justice, and refuse to receive him. The courts cannot aid him. The question must be determined between the town and the committee.
There must be judgment for the defendant on the demurrer, with costs.
J ndgment accordingly. .