Clough v Ratcliffe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 63 E.R. 1016
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See 16 L. J. Ch. 476; 11 Jur. 648. See Jackson v. Turnley, 1853, 1 Drew. 626. Held overruled, Hull v. M'Farlane, 1857, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 803.
[164] clough v. eatcliffe. March 4, May 4, 5, 25, 1847. [S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 476; ll'jur. 648. See Jackson v. Turnley, 1853, 1 Drew. 626. Held overruled, Hull v. M'Farlane, 1857, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 803.] A bill filed by certain members of a lodge forming part of an association called " The Independent Order of Odd Fellows " (which consists of many corresponding lodges and many thousand members), against other members of the lodge, complaining of being excluded from the lodge, and praying for a declaration that such exclusion was illegal and void, and for an injunction to restrain the Defendants from applying a sum of ,148, 3s. 4d. otherwise than according to the rules of the lodge, and for an account (if necessary) of all the property and funds of the lodge, and a declaration of the rights and interests of the parties, and for all necessary directions for giving effect thereto, and for an injunction and receiver and general relief: Held, on demurrer, not to be a case in which an injunction would be proper without other relief, or without view to other relief. Held, also, that it does not belong to the functions of the Court to make a decree containing declarations of right alone, or, in such a case as the above, a declaration of right and an injunction only. Held, further, that the only relief sought, independently of this injunction, was such as the Court could not grant with the parties then before it; and that, as the 1DE G. & SM. 165. CLOUGH V. BATCLIFFE 1017 defect could not be remedied without rendering this suit unmanageable, leave to amend ought not to be given. Quaere, whether the above association is legal, and whether a Court of Equity will recognise a contract of association which, although morally laudable, is, from the number of persons concerned in it or otherwise, of such a nature as not to enable any of the established judicatures of the realm to deal with it beneficially, or whether such associations must not be left to regulate themselves by a moral rule, without judicial interference. The bill in this suit was filed by Elijah Clough and four other persons, being members of the Loyal Highland Laddie Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows of the Manchester Unity, on behalf of themselves and all other the members of the same lodge, except the Defendants and such members of the said lodge as concurred with such Defendants in the matters in the bill mentioned, against William Ratcliffe and other persons, being respectively officers of the unity of the district and of the lodge, praying for a declaration that the exclusion of the Plaintiffs from the lodge was illegal, and for an injunction to restrain the Defendants with respect to the application of a sum in their hands belonging to the lodge. To this bill the Defendants demurred for want of equity and for want of parties. By the statements, in the bill certain persons were alleged to have attended meetings of the lodge as members, but were not made parties to the suit. Mr. Eolt and Mr. Eoundell Palmer argued in support of the demurrer. Mr. Russell and Mr. Hargrave, for the Plaintiffs. [165] The Vice-Chancellor said that, having regard to the particular allegations of the bill, it was demurrable, at least for want of parties, if not otherwise. His Honor gave leave to amend. The bill was accordingly amended, and the statements then were to the following effect:- That for above a century many thousand voluntary associations called freemasons' and odd fellows' lodges, and by other similar designations, had existed in Great Britain, consisting of prudent and benevolently disposed persons, chiefly of the lower orders of society, who have associated themselves together in distinct associations for the purpose of raising and maintaining by their own subscriptions separate permanent joint stock funds, to be applied in defraying the medical expenses of their own sickness, and in affording temporary maintenance to their own families during sickness, also in paying the funeral expenses of deceased members of such associations, and contributing towards the maintenance of their widows and orphans: that, for better accomplishing the purposes aforesaid, all the members of such associations, who were resident near and intimately acquainted with each other, met together at weekly and other regular intervals to pay their several subscriptions towards the funds for the relief of sickness as aforesaid, and to receive applications for relief out of the said funds, and to inquire into and decide upon the expenditure thereof upon the purposes aforesaid; that the amount of the subscriptions to the said sick fund was wholly and exclusively regulated by such lodges separately, as well as the amounts to be allowed for the purposes of relieving the sick members; and that the said subscriptions, which generally averaged about Is. per fortnight, but were liable to be increased or diminished according to the claims upon the said funds, were regularly paid by the members of every lodge to treasurers appointed by the [166] members of such lodges respectively for that purpose, and that such subscriptions were usually invested in savings banks and other banks in the names of trustees, members of such lodges respectively, who held such funds upon trust for the purposes aforesaid, and for no other purposes whatever; that for, many years past the Plaintiffs had been and were still members of one of the aforesaid associations, which was called " The Highland Laddie Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows," and that the Plaintiffs, as members of such lodge, had duly and regularly paid and contributed various sums of money, amounting to several hundred pounds in the whole, towards the raising and maintaining a joint stock permanent fund, to be applied in the manner and upon the purposes aforesaid; and that the said lodge was in manner thereinafter mentioned associated with twenty-three other similar lodges, 1018 CLOTJGH V. KATCLIFFE 1DE G. & SM. 167. situated in and in the vicinity of Salford, in order more effectually to mutually assist each other in the accomplishment of the purposes aforesaid; that the rules of the said Highland Laddie Lodge had been printed and circulated, and had been always received and acted upon by the members of the said lodge as governing the said association, and as containing the terms and conditions upon which subscriptions were received to the aforesaid funds respectively, and new members were to be admitted to become members of the said lodge; that such rules had for several years past fixed the amount of subscription to the aforesaid fund at lOd. per fortnight from each member of the said lodge, which sum had been found sufficient to meet the necessities of the sick members of the said lodge: that the said rules and regulations also provided for auditing the accounts of the said fund, the due attendance of the officers of the said lodge in order to conduct the inquiry into the sickness of the members, the appointment of surgeons, the visiting of the sick members, the amount of money to be paid in sick gifts, the [167] forfeiture by or the suspension thereof during the. misconduct of such sick members, the collection and investment of the said subscriptions, and the appointment of trustees to hold such funds upon trust for the purposes aforesaid; and that all and every the matters aforesaid were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v Coventry
...G. & Sm. 73); King v. Malcott (9 Hare, 692); Hudson v. Maddism (12 Sim. 416); Maclaren v. Stainton (16 Beav. 279); Claitgh v. Ratdiffe (1 De G. & Sm. 164); Beaumont v. Meredith (3 Ves. & B. 180); Richardson v. Larpent (2 Y. & C. C. C. 507); Richardson v. Hastings (11 Beav. 17); Minn v. Slan......
-
Evans v Coventry
...[843] Nightingale v. Dodd (2 Ambl. 583). The constitution of this society is such that relief cannot be given; dough v. Ratcli/e (1 De G. & Sm. 164); Beaumont v. Meredith (3 Ves. & B. 182); for all the members ought to be parties. Mr. Anderson, in reply. their lordships did not deliver any ......
-
The Mexican and South American Company Grisewood and Smith's Case De Pass's Case
...if this Court finds insuperable difficulty in working out the rights of the parties they must be left as they are ; Clough v. Ratdiffe (1 De G. & Sm. 164, 176). Even if the company was not illegal at common law, it was so under 19 & 20 Viet. c. 47, s. 4, until that section was repealed by 2......
-
Yeates v Roberts
...of the depositors do nob so concur, and require the notes to remain in the hands of the Defendant. They referred to Clomgh v. Batdiffe (1 De G. & Sm. 164). [174] Mr. Selwyn, in reply. It is quite immaterial whether the Defendant was expelled or not. The Plaintiffs are the trustees, and the ......
-
THE LIMITS OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.
...Rt Hon Lord Woolf & Jeremy Woolf, The Declaratory Judgment, 4th ed (London, UK: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011) at 9-10. (10) (1847), 63 ER 1016 at 1023, 1 De G & Sm (11) See Woolf & Woolf, supra note 9 at 9-10. See also Elliotson v Knowles (1842), 11 LJ Ch 399; Grove v Bastard (1848......
-
Judicial attitudes to judicial review: a comparative examination of justifications offered for restricting the scope of judicial review in Australia, Canada and England.
...Jowell and Andrew Le Sueur, De Smith's Judicial Review (Sweet & Maxwell, 6th ed, 2007) 806-8. (174) (1847) 1 De G & SM 164, 178-9; 63 ER 1016, (175) Chancery Act 1850 (UK) 13 & 14 Vict, c 35, s 14. (176) Chancery Procedure Act 1852 (UK) 15 & 16 Vict, c 86, s 50. (177) Rules ......