Bartlett v. Lily Dale Assembly

139 Misc. 338, 249 N.Y.S. 482, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1248
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 2, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 139 Misc. 338 (Bartlett v. Lily Dale Assembly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bartlett v. Lily Dale Assembly, 139 Misc. 338, 249 N.Y.S. 482, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1248 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1931).

Opinion

Hinkley, J.

Plaintiffs, by their prayer for relief, establish this action solely as one for a declaratory judgment in accordance with section 473 of the Civil Practice Act. This is true, notwithstanding that, under subdivisions 5 and 6 of their prayer for relief, plaintiffs seek further or consequential relief. The broadest concept of the province of a declaratory judgment does not include the request of plaintiffs contained in such subdivisions to declare their remedies. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated must seek such remedies as they may be advised, after a determinative declaration of their rights in this representative action.

Defendants have not, by pleading, objection, motion or in their briefs, attacked the plaintiffs’ complaint save to move for its dismissal. It follows that the court must determine such issues as are properly presented by the pleadings.

Succinctly stated, this decision must determine and declare whether the Lily Dale Assembly is a stock or a membership corporation; the legality or illegality of certain of its acts; the relative rights, duties and obligations of its stockholders or members, as the case may be, and the corporation, including the present existence or non-existence of such corporation.

“ In order to determine the status of a corporation and to ascertain the purposes for which it was incorporated recourse must be had to the act by which it was incorporated or to its charter and the statute under the authority of which it was formed.” (Matter of De Peyster, 210 N. Y. 216, 219.)

The defendant Lily Dale Assembly was incorporated under the name of Cassadaga Lake Free Association ” in 1879. The latter name was changed in 1903 to the “ City of Light Assembly ” which, in 1906, was changed to its present name. The certificate of incorporation, dated August 23, 1879, provided that the subscribers thereto “ have associated together as a benevolent Charitable Literary and Scientific Society ” for the term of fifty years from the date of such certificate. The particular business and object of said society is to be devoted to benevolent Charitable [340]*340literary and Scientific purposes and mutual improvement in religious knowledge." Its operations will be carried on at the Cassadaga Lake Camp Meeting Grounds. The trustees named in such certificate and in accordance therewith numbered seven.

The provisions of such certificate of incorporation, as quoted, determined the character of such association as a membership corporation. Such character was not affected by the insertion in such certificate of incorporation that the amount of the capital stock of said association is twenty thousand dollars and is divided into two thousand shares of ten dollars each."

This conclusion is certain by a careful study of the statutes in force at the time of the incorporation, August 23, 1879. The original certificate of incorporation indicates that the association was intended to be, and was created, in accordance with the Revised Statutes, sixth edition, .1875, volume 2, page 439, being part I, chapter 18, title VII. These statutes are the authority by which the corporation came into existence. As correctly indicated in the preamble to the later by-laws of the association, these statutes, as revised, were derived in part from chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848.

The provision in the certificate of incorporation for, and the issuance of, so-called shares of capital stock by the corporation were undoubtedly due to the confusion arising by reason of the fact that the revisers included verbatim in the 1875 edition certain statutes which contained inconsistent provisions. These statutes so copied verbatim were chapter 273 of the Laws of 1866, being “ An act authorizing the incorporation of associations to erect monuments to perpetuate the memory of soldiers who fell in defense of the Union," and chapter 971 of the Laws of 1867, being “ An act for the incorporation of co-operative and industrial unions." Particular attention is called to the use of the words “ under this act” contained in sections 35, 37 and 38 of the 1875 revision which applied to the entire new act, all of the provisions of the industrial union act of 1867, as copied and not revised. That part of section 5 of chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848 relating to the incorporation of religious societies was omitted from the Revised Statutes of 1875, and the controlling laws of the defendant corporation at the time it was created are the Revised Statutes in existence at that time, and not previous non-existent statutes.

Likewise, attention is called to section 9, title VII, of the Revised Statutes (6th ed. 1875, supra) which section gives to corporations formed under that act the same powers contained in title III, chapter 18 of the same act, which latter title presupposes the right to issue stock and gives the right to increase the same.

[341]*341Shares of stock were provided for in such certificate of incorporation, issued and increased to a total of 6,000 shares of the same par value under the misapprehension that such revision created such powers.

The provision for a capital stock and the issuance and increase of so-called shares of stock did not constitute this corporation a stock corporation. It was created as and has at all times remained, and still is, a membership corporation. The so-called shares of stock were and are certificates of membership. (Gen. Corp. Law [Laws of 1892, chap. 687], § 3, subd. 2, as amd. by Laws of 1895, chap. 672; Preston v. Reinhart, 109 App. Div. 781; Leighton v. Leighton Lea Association, 146 id. 255; Matter of Stationers & Publishers Board of Trade, 226 id. 496; Rensselaer Co. A. & H. Society v. Weatherwax, 255 N. Y. 329.)

The latter case is cited as authority for the principles of law last above enumerated in this opinion. Language of the per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals may seem inconsistent with this opinion until attention is called to the fact that the Court of Appeals, in its per curiam opinion, refers to a particular type of membership corporation, not this one, and is construing the Membership Corporations Law (Laws of 1909, chap. 40, as amd. by Laws of 1926, chap. 722), in effect October 1, 1926, subsequent to the meeting of this defendant corporation, of August 16, 1926.

Even though it were conceded, which it is not, that chapter 722 of the Laws of 1926 gave power indirectly to a membership corporation to. make a by-law creating each certificate of membership or share of stock a unit of voting strength, that statute was not in effect until October 1, 1926. That was subsequent to the meeting of August 16,1926, where a by-law was legally adopted in accordance with the statutory requirement then in force of one vote for each member providing that at all meetings of members and at any regularly called special meeting of the same of this Assembly, each member shall be entitled to cast one vote only.”

The revisers eventually cleared away all confusion by the enactment of the General Corporation Law of 1892 (Laws of 1892, chap. 687) and by section 2 of the General Corporation Law of 1909 (Laws of 1909, chap. 28).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smith v. Southern Cassadaga Spiritualist Camp Meeting Ass'n
571 So. 2d 42 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Procopio v. Fisher
83 A.D.2d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Cowen v. Lily Dale Assembly
44 A.D.2d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
Crohn v. Firemen's Benevolent Fund Ass'n
79 Misc. 2d 536 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)
Bagwell v. Woodward Iron Co.
184 So. 692 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Sunset Scavenger Corp. v. Oddou
53 P.2d 188 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 Misc. 338, 249 N.Y.S. 482, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartlett-v-lily-dale-assembly-nysupct-1931.