Boston Club v. Potter

98 N.E. 614, 212 Mass. 23, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 861
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 23, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 98 N.E. 614 (Boston Club v. Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boston Club v. Potter, 98 N.E. 614, 212 Mass. 23, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 861 (Mass. 1912).

Opinion

Sheldon, J.

The plaintiff’s right to recover depends upon whether the defendant was one of its members and was liable for dues on December 1, 1907. He had been such a member, but he claimed that he had resigned his membership on January 8, 1907, and that his resignation had taken effect on or before November 30, of that year.

His letter of resignation, though seasonably delivered to some clerk or other officer or agent of the plaintiff, was not received by its secretary or passed upon by its executive committee. Therefore it never took effect under Article VII, Sect. 6, of the by-laws. Resignation, with a cessation of further liability for membership dues, was a privilege of the member, and to avail himself of it he must comply with the terms of the by-law creating the privilege. Raggett v. Bishop, 2 C. & P. 343. Building Trades Club v. Hausling, 26 Misc. N. Y. 746, and 56 N. Y. Supp. 1056. The by-laws constituted in effect a contract between the different members and the corporation. Flint v. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68, 70. Dolan v. Court Good Samaritan, 128 Mass. 437. In Finch v. Oake, [1896] 1 Ch. 409, 415, and 73 L. T. (N. S.) 716, and People v. New York Motor Boat Club, 129 N. Y. Supp. 365, the resignation had been received by the proper officer, and in the first named of those cases this was treated by Lindley, L. J., as the decisive point.

[27]*27The defendant’s resignation of December 9, 1907, cannot avail him because he then owed the club for the dues which had accrued on December 1 of that year. It was only a member not then indebted to the club who could send to the secretary a written resignation. This was the provision of Article VII., Sect. 6, of the by-laws. Westchester Golf Club v. Pinkney, 43 Misc. N. Y. 338, and 87 N. Y. Supp. 153.

The appointment of the receiver and the closing of the club house, depriving the defendant of some of the benefits of membership, furnish no defense to the action. His liability for the annual dues was fixed on December 1; it was a liability for the whole amount thereof, though he could liquidate it in quarterly payments. The subsequent instalments were debitum in preesenti, solvendum in futuro. Rogers v. Boston Club, 205 Mass. 261, 269. Freedman v. Chamberlain, 70 Hun, 193.

Nor did his membership cease ipso facto on February 1, 1908, under the last clause of Article IV., Sect. 5, of the by-laws, because of his failure to pay his dues within two months from December 1, 1907, so as to relieve him from further liability for those dues. He could not by his own failure terminate the responsibility which he had assumed, though the club might have done so. Gray v. Christian Society, 137 Mass. 329. Medical & Surgical Society of Montgomery County v. Weatherly, 75 Ala. 248. Plattdeutsche Grot Gilde v. Ross, 117 Ill. App. 247.

As no resignation by him ever took effect, we need not consider whether, if this had been otherwise, his liability would have been limited in amount by the provisions of Article VII., Sect. 6, of the by-laws.

■ The third special finding of the jury is not material. It was of no consequence that the defendant’s resignation came to some agent of the plaintiff, such as a clerk at its office, if that resignation did riot reach the necessary officer. Nor are the sixth, seventh and eighth findings material. It does not matter whether the eighth finding can be reconciled with the others, or, if they cannot be reconciled, what the effect of the inconsistency would be.

The judge acted rightly in refusing the defendant’s requests for rulings and in ordering a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Related

Kelley v. Weiss
102 N.E.2d 93 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Brotherhood of Painters v. Garrett
185 Misc. 61 (New York Supreme Court, 1945)
Martin v. McCue
26 N.E.2d 526 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1940)
Locust Club v. Einstein
195 A. 432 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Bushway Ice Cream Co. v. Fred H. Bean Co.
187 N.E. 537 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Colonial Country Club v. Richmond
140 So. 86 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1932)
Annandale Golf Club v. Smith
110 Cal. App. 765 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1930)
La Salle County Farm Bureau v. Thompson
245 Ill. App. 413 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1927)
Barbrick v. Huddell
139 N.E. 629 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Boston Club v. Hannan
101 N.E. 375 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 N.E. 614, 212 Mass. 23, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-club-v-potter-mass-1912.