Collins v. Russell

114 F.2d 334, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3113
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 5, 1940
DocketNo. 11684
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 F.2d 334 (Collins v. Russell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Collins v. Russell, 114 F.2d 334, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3113 (8th Cir. 1940).

Opinion

BELL, District Judge.

This is an action in equity by appellants as plaintiffs against the appellees as defendants for a decree declaring void the residuary provisions of the will of Emma Mein-hardt Easterday, deceased. The case was tried and the court found in favor of the defendants and dismissed the complaint. This appeal is from the order of dismissal.

The heirs at law of the decedent were plaintiffs in the District Court, and the administrator under the will of decedent and four members of Saint John Commandery, No. 16, of McCook, Nebraska, were named as defendants in the original complaint. The Commandery is the devisee under the residuary provisions of the will. The parties will be designated as in the District Court.

The decedent made her will September 16, 1925, providing: “All the rest and residue of my estate, both real and personal, of which I die possessed, I give, devise and bequeath unto St. John Commandery No. 16 of McCook, Red Willow County, Nebraska (Masonic Lodge) in fee simple.” She made a codicil June 22, 1937, containing some small bequests and substantially the same provision quoted from the original will. She made a second codicil July 28, 1937, providing for some small additional bequests but not again reciting the provision quoted. She died August 9, 1937, and the will was duly admitted to probate. The greater part of her estate is subject to the residuary provisions of the will.

Promptly after the action was commenced, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss stating as reasons nonjoinder and mis-joinder of parties defendant and failure to state a cause of action against the defendants. The motion stated that Saint John Commandery is a benevolent, fraternal and charitable association, that the complaint disclosed on its face that the will had been admitted to probate, that the residuary provisions were valid and that the plaintiffs had no right whatever in the property. An amended complaint was filed naming “Saint John’s Commandery No. 16, a corporation” as an additional party defendant and alleging that it was incorporated under Section 24-607, Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, 1929, on January 15, 1938, which was after the death of the decedent. An answer was filed admitting the corporate existence of the Commandery but alleging that it was incorporated April 19, 1887, when it received its charter; and further, that it is a charitable organization. The plaintiffs now contend that the Commandery is not 'and never has been a corporation, and that the allegation in their amended complaint of its corporate existence was an erroneous conclusion of law.

The case was tried, the court found that the Commandery was a corporation and that it was a charitable organization, and, that as either, it had capacity to take and own the property devised and bequeathed to it by the testatrix.

If the Commandery was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nebraska, the action of the District Court in dismissing the complaint should be affirmed. This is frankly admitted by counsel for the plaintiffs; and, although many questions have been ably presented and elaborately briefed, a determination of this question is decisive of the appeal. We think that the Commandery at all times with which we are concerned was a corporation.

The Commandery claims a corporate existence under Section 24-607, Compiled Statutes Supplement of Nebraska, 1937, the pertinent provisions of which follow: “All the state * * * secret fraternal, benevolent, or charitable * * * lodges * * * issuing charters, to and having subordinate or auxiliary * * * lodges * * * or other bodies within this state which may have been heretofore or may hereafter be regularly established and chartered therefrom, or thereby, including the following: The Grand Lodge, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons; * * * together with each and every subordinate or auxiliary lodge, * * * within this state, under its properly designated or chartered name as has heretofore been, or may hereafter be established and chartered within or for Nebraska by its respective state * * * or other governing body, and working under a charter or charters from its respective state * * * dr other governing body, be and the same are hereby made and declared corporations within the state under the name and title designated in the respective charters or constitutions by which name they shall be capable of suing, and being sued, of pleading and being impleaded in the severa? courts of this state, the same as natural persons. And each of said * * * lodges * * * shall have power to receive the [336]*336bequests of real and personal property, to hold * * * both real and personal property * * * and do all other things usually done by corporations for the purpose for which organized.”

The statute does not specifically name Saint John Commandery No. 16, or the Grand Commandery of Knights Templar; but the defendants contend that both are auxiliary orders of the Grand Lodge, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, which is named in the statute. The Court on substantial evidence found:

“10. That on the 16th day of November, .1871, the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States of America issued a warrant to organize in Nebraska the Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of Nebraska.
“11. That on the 28th day of December, 1871, the Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of Nebraska was organized pursuant to said warrant.
“12. That ever since the 28th day of December, 1871, the Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of Nebraska has been and now is a state secret, fraternal, benevolent and charitable order and lodge, issuing charters to and having subordinate and auxiliary orders and lodges within the State of Nebraska.
“13. That bn the 19th day of April, 1887, the Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of Nebraska issued a charter to Saint John Commandery, No. 16, of McCook, Nebraska.
“14. That ever since the 19th day of April, 1887, Saint John Commandery, No. 16, of McCook, Nebraska, has been and now is a subordinate order and lodge of the Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of Nebraska, and has been and now is working under a charter from said Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of Nebraska.
“15. That ever, since the 19th day of April, 1887, Saint John Commandery, No. 16, of McCook, Nebraská, has been and now is a secret fraternal, benevolent and charitable order and lodge.
“16. That the Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of Nebraska .and Saint John Commandery, No. 16, of McCook, Nebraska, were prior to the year 1925, and at all times since have been, auxiliary orders and lodges to the Grand Lodge, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Nebraska.
* * *
“18. That Saint John Commandery, No. 16,' of McCook, Nebraska, was at the date of the death of Emma Meinhardt Easter-day on August 9, 1937, a regularly organized and existing Masonic Lodge, working under a charter from a state Masonic order and lodge, which state Masonic order and lodge was, in turn, working under a charter from a national Masonic lodge and organization.”

The relation of the Masonic organizations to each other as shown by the evidence and as found by the Court should be observed. The Grand Lodge, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, commonly known as the Blue Lodge, is the foundation of all Masonry. It confers the first three degrees.

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

Related

Hurley v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
25 N.W.2d 29 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 F.2d 334, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-russell-ca8-1940.