Huth v. Humboldt Stamm, No. 153

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Huth v. Humboldt Stamm, No. 153

23 A. 1084, 61 Conn. 227, 1891 Conn. LEXIS 88

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 5, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 23 A. 1084 (Huth v. Humboldt Stamm, No. 153) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huth v. Humboldt Stamm, No. 153, 23 A. 1084, 61 Conn. 227, 1891 Conn. LEXIS 88 (Colo. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Andrews, C. J.

There are five reasons of appeal set out in the record. Only one — the fifth — is pursued in the appellant’s brief, namely, that “ the court erred and mistook the law in sustaining the demurrer, and thereby deciding that a member of a voluntary association, unincorporated, cannot, under the statute of Connecticut, institute and maintain an action at law against the association.”

The statute to which reference is made is section 979 of the General Statutes. The act which is now that section was first passed in 1864. Prior to that time there was an act — now section 895 of the General Statutes — which permitted a partnership to sue or be sued by the partnership name alone, without giving the names of the several partners. Section 979 was but an enlargement of the earlier *228 statute. It relates solely to the form of mesne process by or against voluntary associations. It does not purport to, nor does it, affect the relations of the members of such an association between themselves or to the association; nor their liabilities to one another, or to the association or to other persons; nor of the association to its members. If without that statute a member of a voluntary association could not institute and maintain an action at law against the association, he cannot maintain one by reason of that statute. That the statute confers any right on a member, or imposes any liability on the association, such as can arise only out of the law of corporations, would seem to be excluded by its language. It speaks of an association “ not having corporate powers.” . Apart from this statute the law is clear that a member of an unincorporated association cannot maintain an action at law against the association, nor can the association maintain such an action against one of its members. Story’s Eq. Jur., §§ 107, 479; Warren v. Stearns, 19 Pick., 73; McMahon v. Rauhr, 47 N. York, 67; Cheeny v. Clark, 3 Verm., 431.

There is no error in the judgment appealed from.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Andrews, C. J.

There are five reasons of appeal set out in the record. Only one — the fifth — is pursued in the appellant’s brief, namely, that “ the court erred and mistook the law in sustaining the demurrer, and thereby deciding that a member of a voluntary association, unincorporated, cannot, under the statute of Connecticut, institute and maintain an action at law against the association.”

The statute to which reference is made is section 979 of the General Statutes. The act which is now that section was first passed in 1864. Prior to that time there was an act — now section 895 of the General Statutes — which permitted a partnership to sue or be sued by the partnership name alone, without giving the names of the several partners. Section 979 was but an enlargement of the earlier *228 statute. It relates solely to the form of mesne process by or against voluntary associations. It does not purport to, nor does it, affect the relations of the members of such an association between themselves or to the association; nor their liabilities to one another, or to the association or to other persons; nor of the association to its members. If without that statute a member of a voluntary association could not institute and maintain an action at law against the association, he cannot maintain one by reason of that statute. That the statute confers any right on a member, or imposes any liability on the association, such as can arise only out of the law of corporations, would seem to be excluded by its language. It speaks of an association “ not having corporate powers.” . Apart from this statute the law is clear that a member of an unincorporated association cannot maintain an action at law against the association, nor can the association maintain such an action against one of its members. Story’s Eq. Jur., §§ 107, 479; Warren v. Stearns, 19 Pick., 73; McMahon v. Rauhr, 47 N. York, 67; Cheeny v. Clark, 3 Verm., 431.

There is no error in the judgment appealed from.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 1084, 61 Conn. 227, 1891 Conn. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huth-v-humboldt-stamm-no-153-conn-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack