Maisch v. Order of Americus

72 A. 528, 223 Pa. 199, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 506
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 4, 1909
DocketAppeal, No. 21
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 72 A. 528 (Maisch v. Order of Americus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Maisch v. Order of Americus, 72 A. 528, 223 Pa. 199, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 506 (Pa. 1909).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Potter,

The plaintiff in this case entered suit against the Order of Americus as a corporation. Learning subsequently that there was no such corporation in existence, she obtained leave to amend the statement so as to describe the defendant as “ an unincorporated fraternal beneficial society duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and composed of Lee W. Squier, Edwin E. Robbins and others.” No process was issued, however, to bring in the persons named as parties to the suit. The amendment was improperly allowed. There was no such legal entity as “ Order of Americus,” and therefore no party defendant, no case before the court, and nothing to amend. But even if full effect were given to the effort to- amend, nothing would be really accomplished, for it would only substitute for the name of the supposed corporation, that of an unincorpoated association, in its collective capacity and name; and such an association is not recognized as having a legal existence apart from its members, and it could not therefore be made a party defendant. There is no such entity known to the law as an unincorporated association. The legislature may, undoubtedly, impose upon unincorporated associations a liability to be sued in a collective name, but that [201]*201has not been done in Pennsylvania. Prior to the Act of April 28, 1876, P. L. 53, the members of an unincorporated beneficial association were liable individually for the payment of the obligations of the organization. But since then, they have been individually exempt from all such liability, and payment can be enforced only against the treasury of such an organization.

A plain remedy remains, however, in the courts of equity, in which suit may be brought against some of the members of an unincorporated association, as representing themselves, and all others having the same interest. In this way, as pointed out in Fletcher v. Gawanese Tribe, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 393, though the treasury alone shall respond for a debt found to be due, those in control of the treasury may be compelled to see that the treasury meets its liabilities by payment.”

We agree with counsel for the appellee in their contention that the defendant was not properly brought into court, and that as the statutory law of Pennsylvania now stands, an unincorporated beneficial association may not be sued in assumpsit in its collective capacity or name, for an obligation of the organization.

The assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

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

Related

Pennsylvania Co. v. Houseman
19 A.2d 148 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1941)
Pyzdrowski v. Tarkowski
8 A.2d 458 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Gotalkras v. Validzich
37 Pa. D. & C. 13 (Mercer County Court of Common Pleas, 1939)
In re the Estate of Rathbone
170 Misc. 1030 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1939)
West v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.
195 A. 912 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Grant v. Carpenters' District Council
185 A. 273 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Humphrys v. Republican Central Campaign Committee
320 Pa. 353 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Humphrys v. Rep. C. C. Com.
182 A. 366 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Ryan v. Cassatt
18 Pa. D. & C. 216 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1933)
Mervish v. Cades
98 Pa. Super. 430 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)
Barford v. Beaner Electric Co.
11 Pa. D. & C. 51 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1927)
Kurie v. Dodson Day School
9 Pa. D. & C. 451 (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, 1927)
Allied Printing Trades Council v. Telegraph Printing Co.
5 Pa. D. & C. 169 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1924)
Veech v. Trustees of Trinity Episcopal Church
3 Pa. D. & C. 395 (Fayette County Court, 1922)
Oster v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen
114 A. 377 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)
Gottselig v. Cigarmakers International Union
76 Pa. Super. 273 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)
Taylor v. Order of Sparta
99 A. 157 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Wolfe v. Limestone Council No. 373
82 A. 499 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)
McNeal v. Farmers' Market Co.
43 Pa. Super. 420 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 A. 528, 223 Pa. 199, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maisch-v-order-of-americus-pa-1909.