member shall be tried before a jury chosen from the members of the local assembly, but give no power to the superior body to direct a local assembly to expel one of its members, the superior body cannot expel a local assembly for refusing to expel one of its members. Holomany v. National Slavonic Society, 39 App. Div. 573 (57 N. Y. Supp. 720).

"In revoking the charter of the subordinate lodge the respondent grand mistress claims to have acted under section 45 of the constitution of the grand lodge. This section confers no such power. The respondent grand mistress also claims that the subordinate lodge violated rule 2 governing subordinate lodges. Said rule provides that all business and secret work of a lodge shall be kept inviolate, and provides that any member who reveals any of the secrets of the lodge shall, upon conviction thereof, be expelled, suspended, or reprimanded, as the lodge may determine. This rule has no relation to the issues here involved; and, if it had, there is no testimony in this record tending to show that any particular member, or that the lodge itself, is guilty of the violation of any rule prohibiting the disclosure of the business or secrets of the lodge. In fact, the grand mistress had the evidence before her that the lodge had informally decided not to permit the publication of the decision acquitting Mrs. Downing.

"In the mandate revoking the charter of Golden Star Lodge No. 1, it is provided that:

'No. 1 is hereby given opportunity in accordance with section 45, Constitution Grand Lodge, to answer the within charges before March 1, 1909.'

"No day or place is fixed for a hearing. This is no more than saying to the subordinate lodge:

"If you have any defense to make, you may send me your documents. I have already revoked the charter of your lodge, but if you have anything to say about my official action already taken, I will hear you.'

"This record shows that any answer to the charges made by the grand mistress would have been without any effect, and any appeal to her by any member of Golden Star Lodge No. 1 a vain and useless proceeding. On March 4th, or about that time, we find both respondents refusing to receive any communication through the mail from the subordinate lodge. The opportunity given the lodge to answer the charges by the grand mistress is not in accordance with section 45 of the constitution of the grand lodge. After receiving the order of February 17th from the grand mistress, the officers of Golden Star Lodge No. 1 sent her a full copy of the records of the meeting at which she claimed the lodge authorized the

168 MICH.-45.

report of the committee to be published; this was accompanied with a denial that the charge was true. The grand mistress made no reply to this communication.

"No other conclusion can be reached than that the action of the grand mistress in revoking the charter of the subordinate lodge is not authorized by the laws of the society. It was not a mere erroneous proceeding on the part of that official, but an arbitrary usurpation of power, which should not be allowed to affect the legal status of Golden Star Lodge No. 1, or deprive any of its members of their property rights in their benefit certificates. While the prior relations between the respondent grand mistress and some of the members of the lodge, particularly Amy A. Downing, may not have been pleasant, and may have been of such a nature as to arouse resentment in her, still she had no right to permit a spirit of violent prejudice to control her official action and to result in a ruling that is illegal as well as oppressive. The action of the grand mistress in revoking the charter of the subordinate lodge, prior to a hearing, the action of the grand secretary and treasurer in refusing to receive assessment No. 105, and the action of both in refusing to receive, open, and consider communications from the treasurer of the subordinate lodge, were contrary to natural justice, in violation of the rules and laws of the society, and done in bad faith.

"Is the remedy by mandamus sought by relators in this court an appropriate remedy? The rule is well established that courts will not interfere with the action of an incorporated or unincorporated benefit society in enforcing its discipline, unless such action is contrary to natural justice, or in violation of the laws and rules of the society, or done mala fides, and then only after the party complaining has gone as far as he can go, and done as much as can be done to obtain the relief sought within the society. It has been found that the action of the respondent grand officers in the premises was contrary to natural justice, contrary to the laws and rules of the society, and mala fides. Have the relators done all they could do within the society to obtain the relief which they here seek?

"What relief is given them by the laws and rules of the society? Section 67 of the constitution of the subordinate lodge reads as follows:

"Any officer or member feeling that an injustice has been done her in a trial by this lodge may appeal to the grand mistress, provided such appeal is made in writing, and within thirty days from date of verdict rendered. A copy of such appeal shall be furnished the secretary of the lodge and by her entered in the records of the trial. The appeal, together with a copy of the charges preferred, testimony offered, and verdict rendered, shall be forwarded to the grand mistress under lodge seal. If the sister considers that the grand mistress' decision is unjust she may appeal from that decision to the grand lodge, whose decision is final. In case of appeal

from decision of grand mistress, by a lodge or member, notice of same shall be given that officer within thirty days from the date of decision rendered, and a certified copy of proceedings must be forwarded under seal of lodge to grand secretary, who will present the same to the next meeting of the grand lodge.'

“Section 67 of the constitution of the subordinate lodge does not provide for an appeal in a case like the present in any very clear or plain terms. The part relating to an appeal to the grand mistress is preceded by the words any officer or member feeling that an injustice has been done her in a trial by this [subordinate] lodge, may appeal to the grand mistress.' No one is complaining to which this language can apply. Further along in this section the following language is found: 'In case of appeal from decision of grand mistress by a lodge or member, notice of same' shall be given, etc. If the right last set forth means an appeal from the ruling of the grand mistress, after an appeal to such officer by 'any officer or member feeling that an injustice has been done her,' this section would give no right of appeal in this case. If the last part of the section quoted is intended to give a lodge or a member thereof a general right of appeal from any ruling of the grand mistress, then it would apply after an appeal had been first taken to the grand mistress. If this section is applicable, as respondents contend it is, notice of appeal should have been given to the grand mistress within 30 days from the date of the decision appealed from, and a certified copy of the proceedings should have been forwarded to the grand secretary.

"The date of the decision of the grand mistress was February 17th. Within less than 30 days both respondents refused to open any communication from the officers of Golden Star Lodge No. 1. Soon after this Mary Harris, the treasurer of the subordinate lodge, wrote both respondents, asking for an explanation of such action, but received no reply. By the action of the respondents they rendered it impossible for relators to comply with section 67 in taking an appeal, for they refused to the subordinate lodge the benefit of any communication whatever with them as officers of the grand lodge, and rendered it impossible to file with them any appeal papers.

"No appeal is required if it appears such appeal would be useless. Schrempp v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 70 Mo. App. 456; Harris v. Wilson, 86 Mo. App. 406; Schou v. Sotoyome Tribe No. 12, 140 Cal. 257 (73 Pac. 996).

If an appeal is defeated by the nonaction of an officer of the supreme body in failing to give the notice of a decision, as required by the laws of the order, the complaining member is entitled to seek relief in the courts. Steiner v. Supreme Court I. O. F., 149 Mich. 567 (113 N. W. 15); Supreme Council Order of Chosen

Friends v. Forsinger, 125 Ind. 58 (25 N. E. 129, 9 L. R. A. 501, 21 Am. St. Rep. 196).

"It is argued that every member of Golden Star Lodge No. 1 has an opportunity to save her property interests in her benefit certificates by seeking a dispensation to join some other lodge, under section 47 of the constitution of the grand lodge, which reads as follows:

"A member of a defunct lodge may be granted a dispensation to join some other lodge upon application to the grand secretary and treasurer. Such dispensation shall be treated the same as a card of withdrawal, when presented to a lodge for admission.'

"It appears by this section that the granting of the dispensation is discretionary with the grand mistress. It also appears in the testimony that four adverse votes only are necessary to exclude an applicant for membership in a subordinate lodge. It also appears that under the rules of the society a person has to be a member of a subordinate lodge, or her rights under a benefit certificate are entirely canceled. Individual members of Golden Star Lodge No. 1 cannot become members of other subordinate lodges as a matter of right, and hence are not barred from seeking relief in the courts by reason of any rights that might possibly be granted them under said section 47. Holomany v. National Slavonic Society, 39 App. Div. 573 (57 N. Y. Supp. 720).

"There is no law or rule of the Ladies' Auxiliary to the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen which attempts to prohibit recourse to courts of law. The prohibition of such a right cannot rest on cus tom or the good faith of any of the parties. Wuerthner v. Benevolent Society, 121 Mich. 90 (79 N. W. 921, 80 Am. St. Rep. 484).

"A distinction is made in many courts between a mandatory and a permissive right of appeal in mutual benefit insurance cases. In this case the right of appeal, if it exists at all, is only permissive. Bauer v. Knights of Pythias, 102 Ind. 262 (1 N. E. 571); Wuerthner v. Benevolent Society, supra.

"The grand lodge of this order, as well as Golden Star Lodge No. 1, is a voluntary association. It is argued by relators that a writ is not sought against a voluntary association, but against two officers, and hence the rule established in many jurisdictions, to the effect that courts will not control the action of a voluntary association by mandamus, has no application. However, to control the action of officers of an association, whether incorporated or voluntary, is in effect to control the action of the association itself. I do not think there is much force in this argument of relators. Were the grand lodge and the subordinate lodge incorporated bodies, there would be no doubt of the right of relators to the relief asked. "In Weidenfeld v. Keppler, 84 App. Div. 235 (82 N. Y. Supp. 634), it is said:

"With the exception of California, no case is cited which will support the contention that a writ of mandamus has ever been allowed as against a voluntary incorporated association to restore rights of membership.'

"In many jurisdictions the writ of mandamus has been allowed to issue to restore rights of membership in incorporated associations where property rights are involved, and I think such is the rule in this State.

"In Lavalle v. Société St. Jean Baptiste de Woonsocket, 17 R. I. 680 (24 Atl. 467, 16 L. R. A. 392), a Rhode Island case, it was held to be the proper remedy, and a demurrer to a declaration, in a suit for damages for unlawful and wrongful expulsion, was sustained.

"The principal legal question in this case is whether mandamus is an available remedy by means of which relators can compel a restoration to their rights, of which they have been wrongfully deprived. This question involves a consideration of the nature of mandamus, the proposed remedy, as well as the legal status in Michigan of an unincorporated mutual benefit society. In this State mandamus is a civil action. It is no longer regarded as a mere prerogative writ, and is considered as an ordinary process in cases to which it is applicable. Woodworth v. National Bank, 144 Mich.

338 (107 N. W. 905).

"A fraternal benefit society, incorporated or unincorporated, issuing policies of insurance on the lives of its members in favor of beneficiaries named in such policies, can no longer be considered as a private institution, or the contracts of insurance made by it as mere private contracts. The business of life insurance is a public one, which affects the welfare of millions of our people. The fund accumulated by regular contributions of the members of benefit societies is a trust fund, in which every one who has paid into it has a vested property interest. The right under one of these policies is a valuable property right. The member acquires a status. His relation to the association is something more than that created by an ordinary contract. The enforcement of the right of membership, the right of the members of a subordinate lodge to maintain its existence against the wrongful act of a grand lodge or its officers, is not comparable to the enforcement of the obligation of private corporations, as this right is defined in the recent case of Booker v. Medical College, 156 Mich. 95 (120 N. W. 589).

"The legislature of this State has enacted statutes which provide under what conditions a benefit society can transact business. The Ladies' Auxiliary to the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is organized under, and dependent upon, Act No. 119 of the Public Acts of 1893, as amended. Section 1 of this act as it now stands declares a fraternal beneficiary association to be a corporation,