was no appeal within the society, a mandamus will not be awarded, because the action is that of a tribunal created. in accordance with the constitution of the society, and the expelled member has an adequate remedy by appeal within the society itself. But the weight of authority seems to be in favor of the position, that the obligation to take the appeal allowed by the laws of the society does not exist when the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction. A judgment of expulsion made by the lower tribunal, when it has no jurisdiction for want of notice to the member expelled, or for want of authority to entertain the charge brought against him, is regarded as null and void, like a judgment rendered by a court having no jurisdiction over the person or the subject matter; and, in case of the rendition of such void judgment, the member affected by it is not bound to take steps to have it reversed in the higher tribunals of the society. (Niblack on Ben. Soc. and Acc. Ins.-2d ed.--sec. 47; 1 Bacon on Ben. Soc. and Life Ins. sec. 107). We think that, where the association is not acting within the scope of its powers so far as to have jurisdiction over the member charged with an offense and over the offense with which he is charged, then the expelled member is not under obligations to seek the remedy by appeal afforded by the laws of the society. In other words, the proceeding for expulsion must be in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the society, to the extent that the member expelled shall have notice, and shall be tried upon a charge within the jurisdiction of the tribunal trying him. (Pitcher v. Board of Trade, supra). It is to be remembered, however, that there is a clear distinction between the obligation to appeal from the lower to the higher tribunals of the society itself resting upon one who presents a question of discipline, and such. obligation so far as it concerns one who asserts a claim to money due upon a contract. Where the controversy is concerning the discipline or policy or doctrine of the order or fraternity, the member must resort to the method of procedure prescribed by the association including the remedy by appeal, before invoking the power of the courts. But it is otherwise, where a member claims money due from the society on its contract, or where the beneficiary of a deceased member claims money due from the society on its contract of insurance; in such case, the right to resort to the courts to coerce payment will not be abridged by the right of appeal from a lower to a higher tribunal of the society as conferred by its laws and rules. "Courts of justice are freely open to those who seek money due them upon a contract." (Niblack on Ben. Soc. and Acc. Ins. 2d ed.-sec. 313; 2 Bacon on Ben. Soc. and Life Ins. sec. 450; Zeliff v. Knights of Pythias, supra; Bauer v. Samson Lodge, 102 Ind. 262). As was said in Zeliff v. Knights of Pythias, supra: "In determining whether courts will take jurisdiction, a distinction must be observed between cases in which the association subjects its members to discipline for immoral conduct or for violation of the rules of the order, and those instances in which the member appeals to the court to secure property rights or to enforce money demands." Hence, there is a distinction between the question of the validity of the expulsion when it is set up as a defense to an action upon a benefit certificate or other contract, and the question of the validity of the expulsion when restoration to the privileges of the society is sought to be secured through the writ of mandamus or other procedure. In the former case, it is sufficient for the beneficiary to show, that the judgment of expulsion was invalid, without further showing the exhaustion of all remedies within the order or society for the purpose of having the judgment vacated. (Blumenfeldt v. Korschuck, supra; Hoeffner v. Grand Lodge, 41 Mo. App. 359; Supreme Lodge v. Zuhlke, 129 Ill. 298). In the latter case, it must appear that the remedy provided by the rules of the so ciety for the review of the judgment complained of was resorted to. In the case at bar, it is urged that there was no jurisdiction over the relator by the high court which expelled her. The petition shows, that she received written notice to be present at the meeting of November 2, 1894; that she was present; and that evidence was heard upon the charge brought against her. While there may have been some irregularity in the character of the notice, we do not think it was sufficient to justify the relator in failing to take her appeal to the annual session, which would probably have set aside the judgment against her if such judgment was unjust. It is furthermore urged, that the high court had no jurisdiction to try her upon the charge brought against her. The charge against her was, that she had violated section 6 of article 14 of the constitution of the order. That section is as follows: "If a member of this order shall make to the chief ranger, or to the public, any accusation against a sister that shall be false or malicious, she shall be suspended or expelled, as the order may determine." The petition does not state the particulars of the offense, nor does it state anything further in regard to the charge than that it was a violation of said section. The alleged ground, upon which the relator claims that the high court had no jurisdiction to try her for a violation of this provision of the constitution, is, that the provision in question is void as having nothing to do with the transaction of the business of a fraternal insurance society. We are unable to concur in this view. Benefit societies not only provide certain pecuniary benefits for their members or beneficiaries, but they are social and fraternal in their nature. (1 Bacon on Ben. Soc. and Life Ins. sec. 95). We are not prepared to say, that the violation of such a provision as this is not calculated to disturb the harmony of such social and fraternal relations. In support of the position that said section is void, reli ance is placed upon the case of Commonwealth v. St. Patrick's Ben. Society, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 441. There it was held, that a by-law of a benevolent society to expel a member for vilifying any of the members of the corporation was void, upon the ground that, without an express power in the charter, a corporator cannot be disfranchised, unless he has been guilty of some offense, which either affects the interests or good government of the corporation, and that the offense of vilifying a member, or a private quarrel, is totally unconnected with the affairs of the society. Without stopping to discuss the correctness or incorrectness of the doctrine thus announced, we do not think that the decision in the Pennsylvania case controls the present case. Section 6, which is not a by-law, but a provision of the constitution of the order, contemplates something more than merely the vilification of one member by another. It contemplates the offense of making a false or malicious accusation against a sister, not to the public only, but to the chief ranger, who, under the constitution of the order, is the chief officer of the high court. Such false or malicious accusation may be one, which affects the interests or good government of the society, and may have reference to the affairs of the society. Non constat that the accusation here may not have been of the character thus specified. The petition does not aver, that it was an accusation of another or different kind; and it is a well established rule, that each party's pleading is to be taken most strongly against himself, and most favorably to his adversary. (Groff v. Ankenbrandt, 124 Ill. 51). Courts are always reluctant to interfere with the disciplinary powers of voluntary organizations, whether incorporated or unincorporated. (People ex rel. v. Board of Trade, 80 Ill. 134; Ryan v. Cudahy, 157 id. 108). Such interference will never be justified, unless the exercise of the power has been without jurisdiction, or marked by gross injustice and unfairness. We are of the opinion that the present record does not present a case which The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed. 162 87 WEST CHICAGO PARK COMRS. v. BYRON A. BALDWIN et al. 172 172 and WEST CHICAGO PARK COMRS. v. EDWIN F. DUNNE. Filed at Ottawa June 13, 1896. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-act of June 14, 1895, construed as to the power of park boards to levy assessments. The act of June 14, 1895, (Laws of 1895, p. 286,) authorizing park boards to make assessments "for the purpose of improving any boulevard, highway, driveway or street," confers no power on such boards to levy an assessment for sewers and water mains intended to supply sewer and water service to residents on a boulevard. APPEAL from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. O. N. CARTER, Judge, presiding. H. S. MECARTNEY, for appellants: The West Chicago Park Commissioners are a fullfledged municipal corporation, and have the same control and power over their boulevards and streets as the city of Chicago has over its streets. Sess. Laws of 1869, sec. 4, p. 344; Park Comrs. v. Chicago, 152 Ill. 392. An ordinance which provides for the paving, etc., of a street, and also for the construction of a sewer in the same street, is not invalid as uniting two improvements. Murphy v. Peoria, 119 Ill. 509; 10 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 280; Dillon on Mun. Corp. sec. 807; Elliott on Streets and Roads, 360, 374, 390, 407. The Park act of May 2, 1873, mentions the building of sewers as one of the acts park commissioners might do in "improving" the boulevards, etc., under their control. Hurd's Stat. sec. 29, chap. 105. |