conferred by the charter of a benevolent and loan association, to loan money "upon personal security and the pledge of goods and chattels," authorizes loans upon personal security without any pledge of goods and chattels,11 A by-law of a benefit society providing that benefit shall be withheld from widows of members who die through intemperance, debauchery, etc., is not an unreasonable regulation.12 But a by-law operating as a forfeiture of the widow's right to the benefits, because the member's dues, although fully satisfied, were not paid at the precise time required, was held to be void.18 So by-laws which forbid a member to work at his trade at such prices as he chooses to accept, and which compel him to join in a strike, are void, as against public policy.14 And a member expelled for the violation of a by-law not authorized by statute nor by the state constitution will be restored by mandamus; 16 though, if such expelled member brings an action for damages for the expulsion and recovers judgment, it is a waiver of his right to be restored by mandamus. 16 Members cannot be expelled on charges without notice and an opportunity of being heard.17 And even though the party charged does not appear, still proof of his offense should be required. 18 It is not illegal for a benevolent society to hold business meetings or to transact its business on Sunday, 19 On the death of a member of a beneficial association, the share in the common fund going to his family is not assets of his estate, governed by his will or the statute of distributions; 20 but is to be distributed in the amounts and order which the regulations of the association direct.21 The object of benefit building societies is, "that any individual member may borrow money from the society to enable him to buy or build a house, mortgaging it to the society as security for the money borrowed, and ultimately making it absolutely his own, by paying off the mortgage out of his subscription."22 These societies are formed under statutes enacted for the purpose, in England and in this country,23 and their mode of operation is likewise fully prescribed by statute. Unconscionable contracts made by them, in violation of the laws restricting interest, are held to be subject to the penalties of usury, irrespective of the terins or forms employed.25 It is however held, that a mortgage given to a building society by a holder of its stock is not usurious because monthly payments of interest are required. besides fines and impositions in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of the society.26 A building society having authority under its charter to make a loan and provide for the security of the same, may, as an incident of such right, provide for insuring property taken in security.27 Such society, incorporated under the Maryland statute, has power to make a promissory note.28 And an English building society is enabled by the present statute to borrow money.29 Upon redeeming its stock, a building society acquires the right of property therein.80 1 Lafond v. Deems, 8 Abb. N. C. 344. 2 Courtenay v. Courtenay, 4 Jones, L. 519; and see State v. Mut. Protection Soc. 26 Ohio St. 19. 3 Morning Star Lodge v. Hayslip. 23 Ohio St. 144; Swift v. Benefi. cial Soc. 73 Pa. St. 362; Re Clark's Trust, Law R. 1 Ch. Div. 497; 16 Eng. R. 624. 4 Lafond v. Deems, 8 Abb. N. C. 344; and see Sharp v. Warren, 6 Price, 131; Bear v. Bromley, 11 Eng. L. & Eq.414. Compare § 325, ante; Wolf v. Schlieffer, 2 Brewst. 563; Huntington v. Savings Bank, S6 U. S. 394. 5 See Pare v. Clegg, 29 Beav. 589; Re Owen, 31 id. 285; Hornby v. Close, Law R. 2 Q. B. 153; Industrial Soc. v. Pickles, Law R. 1 Exch. 1; State v. Mut. Protection Assoc. 26 Ohio St. 19; People v. Nelson, 46 N. Y. 477. 6 See Stat. 18 and 19 Vict. L. T. ch. 63, §9; Laws of N. Y. 1848, ch. 319. 7 People v. Nelson, 46 N. Y. 477; 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 200; 3 Lans. 324. 8 Hornby v. Close, Law R. 2 Q. B. 153. Compare Pare v. Clegg, 29 Beav. 589. 9 Gundlach v. Germania etc. Assoc. 4 Hun, 339. Insanity is "sickness." within the meauing of a rule of a friendly society, providing for a weekly allowance to any member during any sickness, etc. Bur ton v. Eyden, Law R. 8 Q. B. 295. 10 Gundlach v. Germania etc. Assoc. 4 Hun, 339. Compare Fugure v. Mutual Soc. 46 Vt. 362. 11 Missouri Loan Bank v. Howe, 56 Mo. 53. 12 St. Mary's etc. Soc. v. Burford, 70 Pa. St. 321. Compare Berlin . March, 82 l'a. St. 166. 13 Bnecking v. Robert Blum Lodge, 1 City Court R. (N. Y.) 51; and see Cartau v. Father Matthew Soc. 3 Daly, 20. 14 People v. Benevolent Soc. 3 Hun, 361. 15 People v. Benovolent Soc. 24 How. Pr. 216; and see tit. MANDAMUS. 16 State v. Lipa, 28 Ohio St. 665. 17 People v. Benevolent Soc. 24 How. Pr. 216. Compare § 335, ante. 18 People v. Young Men's etc. Soc. 65 Barb. 357. 19 People v. Young Men's etc. Soc. 65 Barb. 357. 20 Arthurr. Odd Fellows Ben. Assoc. 29 Ohio St. 557; and see Mary. land etc. Soc. e. Clendinen, 44 Md. 429. 21 Arthurr. Odd Fellows' Ben. Assoc. 29 Ohio St. 557. 22 In re Kent Benefit Building Soc. 1 Drew & S. 417. Compare People e. Troy House Co. 44 Barb. 625; Howard e. Mut. Loan etc. Assoc. 3 Allen, 571; Copland v. Bartlett. 6 Com. B. 18. 23 See Stat. 37 & 38 Viet. L. T. ch. 42; Laws of N. Y. 1851, ch. 122; Laws of Penn'a, 1959, p. 544; Nelson e. Blakey, 54 Ind. 29; Mok e. Detroit etc. Assoc. 30 Mich. 511. 24 Sec Spinning v. Home Build. etc. Assoc. 26 Ohio St. 483; Link v. Germantowa ete. Assoc. 8) Pa. St. 15; Low etc. r. Zucker, 48 Md. 449; Matter of Tierney, Law R. 9 Eq. (Ir.) 1; Provident etc. Build. Soc. v. Greenhill, Law R. 9 Ch. Div 122; 25 Eng. 824; Second Manhattan Build. Assoc. v. Haves, 4 Abb. N. Y. App. 183; Ottawaete. Assoc. v. Scott, 24 Up. Can. Q. B. 541; l'abst e. Build. Assoc. 1 McAr. 385. 25 Mills v. Salisbury ete. Assoc. 75 No. Car. 22; Houser v. Hermann Build. Assoc. 41 Pa. St. 478; and see Gordon r. Winchester Build. etc. Assoc. 12 Bush, 110; Baltimore ete. Build. Assoc. 41 Md. 409; State v. Greenville Build. etc. Assoc. 20 Ohio St. 92; Canada etc. Assoc. r. Rowell. 19 Up. Can. Q. B. 124; Citizens etc. Assoc. v. Uhler, 48 Md. 455; Mulloy e. Build. Assoc. 2 McAr. 594. 26 Red Bank Mut. etc. Assoc. v. Patterson, 27 N. J. Eq. 223; and compare Forrest City etc. Assoc. r. Gallagher, 25 Ohio St. 20s; City Build, etc. Co. v. Fatty, I Abb. N. Y. App. 847; Williar e. Baltimore etc. Assoc. 45 M. 545; Morrison v. Glover, 4 Ex. 430; Provident etc. Build. Soc. r. Greenhill, Law R. 9 Ch. Div. 122; 25 Eng. R. 824. 27 Chicago Build. Soc. v. Crowell, 65 Ill. 453. 28 Davis v. West etc. Union, 32 Md. 285. 43 Md. 466. Compare Muth v. Dolfield, 29 See Stat. 37 & 38 Vict. L. T. ch. 42. § 15; Re Victoria etc. Soc. Law R. 9 Eq. 605; Davis and Wilson's Case, Law R. 12 Eq. 516; Re National etc. Soc. Law R. 5 Ch. 309. 30 Winchester etc. Assoc. v. Gilbert, 23 Gratt. 787; White v. Mcchanics' etc. Assoc. 22 id. 233. See as to winding-up and distribution of fund: Re Professional etc. Build. Soc. Law R. 6 Ch. 856; Re Durham etc. Build. Soc. Law R. 12 Eq. 513; Wilson v. Up. Can. etc. Soc. 12 Grant U. C. 206; Goodriche. City Loan etc. Assoc. 54 Ga. 98; Edeliu v. Pascoe, 22 Gratt. 826; State v. Central etc. Assoc. 29 Ohio St. 199. § 339. Charitable societies.—A corporation for business purposes, although such purposes may incidentally contemplate benevolent results, is not within a general act providing for the incorporation of charitable, etc., societies. And a beneficial society, the benefits of which extend only to contributing members, is not charitable.2 The term "charitable institution" designates a corporation or other organized body created to administer charities, and which is permanent in its nature, as contradistinguished from a transient or temporary undertaking.3 But a corporation is not the less "charitable" because its rules require an entrance fee from each applicant for admission, or that patients able to pay for nursing and treatment shall do so. And the fact that no person has individually a right to demand admission into a public hospital, and that the trustees of the hospital determine who are to be received, does not render it any the less a public charity. An incorporated society having for its object the promulgation of Christian knowledge and intelligence, through its agency as an institution of domestic missions, is a charitable institution. A corporation established for the maintenance of a public charitable hospital, which has exercised due care in the selection of its agents, is not liable for an injury to a patient caused by their negligence, nor for the unauthorized assumption of one of the hospital attendants to act as a surgeon.8 The president and trustees of a charitable corporation, there being no shareholders, may dissolve it; 9 and the property of the corporation, real and personal, acquired by purchase for value, thereupon vests in the state; 10 but real property acquired and held by gift, remaining undisposed of, reverts to the donor or his heirs. A gift of property for charitable purposes cannot be diverted by the legislature. 12 1 People v. Nelson, 46 N. Y. 477; 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 200; 3 Lans. 324. 2 Swift . Beneficial Soc. 73 Pa. St. 362; Morning Star Lodge v. Hayslip, 23 Ohio St. 144; Re Clark's Trust, Law R. I Ch. Div. 497; 16 Eng. 6.4. 3 Humphries v. Little Sisters of the Poor, 29 Ohio St. 201. 4 Gooch r. Assoc. for Relief etc. 100 Mass. 558. 5 McDonald v. Mass. General Hospital, 120 Mass. 432. 6 Gooch v. Assoc. for Relief etc. 109 Mass. 558. 7 Maine Baptist etc. Convention v. Portland, 65 Me. 92. 8 McDonald r. Mass. General Hospital, 120 Mass. 432; and see Hol. liday v. St. Leonard's, I1 Com. B. N. S. 192. 9 People v. College of California, 33 Cal. 166. 10 People v. College of California, 38 Cal. 166. 11 People v. College of California, 38 Cal. 166. Compare Folger v. Chase, 15 Pick. 63, 66; White v. Campbell, 5 Humph. 38. See tit. DISSOLUTION. 12 Venable v. Coffman, 2 W. Va. 310; Plymouth v. Jackson, 15 Pa. St. 44; and compare Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. 119; Att.-Gen. r. Clergy Soc. 10 Rich. Eq. 604; In re Prison Charities, Law R. 16 Eq. 129; 16 Eng. 670. § 340. Charitable uses.-It is now the prevailing opinion in this country and in England, that a court of general equitable jurisdiction has power to enforce charities, independent of the statute of 43 Elizabeth.1 Charitable uses are favorites with courts of equity, and the construction of all instruments where they are concerned is liberal in their behalf.2 There may, however, be such uncertainty as to the objects of a charitable use as to render it invalid; as in case of a bequest to be applied to foreign missions and to the "poor saints";4 or a bequest to trustees for the support of "indigent pious young men preparing for the ministry in New Haven";5 or a bequest "for the establishment of a school at M. for the education of children." 6 But the beneficiaries need not be named, and any description by which they can be identified is sufficient. So leaving it to the executor to choose between two designated objects was held not to be a fatal uncertainty.8 A bequest to a charitable society was sustained, notwithstanding the objection that such society had never obtained a statutory incorporation.9 A municipal corporation may be a trustee for a charitable purpose.10 So may a town, 11 or county; 12 but otherwise of a state, or the United States.13 Among gifts for charitable uses, which have been sustained as such, are the following: Bequests for the circulation of Bibles and other religious books; 14 a gift of land for the erection of a building for public worship; 15 a bequest to promote the propagation of Christianity among the heathen; 16 an en |