Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

131 Mass. 439

Volger v. Ray

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 21, 1881

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1881-10-21

Coetbact to recover $25. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, to this court, on appeal, on the following agreed facts: The defendant was, at the time the alleged cause of action accrued, a member of the New England Pigeon and Bantam Society, a voluntary association organized in Springfield and not incorporated under any general or special law of this Commonwealth.

Relies on Newell v. Borden

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-10-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1929

4 state decisions

2018811890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ekdicott, J.

¶1The only facts we have touching the character and objects of this society are, that it was a voluntary association, not incorporated under any general or special law, and that one of its objects was the holding of public exhibitions of poultry and pigeons, at which the public were admitted on the payment of admission fees. It also appears that such an exhibition was held in December 1878, under the charge of the executive committee, which was duly appointed by the society for that purpose. This committee offered certain premiums to exhibitors, and established rules for the government of the exhibition, and gave notice that all premiums would be paid in full.

¶2At this exhibition, the plaintiff offered certain birds, (it does not appear whether they were pigeons or bantams,) for premium ; and a premium was awarded to him, which has not been paid. He therefore brings his action against the defendant, a member of the association, but not a member of the committee. It is evident that this case is brought before us upon an imperfect and insufficient statement of facts. It fails to show the authority of the committed to offer premiums, or the obligations and duties of the members of the association; and we cannot say, as matter of law, that the committee had such authority.

¶3*441It does not appear, as in Newell v. Borden, 128 Mass. 31, that the defendant was present when the committee was appointed. Nor does it appear what expenses the committee was then authorized to incur. Judgment for the defendant.

/131/mass/439 · .json · Public domain