A mutual benefit society cannot expel a member or deprive him of his rights in the society without giving him notice and a full opportunity to be heard in defence of the charges against him, and the proceeding for his expulsion must be conducted fairly and in good faith; State v. Temperance Soc., 42 Mo. App. 485; Berkhout v. Royal Arcanum, 62 N. J. L. 103, 43 Atl. 1; Wachtel v. Benev. Soc., 84 N. Y. 28, 38 Am. Rep. 478 ; People v. Alpha Lodge, 13 Misc. 677, 35 N. Y. Supp. 214, affirmed 8 App. Div. 591, 40 N. Y. Supp. 1147. Irregularities in the proceedings by which a member was suspended will not af ford ground for relief in equity, where they were waived by the member's appearance and failure to raise them before the tri bunals of the society ; Sperry's Appeal, 116 Pa. 391, 9 Atl. 478. If the rules authorize the expulsion of a member, and he is given an opportunity to be heard, and the investi gation is conducted in good faith, the deci sion of the association is conclusive upon the court in mandamus proceedings to com pel his restoration; Lewis v. Wilson, 121 N.
Y. 284, 24 N. E. 474; White v. Brownell, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 329.
It is generally held that persons who join churches, secret societies, benevolent associa tions, or temperance societies, etc., voluntari ly submit themselves to the jurisdiction of those bodies, and in matters of faith and individual conduct affecting their relations as members thereof subject themselves to the tribunals established by those bodies to pass upon such questions; if aggrieved by a decision against them, made in good faith by such judicatories, they must seek their redress within the organization, as provided by its laws and regulations; Landis v. Camp
bell, 79 Mo. 433, 49 Am. Rep. 289 ; Shannon v. Frost, 3 B. Monr. (Ky.) 253; Grosvenor v. Society of Believers, 118 Mass. 78.
A complaining member should exhaust the remedies provided by the laws of the organi zation before applying to the courts; Union Fraternal League of Boston v. Johnston, 124 Ga. 902, 53 S. E. 241; Beeman v. Supreme Lodge, 215 Pa. 627, 64 Atl. 792 ; Weigand v. Fraternities Order, 97 Md. 443, 55 Atl. 530; but where those laws provide no remedy, and the organization provides none, it be comes a question for the courts to determine whether or not the member has done all that could reasonably be expected of him ; Schneider v. Local Union No. 60, 116 La. 270, 40 South. 700, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 891, 114 Am. St. Rep. 549, 7 Ann. Cas. 868. His compensa tory remedies against an 'association which denies him some property right to which he is entitled are the same as if he were enti tled to some right or property from a natural person or a private corporation which has refused to concede it. If the contingencies have arisen in which the association has agreed to pay him a sum of money, an ac tion may be maintained therefor as in the case of any other creditor against a debtor ; Supreme Sitting Order of Iron Hall v. Stein, 120 Ind. 270, 22 N. E. 136 ; Supreme Lodge of Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Zuhlke, 129 Ill. 298, 21 N. E. 789.
See Barbour on Parties ; 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 789, n.; By-LAW ; CLUE; RELIGIOUS SO CIETY; CHURCH; BENEFICIAL SOCIETY; ASSO CIATION ; AMOTION ; DISFRANCHISEMENT. The subject is treated with fulness in Thomps. Corp. '806-930. See State v. Chamber of Commerce, 47 Wis. 670.