to any matter under investigation by said Committee or any Standing or Special Committee. A member refusing or neglecting to make such production may be adjudged guilty of an act detrimental to the interest or welfare of the Exchange.1 A member adjudged guilty of such an act may be suspended for not more than one year.2 An accusation charging a member with the commission of an offense or a violation of the laws or regulations of the Exchange shall be in writing, specifying the charge or charges with reasonable detail, and signed by the person or persons making the charge or charges. A copy thereof shall be served upon the accused member, who shall have ten days or such further time as the Governing Committee may deem proper within which to answer. The answer shall be in writing signed by the accused member, and filed with the Secretary. Upon filing or refusal to answer, the Governing Committee shall, at a regular or special meeting, Pitcher v. Board of Trade, 121 Ill. 412. Nelson v. Board of Trade, 58 Ill. App. 399. The principle whereby a court of equity may interfere and restore a member of a corporation who has been expelled does not apply to a voluntary unincorporated body like the Stock Exchange. The privilege of membership in the latter is not a franchise. It is derived exclusively from the body which bestows it, and may be conferred or withheld at its pleasure. White v. Brownell, 2 Daly, 329, 357. The judgment of the Governing Committee, made after regular proceedings, hearing and full investigation, as to certain transactions alleged to have been fraudulently conducted by the member, cannot be reviewed on the merits by the courts. Neukirch v. Keppler, 56 App. Div. 225. All the member could require was that the investigation should be 1Art. XVII, Sec. 7. 'Art. XVII, Sec. 8. proceed to consider the charge or charges; if the meeting be a special meeting, notice of its object shall be sent to the members of the Committee and to the accused, who shall be entitled to be personally present and to examine and cross-examine the witnesses produced and to present any defense, testimony or explanation. If the accused member is adjudged guilty the Committee shall expel or suspend such member, as the case may be; the President shall announce the result to the Exchange, and a written notice shall be served upon the member. The finding of the Committee shall be final and conclusive.1 The Committee may proceed summarily in the case of misconduct, or the commission of an offense for which the penalty is limited to suspension for a period not exceeding sixty days. If adjudged guilty, the accused may be suspended for such period as the Constitution provides.2 Announcement of suspension shall be made to the Exchange, and the member deprived of all rights and privileges of membership, except those pertaining to the Gratuity Fund.3 Professional conducted bona fide upon notice to him and an opportunity to be heard, and that the decision made should be within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred on the committee. id. citing Bigelow v. Benedict, 70 N. Y. 204. Lewis v. Wilson, 121 N. Y. 288. White v. Brownell, 2 Daly, 329. Lambert v. Addison, 46 L. T. Rep. 20. Where a member is expelled in conformity with the rules, and the proceedings are regular and in good faith, it is final, and no judicial tribunal can interfere. White v. Brownell, 2 Daly, 329, 359. 'Art. XVII, Sec. 9. "Art. XVII, Sec. 10. 'Art. XVII, Sec. 11. counsel are excluded from any investigation or hearing before the Governing Committee or any Standing or Special Committee.1 Rules for the Conduct of Business. A large number of rules regulate the conduct of business upon the Exchange. All contracts are subject to these rules.2 Hours are prescribed within which the Exchange must remain open, except by order of the Governing Committee,3 and a fine is imposed for dealing in other than the official hours. Dealing upon any other Exchange 4 But a court of equity may interfere for the purpose of holding the association to a fair and honest administration of its rules. Hutchinson v. Lawrence, 67 How. Pr. 38. The courts will not interfere with the rules on the motion of a nonmember. Heim v. N. Y. Stock Exch., 64 Misc. 529, aff'd 138 App. Div. 96. An expulsion, if regularly made, is conclusive, and cannot be inquired into collaterally, by mandamus or otherwise. The court can give no relief, except in case of irregularity of the proceedings. Leech v. Harris, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 571. But a broker cannot be irregularly expelled, and injunction will lie to restrain an illegal expulsion, even before the report of the committee. Leech v. Harris, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 571. Moffatt v. Board of Trade (Mo.), 111 S. W. 894. Right to expel for "bad faith and dishonorable conduct" does not give a board the right to expel members at its pleasure, without reference to the deeds it considers bad faith and dishonorable conduct. Nelson v. Board of Trade, 58 Ill. 399. Mandamus will not lie for the reinstatement of an expelled member, nor suit for an injunction. Matter of Weidenfeld v. Keppler, 84 App. Div. 235. Baum v. N. Y. Cotton Exch., 4 N. Y. Supp. 207. People v. Board of Trade, 80 Ill. 134. 1Art. XVII, Sec. 12. Art. XXII. 'Art. XX, Secs. 1 and 2. 'Art. XX, Sec. 3. in the city of New York or publicly outside the Stock Exchange in securities listed or quoted on the Exchange is prohibited.1 The manner of making and accepting bids and offers for stock is regulated, and these rules must be observed under penalty of fine and suspension.2 Briefly stated, all Bostedo v. Board of Trade, 227 Ill. 90. A member in resisting the unlawful authority of the Exchange, commits no offense against his duty as a member. Leech v. Harris, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 571. Action was brought against the board of managers of an Exchange for damages for unlawful suspension, after the member had been reinstated by the courts. It was held that in the absence of malice, the board, acting in a quasi judicial capacity, was not liable for errors of judgment determining matters within its jurisdiction. Lurman v. Jarvie, 82 App. Div. 37. A member of a Board of Trade was under charges for alleged violation of its rules and by-laws. He urged that he had sold his membership prior to the preferring of the charges. It was held that as the transfer of the seat had not been consented to by the board he had not ceased to be a member, and the board did not lose jurisdiction to try him on the charges. Bostedo v. Board of Trade, 227 Ill. 90. In trials of a member by a committee the laws of the association limit the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Bartlett v. Bartlett & Son Co., 116 Wis. 450. Voluntary submission by a member to a trial before a committee estops him from denying its jurisdiction. Ryan v. Cudahy, 157 Ill. 108. A by-law should state the causes of suspension and expulsion with such reasonable degree of certainty that a member may know the transgressions which will subject him to the penalty. People v. N. Y. Produce Exch., 149 N. Y. 401. An accused member is entitled to proper notice of proceedings for his expulsion, so that he may be heard. People v. East Buffalo Live Stock Assn., 88 App. Div. 619. A strict compliance with the Constitution and by-laws in this respect is essential. 'Art. XX, Sec. 4. 'Art. XXIII. bids and offers must be made either (a) "Cash," i. e., for delivery upon the day of contract; (b) "Regular Way," i. e., for delivery upon the business day following the contract; (c) “At three days," i. e., for delivery upon the third day following the contract; (d) "Buyer's" or "Seller's" options for not less than four days nor more than sixty days.1 These bids or offers must not be Quentell v. N. Y. Cotton Exchange, 56 Misc. 150. "The principle to be deduced from all the cases is that in every proceeding before a club, society or association, having for its object the expulsion of a member, the member is entitled to be fully and fairly informed of the charge and to be fully and fairly heard." Hutchinson v. Lawrence, 67 How. Pr. 38, 55. Charges against members are not to be tested by the strict rules of criminal pleading. It is sufficient if the member is notified of what the alleged violation consists. Board of Trade v. Nelson, 162 Ill. 431. The decision of a committee may be avoided on account of its refusal to hear competent evidence. Ryan v. Cudahy, 157 Ill. 108. A member of an Exchange like the New York Cotton Exchange, against whom proceedings are instituted under its by-laws, must first exhaust his remedies within the association before he may invoke redress from the courts. Moyse v. New York Cotton Exchange, 143 App. Div. 265. (Proceedings for expulsion for violation of by-laws.) Hurst v. N. Y. Produce Exchange, 100 N. Y. 605. Lewis v. Wilson, 50 Hun. 166. The rule that a member must first exhaust his remedy within the association applies only when the proceedings are conducted in accordance with the constitution and by-laws. Quentell v. N. Y. Cotton Exch., 56 Misc. 150. A member is not bound by a judgment of the board if not conducted in accordance with the by-laws. Board of Trade v. Riordan, 94 Ill. App. 298. The law does not require resort to higher authority within the organization when it appears that such action would be futile. Quentell v. N. Ý. Cotton Exchange, 56 Misc. 150, where the high est power, the board of managers, had approved in advance of the illegal methods pursued by the supervisory committee in proceeding against the plaintiff. 1Art. XXIII, Sec. 3. |