Dunn v. Agricultural Society
Dunn v. Agricultural Society
Opinion of the Court
The petition, it must be conceded, states a cause of action, to which the paragraph of the answer demurred to, is no defense, unless the defendant is protected against liability for its negligence, by the law under which it was incorporated, or can in some way derive such protection from it.
There is a class of public corporations, sometimes called •civil corporations, and sometimes quasi corporations, that, by the well settled and generally accepted adj udications of the courts, are not liable to a private action in damages, for negligence in the performance of their public duties, except when made so^ by legislative enactment.
Of this class, are counties, townships, school districts and .the like. The reason for such exemption from liability, is that organizations of the kind referred to, are mere territorial .and political divisions of the state, established exclusively for
The Board of Commissioners v. Mighels, 7 Ohio St. 119; Finch v. Board of Education, 30 Ohio St. 37; The State v. Powers, 38 Ohio St. 54; Bigelow v. Randolph, 14 Gray, 541; Lloyd v. The Mayor, etc., 1 Selden, 369; Bailey v. The Mayor, etc., 3 Hill, 531; Riddle v. Locks and Canals, 7 Mass. 169 ; Brown v. South Kennebec Agricultural Society, 47 Maine, 275.
This rule of exemption, however, extends no further than its reason, and therefore has no application to corporations •called into being by the voluntary action of the individuals forming them, for their own advantage, convenience or pleasure. Corporations of this class, which are but aggregations of natural persons associated together by their free consent, for the better accomplishment of their purposes, are bound to the same care, in the use of their property, and conduct of their affairs, to avoid injury to others, as natural persons; and, a disregard or neglhct of that duty, involves a like liability.
When, therefore, it is determined, to which of these classes of corporations the defendant belongs, a decision of the case is reached; and, to do this, an examination of the statutes, under which the organization of the defendant was effected, becomes necessary.
The act of February 28,1846, and the amendments thereto, in so far as they aid this inquiry, in substance provide; that thirty or more persons, residents of the county, may, by organ
The duties enjoined on such societies are, to “offer premiums for the improvement of soils, tillage, crops, manures, implements, stock, articles of domestic industry, and such other articles, productions and improvements, as they may deem proper,”'
From this summary oFthe statutes, it is apparent, that corporations formed under them, are not mere territorial or political divisions of the state; nor are they invested with any political or governmental functions, or made public agencies of the state, to assist in the conduct of its government. Nor can it be said, that they are created by the state, of its own sovereign will, without the consent of the persons who constitute them, nor that such persons are the mere passive recipients of their corporate powers and duties, with no power to decline them, or refuse their execution. On the contrary, it is evident that societies organized under the statutes, are the result of the voluntary association of the persons composing them, for purposes of their own. It is true, their purposes may be public, in the sense, that their establishment may conduce to the public welfare, by promoting the agricultural and household manufacturing interests of the county; but, in the sense, that they are designed for the accomplishment of some public good, all private corporations are for a public purpose, for the public benefit, is both the consideration and justification for the special privileges and franchises conferred on them. These agricultural societies are formed of the free choice of the constituent members, and by their active procurement; for, it is only when they organize themselves into a society, adopt the necessaiy constitution, and elect the proper officers, that they become a body corporate. The state neither compels their incorporation, nor controls their conduct afterward. They may act under the organization, or at any time dissolve, or abandon it.
While the authority is not in terms conferred on such so
There are cases, where a party, under no legal obligation to perform an act or service, may, nevertheless, be liable for damages caused by his negligence, if he voluntarily enter upon its performance. And, though the defendant below, was not bound to provide seats for the convenience of persons attending its fairs, and the omission to do so, would subject it to no liability, yet, having voluntarily entered upon their construction, for the purpose of being occupied by the people present, and to afford them greater convenience and comfort in witnessing the exhibition, thus constituting, when completed, an invitation to occupy them, as well as an inducement for the patronage of the fair, every consideration of right and justice requires, that in their construction, the society should have a careful regard for the safety of those for whose use they were designed, and who should act upon the invitation. And, since the defendant selected, and controled its own agents and servants, and might, by the exercise of due care in their employment,
Besides, it is evident that the defendant has, or may have, a corporate fund; for, it is authorized to hold in fee-simple, “ such real estate as it has purchased, or may hereafter purchase, for sites whereon to hold fairs; ” and there appears to be no limit affixed, either to the quantity, or value, of the real estate it may so own. True, it is provided, that if the county commissioners, with the county funds, contribute towards its purchase, it cannot be sold or encumbered without their consent; but the answer contains no allegation, that such contribution was made in the purchase of the defendant’s grounds.
Then, again, the statute imposes no limitation upon the amount that may be charged for entry fees, or for admission to the fair ; nor is there anything in the statute which requires the society to expend the whole of its receipts, in the payment of premiums, awards or expenses, or for any other specific purpose. They shall offer premiums “ as they deem proper,” is the language of the statute. The income, may many times exceed the expenditure, and hence, not only may a corporate fund be acquired, but it may be distributed among the members, or held for other disposition, at the pleasure of the society, and the corporation may thus become one of pecuniary profit, with the control and management of property, real and personal; and we see no reason why, for private injuries, caused by the improper management of its corporate property, it should not be held to the same general liability, as natural persons who own and manage the same kind of property.
Our conclusion is, that the facts stated in the portion of the answer demurred to are insufficient to constitute a defense to
Judgment of the district court, and of the court of common pleas reversed, and the cause remanded, ivith instructions to sustain the demurrer, and for further proceedings.
Reference
- Status
- Published