On petition of Albert Dziduch, a shareholder, praying that an election of directors of the association be voided and a new election ordered, and rule to show cause issued thereon.
For the petitioner, Stanislaw A. Gutowski (Leo Rosenblum, of counsel).
For the respondent association et al., Patlen & Amlicke (Fred G. Stickel, Jr., of counsel).
Before Justice Heher, at the Passaic Circuit, pursuant to R.s. 1937, 14:10-16.
HEHER, J. It is conceded that jurisdiction to review the challenged election is conferred by R.S. 1937, 14:10-16. See In re United Towns Building and Loan Association, 79 N.J.L. 31.
The claimed irregularities fall into three classes: Votes in sufficient number to change the result of the election were cast (1) by members holding "no more than one share in the association," in contravention of its constitution; (2) by trustees contrary to the provisions of the statute; and (3) "by those who became members" of the association "for the sole purpose of influencing the election through fraudulent and improper means."
First: The holders of but one share were not under the asserted disqualification. While the association's constitution (article III, section 1) provides that "Any person sixteen years of age or over, and any trustee, firm or corporation, as by law provided, may become a member" of the association "by subscribing for or by purchasing or otherwise lawfully acquiring two or more shares," those holding one share only had theretofore been accepted as members by the association, and had been accorded the full rights and privileges of such
contractual relationship; and the association and as well the members so situated are, on the plainest principles of justice, estopped from denying membership and the rights, liabilities and incidents thereof, especially the inherent voting power conferred by the statute. Thomas Maddock Sons' Co. v. Biardot, 81 N.J. Eq. 233; Bache v. Central Leather Co., 78 Id. 484; In re Newark Library Association, 64 N.J.L. 265; Loewenthal v. Rubber Reclaiming Co., 52 N.J. Eq. 440.
The statute regulating building and loan associations provides that "The members or shareholders of the association shall be those to whom its shares are issued, and their personal representatives, and those to whom the shares may be transferred under the regulations prescribed by the association * * *;" that "Each member over the age of sixteen years shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of membership and shall be entitled to one vote at any meeting of the association * * *;" and that "Any such association may provide in its constitution that the right to vote at any meeting of the association shall be limited to those members whose membership in such association, as shown by the records of such association, shall have been acquired at least sixty days prior to such meeting and it may, in its constitution, prescribe the terms and conditions under which any member whose membership shall have been acquired within sixty days prior to such meeting shall be permitted to vote." R.S. 1937, 17:12-37, derived from chapter 65 of the laws of 1925, as amended by chapter 90 of the laws of 1932, and chapter 59 of the laws of 1935. None of the other provisions of the statute relating to membership and the status of shareholders (see sections 17:12-1, 17:12-2, 17:12-47, 17:12-48, 17:12-77) countenances the creation of a non-voting membership class. Only the minor shareholder not over the age of sixteen years is denied the voting right incident to shareholding; and this obviously for lack of the requisite judgment.
What in substance is contended for here is that it was within the province of the association to classify shareholders as respects the quantum of holdings, and to deprive the one class of the voting capacity which, at common law and under the statute, is an inseparable incident of share-ownership. If
this classification were permissible, then it would be within the authority of the association to place the minimum holdings at a figure that would concentrate the voting power in the hands of a few large shareholders; and this would clearly contravene the statutory policy. In re United Towns Building and Loan Association, supra. Under the statutory scheme, the voting rights thereby conferred are inherent in share-ownership, and are not the subject of contractual surrender. ...