Baltimore United Fire Department v. Creamer

Goldsborotjgii, J., delivered the opinion of this court. The appellants were incorporated under the Act of 1833, ch. 187, with power to obtain a fund, by subscription, periodical contribution, or other lawful means, and make investment of the same; the nett proceeds thus entrusted to the corporation, to be applicable to the purposes mentioned in said Act. Subsequent to their incorporation, and after an investment of $12,000, the interest from the investment, and from other sources, created an excess beyond the demands contemplated by the Act of incorporation, and the Act of 1839, ch. 265, was passed, by the first section of which power was granted “to invest permanently, from time to time, in Baltimore city or other public securities, such part of the nett proceeds arising annually from the Baltimore city stock, or any other resources held by said institution, as may not be required for the relief of disabled firemen.” ²⁵⁸ The appellants, acting under their interpretation of the Acl of 1839, on the 23rd day of October 1860, passed the resolution mentioned in the proceedings in this cause. The appellees. two of them being delegates and forming part of the executive board, and the other a member of one of the fire companies in connection with the United Fire Department, protested against the resolution, but finding their protest unavailing, filed their bill of complaint in the circuit court for Baltimore city, praying an injunction to restrain the appellants, their officers and agents, from carrying into effect the resolution of the board of delegates.

The injunction was-granted, and upon the coming in of the answer of the appellants, motion was made to dissolve the injunction. The court overruled the motion, and, by its order, made the injunction perpetual. The appellants appealed to this court, not only upon the granting of the injunction, but also from the order refusing to dissolve the same. We deem it proper, in the first place, to dispose of the-question raised by the appellants, that the complainants have, no right to interfere with the action of the United Fire Department, in carrying into effect the resolution passed to sell, dispose of, and distribute the funds mentioned in that resolution.

We do not concur in this view, but regard the appellees as-having a proper standing in a court of equity, not only for the reasons and under the authorities cited by the learned judge, in his opinion in this case, but also