"The judgment rendered by the circuit court and approved by the supreme court should be affirmed." Rueb v. Rehder, 174 Pa. 992;Abdon v. Wallace, 95 Ind. App. 604; 165 N.E. Rep. 68;Webster v. Rankins, 50 S.W. Rep. 2d 746. In Rueb v. Rehder, supra, the court said:

The Plumbers were prevented from expelling a member who, as a public official, refused to appoint another member as a plumbing inspector ( Schneider v. Local Union No. 60, 116 La. 270 [40 So. 700, 114 Am.Ct.Rep. 549, 7 Ann. Cas. 868, 5 L.R.A.N.S. 891]). Another union was compelled to reinstate a member who testified before the Interstate Commerce Commission against safety devices sought by the union ( Abdon v. Wallace, 95 Ind. App. 604 [ 165 N.E. 68]). Other unions have been ordered to reinstate members who testified against the union in court ( Angrisani v. Stearn, 167 Misc. 731 [3 N.Y.S.2d 701]; Thompson v. Grand International Brotherhood of L.E., 41 Tex.Civ.App. 176 [ 41 Tex. Civ. App. 176] [ 91 S.W. 834]).

Union membership with death and strike benefits has been held to be a valuable property right which equity will protect. Burke v. Monumental Div. No. 52, B. of L. Engineers, D.C.D.Md., 273 F. 707; Local Union No. 57, etc. v. Boyd, 245 Ala. 227, 16 So.2d 705; Heasley v. Operative P. C.F.I. Ass'n, 324 Pa. 257, 188 A. 206; Abdon v. Wallace, 95 Ind. App. 604, 165 N.E. 68; 168 A.L.R. 1479 note. Reversed and remanded.

And a member may not be expelled from the union so long as he meets its membership requirements. Spayd v. Ringing Rock Lodge No. 665, 270 Pa. 67, 113 A. 70, 14 A.L.R. 1443; Thompson v. Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 176, 91 S.W. 834; Abdon v. Wallace, 95 Ind. App. 604, 165 N.E. 68; Sweetman v. Barrows, 263 Mass. 349, 161 N.E. 272, 62 A.L.R. 311. Unlike the members of a partnership, the members of a union do not act as agents for each other or assume responsibility for the conduct of the other members. Consequently in fact there can be no claim of personal ownership or privity by the members of a union in the records of the organization.

The conceptual rationale behind this exception is that when a Court confronts a plain and substantial violation of the constitution or by-laws of a private association, the Court has been provided with the private association's own antecedent stamp of the nullity of the actions in question as violative of the basic principles by which the association is governed. California State University, Hayward v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 47 Cal.App.3d 533, 121 Cal.Rptr. 85 (1975); Niner v. Hanson, 217 Md. 298, 142 A.2d 798 (1958); Junkins v. Local Union No. 6313, 241 Mo.App. 1029, 271 S.W.2d 71 (1954); Morris v. Peters, 203 Ga. 350, 46 S.E.2d 729 (1948); Smetherham v. Laundry Workers' Union, 44 Cal.App.2d 131, 111 P.2d 948 (1941); Abdon v. Wallace, 95 Ind. App. 604, 165 N.E. 68 (1929); Rueb v. Rehder, 24 N.M. 534, 174 P. 992 (1918); see: Van Daele v. Vinci, 51 Ill.2d 389, 282 N.E.2d 728 (1972). It would be, therefore, an exercise in dilatory formalism were the Court to defer its own action to await further action from within the Association.

It is to be noted that the basis of the above statement is the violation of the subordinate lodge's right to due process of law where a property right of the subordinate lodge is jeopardized. It is, therefore, a fundamental principle that while equity has jurisdiction in the supervision and control of unincorporated societies or associations, it will generally only exercise its powers when a property right of a unit of the society is involved, or when an individual thereof has a property right that is involved. Local Union, A.S.M.W.I.A. v. Nalty (1925), CCA 6th, 7 F.2d 100; Bush v. International Alliance, T.S.E. (1942) (Cal App) 130 P.2d 788; Holmes v. Brown (1917) 146 Ga. 402, 91 S.E. 408; Gardner v. Newbert (1920) 74 Ind. App. 183, 128 N.E. 704; Abdon v. Wallace (1929) 95 Ind. App. 604, 165 N.E. 68; Nissen v. International Brotherhood, T.C.S.H. (1941) 229 Iowa 1028, 295 N.W. 858, 141 ALR 598; Froelich v. Musicians Mut. Ben. Asso. (1902) 93 Mo App 383; Fleming v. Moving Picture Mach. Operators I.A.T.S.E. (1938) 124 NJ Eq 269, 1 A.2d 386; Fritz v. Knaub (1907) 57 Misc. 405, 103 NYS 1003 (affirmed without opinion in (1908) 124 App. Div. 915, 108 NYS 1133); Heasley v. Operative Plasterers Cement Finishers International Asso. (1936) 324 Pa. 257, 188 A. 206; Lo Bianco v. Cushing, 117 N.J. Eq. 593, 177 A. 102 (affirmed in (1936) 119 NJ Eq 377, 182 A 874). Thus where a matter is brought to the attention of the court in which purely membership questions are involved which do not involve the loss of any property right that arises out of the right of membership, the courts will not intervene.

It involves no property right and since it stems wholly from the constitution of the union and not by virtue of citizenship, it is not a civil right. 14 C.J.S., Civil Rights, § 1, p. 1159. Respondents rely upon State ex rel. Weatherholt v. Perry Circuit Court (1933), 204 Ind. 673, 185 N.E. 510, and Abdon v. Wallace (1933), 95 Ind. App. 604, 165 N.E. 68, to support their position that the trial court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter. The Weatherholt case ( 204 Ind. 673), was overruled by State ex rel. Ayer v. Ewing (1952), 231 Ind. 1, 13, 106 N.E.2d 441.

Rueb v. Rehder, 24 N.M. 534, 546, 174 P. 992, 995; Bacon, 1 Benefit Societies, 3d Ed., section 107; Mulroy v. Supreme Lodge, 28 Mo. App. 463; Ray v. Brotherhood, supra; 19 R.C.L. 1231, section 41, page 1253; Hall v. Morrin, Mo. App., 293 S.W. 435; State ex rel. Weingart v. Board, 144 Wis. 516, 517, 518, 129 N.W. 630, 631; People v. Order of Foresters, 162 Ill. 78, 44 N.E. 401; Walsche v. Sherlock, supra; Von Arx v. San Francisco Gruetli Verein, 113 Cal. 377, 45 P. 685; Polin v. Kaplan, 257 N.Y. 277, 177 N.E. 833; Dingwall v. Amalgamated Assn., 4 Cal.App. 565, 88 P. 597; Abdon v. Wallace, 95 Ind. App. 604, 165 N.E. 68, 75; Gardner v. Newbert, 74 Ind. App. 183, 128 N.E. 704; Cox v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 190 Wn. 511, 69 P.2d 148. [4] IV. Appellants also contend that certiorari instead of mandamus is the proper remedy.

NICHOLS, J. Reversed on authority of Alfred J. Abdon v. Charles C. Wallace et al., ante 604, 165 N.E. 68. (Decided at this term.)

"The judgment rendered by the circuit court and approved by the supreme court should be affirmed." Rueb v. Rehder, 24 N. M. 534, 174 P. 992, 995; Abdon v. Wallace (Ind. App.) 165 N. E. 68, 75; Webster v. Rankins (Mo. App.) 50 S.W.(2d) 746, 749. In Rueb v. Rehder, supra, the court said: "While there is some conflict among the authorities upon this question, we believe that the weight of authority is to the effect that if the action of the lodge is without jurisdiction, or without notice or authority, it does not change the legal rights or status of any one; that the obligation to appeal within the order is not imposed when the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction."