THIS case is before us for the second time. In Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge v. Most Worshipful Hiram Grand Lodge, 85 Colo. 17, 273 Pac. 648, the cause was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After it went back to the district court, an intervention was permitted on behalf of the Most worshipful Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of Colorado, a fraternal, benevolent and social organization.

The fact that Masonry is a secret order only emphasizes the impropriety and impossibility of our taking judicial notice of its inner workings." ( Most W. Prince H. Grand Lodge v. Most W. Hiram Grand Lodge, 85 Colo. 17 [ 273 P. 648, 651-2].) Secondly, if Mackey's does bind the courts, we are faced with the interesting situation that plaintiff is not the first Masonic grand lodge established in California.

NOTE 2. In the following cases, plaintiff was a benevolent or fraternal association: Talbot v. Independent Order of Owls (C.C.A. 8) 220 F. 660; Grand Lodge, K.P. of North and South America v. Grand Lodge, K.P., 174 Ala. 395, 56 So. 963; Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge v. Most Worshipful Hiram Grand Lodge, 85 Colo. 17, 273 P. 648; Daughters of Isabella No. 1 v. National Order, Daughters of Isabella, 83 Conn. 679, 78 A. 333, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 822; International Committee Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Chicago, 194 Ill. 194, 62 N.E. 551, 56 L.R.A. 888; Supreme Lodge of the World, Loyal Order of Moose v. Paramount Progressive Order of Moose, 224 Mo. App. 276, 26 S.W.2d 826; Supreme Lodge of the World, Loyal Order of Moose v. Independent. Benevolent and Protective Order of Moose, 98 N.J. Eq. 598, 131 A. 219; Benevolent Protective Order of Elks v. Improved Benevolent Protective Order of Elks of the World, 205 N.Y. 459, 98 N.E. 756, L.R.A. 1915B, 1074, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 639; Benevolent Protective Order of Elks of U.S.A. v. Improved Benevolent Protective Order of Elks of the World, 122 Tenn. 141, 118 S.W. 389; Liberty Life Assurance Society v. Heralds of Liberty of Delaware, 15 Del. Ch. 369, 138 A. 634; National Circle, Daughters of Isabella v. National Order of Daughters of Isabe

ed. rev. vol. 1950); 66 A.L.R. 1015 (1930); Standard Oil Co. of New Mexico v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 56 F.2d 973, 975 (10th Cir. 1932). Accord, Drugs Consolidated, Inc. v. Drug Incorporated, 16 Del. Ch. 240, 144 A. 656 (1929); Middletown Trust Co. v. Middletown Nat'l Bank, 110 Conn. 13, 147 A. 22 (1929); Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge v. Most Worshipful Hiram Grand Lodge, 85 Colo. 17, 273 P. 648 (1928); Diamond Drill Contracting Co. v. International Diamond Drill Contracting Co., 106 Wn. 72, 179 P. 120 (1919); Young Chaffee Furniture Co. v. Chaffee Bros. Furniture Co., 204 Mich. 293, 170 N.W. 48 (1918); General Film Co. of Mo. v. General Film Co. of Me., 237 Fed. 64 (8th Cir. 1916); Material Men's Mere. Ass'n v. N Y Material Men's Merc. Ass'n, 169 App. Div. 843, 155 N.Y. Supp. 706 (1915); Eureka Fire Hose Co. v. Eureka Rubber Mfg. Co., 69 N.J. Eq. 159, 60 A. 561 (1905), aff'd, 71 N.J. Eq. 300, 71 A. 1134 (1906); Knights of the Maccabees of the World v. Searle, 75 Neb. 285, 106 N.W. 448 (1905); Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Ohio Life Ins. Co., 188 N.E.2d 324 (Ohio C.P. 1961). The majority predicates its conclusion on the premise that equity will not act where there is an adequate remedy at law.

" Among the cases cited by the New Mexico court in support of its holding are these Prince Hall cases: Supreme Grand Lodge, Modern Free Accepted Colored Masons of World v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Free Accepted Masons, Jurisdiction of Georgia, 209 F.2d 156, cert. den. 347 U.S. 953, 98 L.Ed. 1099, 74 S.Ct. 679 (1954); Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Free Accepted Masons of Colorado Jurisdiction v. Most Worshipful Hiram Grand Lodge, Free Accepted Ancient York Masons of Colorado Jurisdiction, National Compact Prince Hall Origin, 85 Colo. 17, 273 P. 648 (1928).Prince Hall Grand Lodge F. A.M. of New York v. Supreme Council, 32 Misc.2d 390, 227 N.Y.S. 2d 841 (1962), is a recent trial court decision in which an injunction sought by a Prince Hall lodge to enjoin a fraternal organization from holding itself out and operating as "Masons" was granted.

The quoted words and terms are distinctive features of appellee; indeed, they are its most valuable assets. Consequently, appellee should be protected from any invasion of the right of exclusive use of them, also in the exclusive use of its insignia, symbols, emblems, etc., commonly used by it in the practice of Masonry. Supreme Grand Lodge, Modern Free and Accepted Colored Masons of World v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons, Jurisdiction of Georgia, 5 Cir., 209 F.2d 156, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 953, 74 S.Ct. 679, 98 L.Ed. 1099; National Circle, Daughters of Isabella v. National Order of Daughters of Isabella, 2 Cir., 270 F. 723, certiorari denied 255 U.S. 571, 41 S.Ct. 376, 65 L.Ed. 791; Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons of Colorado and Jurisdiction v. Most Worshipful Hiram Grand Lodge, Free and Accepted Ancient York Masons of Colorado and Jurisdiction, National Compact Prince Hall Origin, 85 Colo. 17, 273 P. 648; Talbot v. Independent Order of Owls, 8 Cir., 220 F. 660. We note the strife that once existed in one of appellee's subordinate lodges which resulted in some of its members being suspended by the Grand Master.

[1, 2] Further, assuming that the facts otherwise may so justify, the intervention of equity may properly be invoked only where substantial injury appears. It is true that there may be irreparable injury which is not pecuniary and that a sorority is entitled to an injunction against the use of emblems by those not entitled thereto which are likely to deceive or create confusion, even in the absence of specific statutory prohibitions. Grand Lodge v. Grand Lodge, 85 Colo. 17, 273 Pac. 648; Faisan v. Adair, 144 Ga. 797, 87 S.E. 1080. However, in the case before us, the badges are shown to have been sold only to members or chapters of the sororities properly entitled thereto, with no deceit or confusion so far as the sorority was concerned, and the badges are shown to have been of identical materials and design as those manufactured by the official jeweler, with no deceit or confusion insofar as the members were concerned. The bosom of the college swain and maiden can swell just as proudly beneath a badge manufactured by Blanchard as by Balfour, and the Greek of the motto be equally mysterious and unknown.

Consequently, said the court, a party first acquiring the right to the name should be protected from any invasion of the right of exclusive use of it, also in the exclusive use of insignia, symbols, emblems, etc. commonly used by it in the practice of Masonry. Many cases are cited in the opinion, including of particular application, Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge v. Most Worshipful Hiram Grand Lodge, 85 Colo. 17, 273 P. 648; Supreme Grand Lodge, Modern Free and Accepted Colored Masons of World v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons, Jurisdiction of Georgia, 5 Cir., 209 F.2d 156. There are other pertinent cases, two of which may be specially noted.