Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge v. Most Worshipful Universal Grand Lodge

Citations: 381 P.2d 130; 62 Wash. 2d 28; 137 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 681; 1963 Wash. LEXIS 297Docket: 36081

Court: Washington Supreme Court; April 25, 1963; Washington; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington and its Jurisdiction (respondents) filed separate actions to enjoin the Most Worshipful Universal Grand Lodge and the Most Worshipful John A. Bell Grand Lodge (appellants) from operating as Masonic lodges within Washington. Both parties claim to be colored Masonic lodges. The cases were consolidated for trial and appeal, resulting in judgments against the appellants. The trial lasted eight days, with extensive evidence presented, including 70 exhibits and 567 pages of witness testimony concerning the Masonic backgrounds of the parties. The trial court issued 26 findings of fact and 8 conclusions of law, ultimately ruling to permanently enjoin the appellants from establishing lodges or using specific Masonic identifiers. The appellants raised 20 assignments of error on appeal, focusing on 13 related to the trial court's findings about the origins of the lodges, arguing that such issues were irrelevant to the case, referencing a precedent where the origins were not deemed necessary to determine the legitimacy of clandestine lodges.

Appellants assert that respondents did not prove that their Masonic origins were legitimate under Masonic law, while maintaining that their own origins were legitimate. The court found substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings, which cannot be retried in the presence of such evidence, as established in Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc. Respondents trace their lineage to African Lodge No. 459, founded in Massachusetts in 1784, identified by the trial court as the legitimate source of Freemasonry among African Americans in the U.S. Historical context is provided, noting that Freemasonry's origins are ancient, with ties to the builders of Solomon's Temple. The order has a documented history dating back to the Fourteenth Century, with the establishment of the premier Grand Lodge of England in 1717 marking the beginning of organized lodges. Prince Hall, the first African American Master Mason, was initiated in 1775 but faced racial discrimination when seeking a charter. In 1784, he and his associates received a charter from the Grand Lodge of England, establishing African Lodge No. 459. This lodge later claimed jurisdiction across the U.S. and evolved into the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, with many lodges formed in honor of Hall. These historical accounts are corroborated by various judicial opinions.

Evidence shows that the Prince Hall Grand Lodge has a historical presence in Washington as an unincorporated association since 1903, with roots tracing back to 1889. It was first incorporated in 1906, underwent name changes in 1907 and 1944, and is recognized as a legitimate Masonic lodge linked to the original colored Masonic lodge in America, African Lodge No. 459. In contrast, appellants John A. Bell Grand Lodge and Universal Grand Lodge were established in 1945 and 1947, respectively, but lack legitimate Masonic ancestry.

The trial court found that the Prince Hall Grand Lodge operates 12 subordinate lodges with nearly 800 members and holds approximately $100,000 in assets. The appellants were determined to have falsely represented themselves as legitimate Masonic organizations, misleading potential members by using nearly identical rituals, symbols, and insignia, thereby causing confusion and detriment to the respondent.

The court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, affirming previous rulings that have addressed unfair competition in the use of trade names. While the parties are not engaged in commercial business, the principles governing confusion in organizational names apply, granting relief to established fraternal organizations when faced with deceptive naming by others.

The excerpt addresses the legal principles surrounding unfair competition, particularly in cases involving organizations misrepresenting themselves to the public. It highlights a case where the Kentucky Prince Hall Grand Lodge successfully obtained an injunction against a competing lodge that falsely claimed to be a Masonic lodge and used its rituals. The Kentucky Supreme Court emphasized that the terms "Free and Accepted Masons" and "Masons" are crucial identifiers and valuable assets of the Prince Hall Lodge, deserving protection from misuse that could confuse the public.

The New Mexico court also affirmed an injunction against similar misrepresentations, stating that the use of terms like "Mason" by a competing lodge created significant confusion and misled individuals about which organization they were joining. The excerpt cites several relevant cases that support these findings, including instances where courts declined to grant injunctions due to both parties being classified as "clandestine" Masonic lodges or lacking legitimate claims to Masonic ancestry. In such cases, the courts concluded that no exclusive rights could be granted to either party. The overall theme underscores the importance of protecting distinctive names, symbols, and identifiers within Masonic organizations to prevent public deception.

In Taylor v. Austin, 221 S.W. 2d 933 (Tex. Civ. App. 1949), the court denied an injunction based on precedents including a significant case regarding unfair competition among fraternal organizations, Grand Lodge of Improved, Benevolent, Protective Order of Elks of the World v. Grand Lodge, Improved, Benevolent, Protective Order of Elks of the World, Inc., 50 F. 2d 860 (1931). This case involved a schism within a colored fraternal organization that led to the creation of a rival group with a similar name. The court emphasized that established fraternal organizations are entitled to protect their names from misleading use by others, affirming the original organization's rights to its name and the associated benefits built over 25 years. The court ruled that dissatisfied members could form a new organization but could not misrepresent themselves as part of the original. Such actions would constitute fraud and unfair competition. Additionally, the trial court found that the appellants violated RCW 9.37.050 regarding fraudulent use of a secret society's name, as the established Masonic grand lodge had existed over five years prior to the appellants' formation. The appellants' claim of reciprocal violation was dismissed since the statute was enacted after the respondents' lodge was established. The trial court's injunction was upheld unless the appellants' defenses had merit.

Appellants claim that respondents are barred from their actions due to laches, arguing that respondents were aware of appellants' grand lodges since 1948 but did not initiate legal action until 1959. For laches to apply, there must be a significant delay and a change in circumstances that would make enforcement inequitable, as established in previous case law. Respondents actively campaigned against appellants by promoting the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masons through extensive advertising, leading to a loss of members from appellants' lodges and the dissolution of one lodge. Despite this, appellants did not disband their lodges and eventually pursued legal action. The trial court noted that initiating a lawsuit is not the sole means of expressing opposition to unfair competition, and therefore, the defense of laches was not substantiated. 

Additionally, appellants' argument that the claims are barred by the three-year statute of limitations for fraud (RCW 4.16.080) is rejected. The court clarified that this statute pertains specifically to parties attempting to void contracts induced by fraud, not to cases of unfair competition. The court has consistently held that the statute applies only when fraud is the primary issue directly affecting the complainant, which is not the case here. The suit centers on unfair competition, and since respondents are not seeking damages for past injuries but aim to enjoin ongoing wrongful conduct, the statute of limitations does not apply.

Appellants argue that respondents should be denied relief due to a lack of 'clean hands,' asserting that respondents violated Masonic law by establishing their grand lodge after the white grand lodge had existed in Washington. The court clarifies that it is not bound by Masonic law and notes that both Negro and white grand lodges have coexisted in the same state without conflict. The trial court found no merit in the appellants' argument regarding the prior existence of the white grand lodge affecting respondents' claims. Additionally, the trial court's admission of Masonic history books as evidence, despite hearsay objections, was justified since they were foundational and relevant to the legitimacy of colored Masonry and Prince Hall lodges. The court upheld the exclusion of a specific book offered by appellants due to a lack of qualification of its author as an expert. Lastly, the trial court's decision not to retax costs related to a deposition taken for trial preparation was affirmed, referencing prior case law that supported this ruling. The deposition of a now-deceased defendant was partially used as evidence by both parties.

Taxability of deposition expenses hinges on their purpose rather than their trial use; however, this does not favor the appellants. According to Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 26(d.2), a deposition can be utilized by an opposing party for any purpose, and since it was admitted as evidence, it is presumed to have been taken for such use. Therefore, the trial court did not err in taxing these expenses. 

Regarding cost allocation, appellants argue that costs associated with another deposition and two items should be split between Universal Grand Lodge and John A. Bell Grand Lodge, rather than charged separately to each. The court addressed this concern by ruling that respondents could only recover these costs once, preventing double collection. Appellants reference Van Nostern v. Richey, where a successful defendant was allowed to recover half of appellate costs. However, the court finds that this does not necessitate apportioning trial costs among defendants in a consolidated case where no defendant prevails.

Additionally, historical context reveals two Masonic fraternities existed in the U.S., one white and one Black. Prince Hall lodges have a legitimate claim to Masonic membership, supported by the original charter from 1784. While forming a charitable organization is commendable, appellants cannot adopt the name of an established order without consent. The court underscores the importance of a name and reputation in State ex rel. LaFollette v. Hinkle, asserting that exclusive use of a name is a valuable right. Many members of appellants' lodges believed they were joining a legitimate Masonic organization, leading to resignations following the respondents' public clarification of their legitimacy as the only recognized Negro Masonic grand lodge in Washington.

The two decrees under appeal are affirmed, as ordered by Chief Justice OTT with Justices FINLEY, HUNTER, and HAMILTON concurring. A petition for rehearing has been denied as of June 12, 1963. The trial court's decree prohibits the appellants from establishing or operating Masonic lodges or using related terminology and symbols within Washington State. Specifically, they are barred from using names such as "Ancient Free and Accepted Masons," "Masonic Lodge," or any similar terms, as well as from representing themselves as Masons or employing Masonic rituals and insignia. A relevant case, Prince Hall Grand Lodge F. A.M. of New York v. Supreme Council, established a precedent where an injunction was granted against a fraternal organization misrepresenting itself as Masons. Additionally, a memorandum decision from Connecticut supports this ruling. For further insights on the principal issues, reference is made to 76 A.L.R. 2d 1399. The costs for certified copies from the King County Auditor and the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven, Connecticut, are noted. The case also references testimony from former Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice George E. Bushnell, affirming that the Prince Hall Lodge possesses the only charter originally granted by the Grand Lodge of England.