28 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
Prior to the dissolution of an association, a member or stockholder 
of an association at common law has no interest therein that he can 
compel the association to recognize. Money paid by members of an 
association as membership dues, or fees, or for the purchase of stock, 
or money deducted by an association in pursuance of authority to 
do so from the returns received from the sale of products of members, 
for the purpose of establishing reserves, or for the acquisition of 
buildings, does not constitute debts due by the association to the mem- 
bers unless the association has previously agreed to return or pay 
back the amounts involved. 
At common law if a member resigns or is expelled from a non- 
stock association he is entitled to receive nothing therefrom because 
of this fact. In other words, in nonstock associations one who ceases 
to be a member from any cause, in the absence of express provisions 
to the contrary, loses his interest- in the corporation and in turn 
is free from any further liability. In a Florida case 36 certain mem- 
bers withdrew from a fruit-marketing association and then insti- 
tuted a suit against it to obtain compensation for " their interest " 
in the association. Apparently there was no provision, either statu- 
tory 3r or otherwise, with reference thereto. The court held that the 
members on withdrawing from the association lost all their rights 
therein and that all of the assets of the association could be used 
for the benefit of the remaining members and that nothing was due 
the members who had withdrawn. 
A clear distinction should be drawn between amounts claimed by 
a member under his contract with an association and amounts 
claimed by him by reason of his membership therein. In an Ore- 
gon easels an association that was engaged in growing apples was 
a member of a marketing association. The former association can- 
celed its membership in the latter and later brought suit against this 
association on its contract. The court said that: 
Under the terms and conditions of the contract, standing alone and com- 
plete within itself, the grower [association] is entitled to receive each year 
the balance of any net proceeds from an annual pool, within 30 days after the 
receipt of the money by the association, and it is the duty of the association 
to render an annual statement of the receipts and disbursements of each 
pool. The record is conclusive that such statement was never made and such 
accounting was never rendered to the plaintiff ; that, after paying the expenses 
of the association named in the contract, there is a surplus estimated to be 
about $80,000. 
The marketing association claimed that by reason of a by-law 
which provided that the cancellation of the standard contract shall 
" cancel and terminate the membership of such grower, together with 
all benefits accruing thereunder, and all voting power, right, aud 
interest of every kind and nature shall immediately cease and ter- 
minate," that it was entitled to retain the money in question and that 
the plaintiff was entitled to no part thereof. The court, however, 
held that the by-laws did not '* apply to a surplus accruing from 
the sale and purchase of fruit and charges therefor, under an express 
30 Clearwater Citrus Growers' Ass'n v. Andrews. — — Fla. , S7 So. 903 ; see also 
Union Benev. Soc. No. 8 v. Martin. 113 Ky. 25. 67 S. W. 3S ; Dade Coal Co. v. Peniten- 
tiary Co., 119 Ga. 824 : Henry v. Cos. 25 Ohio App. 487, 159 N. E. 101 ; Mo. Bottlers' 
Ass'n v. Fennerty, 81 Mo. App. 525, 5 C J. 1360, 19 R. C L. 1267. 
37 This was before the passage of the 1923 cooperative act of Florida, laws of 1923, 
ch. 142. 
88 Hood River Orchard Co. v. Stone, 97 Or. 158, 191 P 662, 666. 
f 
