58 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE. 
In other words, only those members were liable who authorized 
the exhibition with premiums or who later ratified the act of hold- 
ing such an exhibition. The other members were not liable. 
In a Michigan case 79 the members of a building committee of an 
unincorporated religious society ordered lumber of a lumber dealer ^ 
for the building of a church. A dispute arose, and the lumber dealer * 
brought suit against the members of the building committee and 
won. In holding the defendants liable, the court said : 
The church organization had no legal existence— it could neither sue nor be 
sued. The members of the society were not partners. Those of the society who 
were actually instrumental in incurring the liabilities for it are liable as either 
principals or agents having no legal principal behind them. Members of the 
society who either authorized or ratified the transaction are liable, while 
those who did not are exempt from liability. 
All the authorities apparently agree that if the debt or obligation 
in question was necessarily incurred for the express purpose for 
which the association was formed each member thereof is liable. In 
a South Dakota case 80 the following language was used with refer- 
ence to this matter : 
Each member of an unincorporated or voluntary association is liable for the 
debts thereof incurred during his period of membership and which had been 
necessarily contracted for the purpose of carrying out the objects for which 
the association was formed. 
Where an unincorporated association is organized and operated for 
profit the members are generally held liable as partners to third 
persons. This obligation is imposed by law on the members of such 
an association, and it is immaterial what the rules of the association 
provide on the subject of liability. 81 In a California case 82 suit was 
brought by the plaintiff against the defendant association, which 
was unincorporated, and certain of its members to recover the sale 
price of goods purchased by the association for use in its business. 
The association was composed of 19 members. The defendant recov- 
ered an individual judgment against two of the members of the 
association, and they appealed on the ground that they could not be 
held individually responsible for the claim of the plaintiff. In af- 
firming the judgment of the lower court the Court of Appeals of 
California said that the case came within the rule announced in 
volume 5, Corpus Juris, 1362, 1373, as follows : 
While, as between the members of an unincorporated association, each is 
bound to pay only his numerical proportion of the indebtedness of the concern, 
yet as agninst the creditors each member is individually liable for the entire 
79 Clark p. O'Rourke, 111 Mich. 108, 69 N. W. 147, 66 Amer. St. Rep. 389. 
80 Lynn v. Commercial Club of Wittcn, 41 S. D. 401, 141 N. W. 471 ; see also Little j 
Rock Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Kavanaugh, 111 Ark. 575, 164 S. W. 2S9 ; Schumacher v.. 
Sumner Tel. Co., 161 Iowa 326, 142 N. W. 1034. 
a Bennett r. Lathrop, 71 Conn. 313, 42 Atl. 634, 71 Am. St. R. 222. 
52 Webster r. San Joaquin Fruit, etc., Ass'n., 32 Cal. App. 264, 162 Fac. 654. 
