60 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
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 against the creditors each member is individually liable for the entire 
debt, provided, of course, the debt is of such a nature and has been so con- 
tracted as to be binding on the association as a whole * * *, An unin- 
corporated association organized for business or profit is in legal effect a mere 
partnership so far as the liability of its members to third persons is concerned, 
and accordingly each member is individually liable as a partner for a debt 
contracted by the association. 
It should be borne in mind that the association involved in this 
case was organized and operated for profit and was not a nonprofit 
association. This case illustrates one of the serious objections to 
unincorporated associations, and in turn emphasizes one of the great 
advantages of an incorporated association in which generally the 
members are not liable for the debts of the association. 
MONEY MUST BE USED FOR PURPOSE FURNISHED. 
In a New Jersey case *? it was said: 
“The vote must be for some purpose for which the money was contributed. 
A majority can not devote the money of the minority or even of a single member 
to any other purpose without his consent. 
The rule that money can be used only for the purpose for which 
contributed appears settled.s* In the West Virginia case just cited, 
a retail butchers’ protective association was organized with a consti- 
tution which specified the purposes for which money could be used. 
Through dues paid by the members a fund of $1,800 was accumu- 
lated. There were 24 members of the association. At a regular 
meeting 20 were present, and by a vote of 12 to 8 an order was passed 
to distribute all of the money in the treasury except $100 among the 
members. Certain of the members who opposed this use of the 
money obtained an injunction preventing the distribution of the 
money, and the Supreme Court of the State held that although a 
majority of the members present at the meeting had voted in favor of 
the distribution, yet it could not lawfully be diverted from the pur- 
pose for which contributed as set forth in the constitution. 
EXPULSION OF MEMBERS. 
Tt was pointed out earlier in this discussion on unincorporated asso- 
ciations that the rights of the members between themselves was a 
contractual one and that the constitution and by-laws, or either of 
them, constituted a contract between the members. It follows from 
this fact that if the constitution or by-laws assented to by the mem- 
bers state causes for expulsion from the association, ordinarily the 
Abels v. McKeen, 18 N. J. Eq. 462. 
83 Kalbitzer v. Goodhue, 52 W. Va. 435, 44 S. E. 264. 
