delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
This is an appeal from tbe judgment of tbe City Court of tbe City of East St. Louis, Illinois, in favor of John Gratz, as Receiver and Supervisor of International Chemical Workers Union, Local No. 21, A. F. of L., plaintiff, and against Chester Cozart, as defendant. Tbe action was originally instituted in tbe Justice-of-tbe-Peace Court to recover union dues in tbe sum of $2 per month for a period of four months.
Tbe action was instituted by tbe plaintiff on tbe theory that under tbe constitution of tbe International Chemical Workers Union, to which tbe defendant bound himself, tbe action of tbe president of tbe union taken pursuant to tbe constitution, appointing plaintiff as receiver and supervisor, entitled plaintiff to possession and control of tbe assets of tbe local union, and that since tbe plaintiff was entitled to possession and control of tbe assets of tbe local union, be was tbe proper party to maintain suit for recovery. Defendant contends in tbis Court that tbe suit should have been dismissed for tbe reason that plaintiff did not have tbe legal capacity to sue and that tbe suit should have *517been required to have been brought in all the names, however numerous, of the union.
The constitution of a voluntary unincorporated association of the type of the union before us, constitutes a contract between the members and the association, and governs their mutual rights and liabilities (Talton v. Behncke, 199 F.2d 471), and under the constitution and by-laws of the union, plaintiff had a contractual right to control and possession of the assets of the local union (State of North Dakota v. North Central Ass’n of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 23 F. Supp. 694, aff’d 99 F.2d 697). The constitution of the particular union to which defendant belonged affirms the right in the international president to appoint a receiver and supervisor of a local union. By that appointment plaintiff acquired a contractual right to possession and control of the assets of the local union. One of those assets was the right to recovery of debts owing the local union by defendant and others.
We distinguish the case before us from the situation which existed in O’Connell v. Lamb, 63 Ill. App. 652, where it was contended that the constitution of an organization empowered the plaintiffs to bring suit. That is an unenforcible provision, and the Court so held. The constitution of an unincorporated association, however, can validly determine the right to possession of assets as between the parties, and under the law of this State a person so entitled to possession of assets can take action to enforce his legal right by resorting to the Courts.
Since under the terms and provisions of the constitution of the union and the action of the international president taken pursuant thereto, the right to possession of the debt owing from defendant to the local union lay solely in the plaintiff, as receiver and supervisor of the local union, the action of the plaintiff was *518proper and he was a proper party to maintain suit for recovery of the debt.
The judgment of the City Court of the City of Bast St. Louis will, therefore, be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
SCHEINEMAN, P. J. and BARDENS, J., concur.