FRIENDLY SOCIETIES NOT REGISTERED. 139
Where a bill had been filed against the trustees of an
unregistered society to compel them to restore a portion of
its funds, which had been divided among the members in
pursuance of a vote of the majority, Lord Eldon said,
“ The society can be considered in this court only as a
partnership, and neither has nor can have a corporate
character. The plaintiffs, suing on behalf of themselves
and all the other members, have no right to come upon the
defendants (the trustees) without bringing in the other
forty-seven members (who had shared in the division)
Beaumont v. Meredith, 3 Y. & B. 180.
So, at common law, such a society had no corporate
existence; but in a case where the treasurer of a society
sued upon a bond, given to him as such, which was a good
bond at common law to him as an individual, it ivas held
that he was entitled to recover : Jones v. IVoollam 5 B. &
Aid. 769.
So again, in criminal proceedings, until recently a
member of such a society could not be prosecuted for
embezzling its funds, being himself a partner; but this is
partnership one member can bind the rest; in a club or voluntary
society, not for trading purposes, which by its rules does not
contemplate the incurring debt, the committee cannot pledge
the credit of the other members : Flemyng v. Hector, 2 M. & W.
W2; Todd v. Truly, 7 M. & W. 427; lie St. James’s Club, 16
•lur. 1075. It is presumed that, in general, this rule would apply
a friendly society. (See, however, Cockerell v. Aucompte, 2
B. (n.s.) 440.) In a registered friendly society, as it is
i oE lesa ly provided by section 8 of the Friendly Societies Act,
1875, that the contributions of members are voluntary, no lia-
oihty can attach to the members. The case of a mutual life
Assurance society has been recently considered by the courts;
111 Be the Albion Life Assurance Society the members insured
Y e f e . m accordance with the established practice under former
Acts (see 7 & 8 Viet. c. 110; Stevens v. Security Mutual Assur
ance, 28 L. T. 250), placed on the list of contributories by Fry,
• (L. R., 12 Ch. Div. 239); but in a more recent case in the Court
ot Appeal (Re the• Great Britain Mutual Life Assurance Society),
Was remarked by James, L. J.: “ In my judgment an associa
tion of this kind is incapable of contracting any debt or liability
9k \^ eVer ‘ It is a mere benefit society” (Law Rep. 16 Ch. Div.
