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  liaoihty
  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  Assurance, ­
  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  association ­
  of  this  kind  is  incapable  of  contracting  any  debt  or  liability
9k  \^ eVer ‘  It  is  a  mere  benefit  society”  (Law  Rep.  16  Ch.  Div.