218 
APPENDIX OP CASES. 
s, 27 ; held on motion for a mandamus to the judge of one 
of the county courts, to proceed and hear a plaint levied hy 
one of the members against an officer of the society, that the 
section of the Act and the rules providing for a cheap, 
simple, and speedy decision, ousted the jurisdiction of the 
ordinary courts. 
In 1Reeves v. White, 16 J. P. 118 ; 17 Q. B. 995, the court 
held that the summary remedy provided by the statute for 
the settlement of disputes by arbitration is conclusive, and 
ousts the jurisdiction of the superior courts. Per Lord 
Campbell, C. J., “Where there may be, there must be, a 
reference to the arbitrators.” 
In Armitage v. Walker, 2 Kay & J. 211, upon the con 
struction of the arbitration clause in the Benefit Building 
Societies Act of 1836, Wood, Y.C., held that neither a 
court of law nor equity had jurisdiction to alter the award 
of arbitrators or justices unless there was error upon the 
face of it, or it was shown to have been corruptly obtained. 
He said :—“ The legislature intended carefully to provide 
that these societies should not be dragged before courts of 
law or equity, if it could possibly be avoided, and has 
taken care to enact that the 'whole discussion of their 
affairs shall be disposed of in a cheap and summary manner 
by the decision of an arbitrator or justice as the parties 
.shall choose, and when they have once made their election, 
the power of the justice or of the arbitrator acting always 
within the rules of the society is complete, and is not sub 
ject to revision by any court of law or equity. That is the 
primary matter to which attention must be drawn, and it 
is necessary to be extremely careful that the jurisdiction of 
this court shall not be set up to control the arbitrators so 
selected, except upon a very clear and distinct case being 
made out of their abuse of their office.” See also Ex parte 
Long, 3 W. It. 18, and 11. v. Evans, 3 E. & B. 363. 
Where, however, the rules directed that the arbitrators 
should hear evidence on both sides, and their decision, 
binding on all parties, shall be final, and the arbitrators 
refused to hear the evidence of one side, it was held that 
their award was not made according to the rules, and there 
fore was not an award final and binding within 10 Geo. 4, 
•c. 56, s. 27. Per Lord Denman, C. J., in B. v. Grant, 
14 Q. B. 43. 
In Trott v. Hughes, 16 L. T. 260, a bill was filed on 
behalf of some of the members of the “ Second Borough of 
.Southwark Benefit Building and Investment Association,”