22G 
APPENDIX OF CASES. 
K. 
Note to Section 5 of the Industrial and Provident 
Societies Act, 1876. 
Touthill and another v. Douglas and others, 33 L. J. Q. B. 
66.—Industrial and Provident Society; action; 15 & 16 
Viet. c. 31; 25 <$• 26 Viet. c. 87; liability of trustees. 
The trustees of a provident society formed under 15 <£• 16 
Viet. c. 31, but not registered under 25 4' 26 Viet. c. 87, 
cannot be sued in an action commenced after the passing of the 
latter Act, as the previous Act is absolutely repealed by it 
without any saving clause. 
Declaration dated the 30tli of December, 1862, that the 
plaintiffs sue James Douglas, John Baines, and Bobert 
Waterwath, as trustees of “ The York City and District 
Provident and Industrial Hour Mill Society,” according to 
the statutes in such case made and provided, for money 
payable by the said society to the plaintiffs for goods bar 
gained anti sold and sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to 
the society, and for money found to be due by the society 
to the plaintiffs on account stated between the plaintiffs 
and the society. 
Demurrer and rejoinder. 
Kemplay, for the defendants.—This was not an action 
pending at the passing, on the 7th of August, 1862, of “The 
Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1862,” 25 & 26 
Yict. c. 87, and though the society was registered under 
the original Act of 1852, 15 & 16 Viet. c. 31, that Act and 
the amending Acts 17 & 18 Viet. c. 25, and 19 & 20 Viet, 
c. 40, are repealed by the 1st section of 25 and 26 Viet, 
c. 87, from the passing of that Act. So that although 
under sect. 2 of 17 & 18 Viet. c. 25, the society’s officers 
might and ought to have been sued (Burton v. Tannahill), 
on the passing of the Act of 1862 the society ceased to be a 
statutable society and became a mere partnership until 
registered under that Act, and so continues: the action 
ought to have been brought against all the members. 
Upon the repeal of the first two Acts, all the statutable 
machinery was gone.