APPENDIX  OP  CASES.

197

B.
Eote  to  Friendly  Societies  Act,  1875,  s.  13;  Industrial ­
  and  Provident  Societies  Act,  1876,  s.  9.
By  this  section  it  is  provided  that  no  amendment  of  a
Tule  shall  he  valid  until  it  has  been  registered.  This  is  in
conformity  with  the  law  as  previously  declared.
In  Battey  v.  Townrow,  4  Camp.  5,  it  was  held  that  an
action  could  not  be  maintained  by  the  trustees  of  a  friendly
■society  elected  under  new  regulations  agreed  to  by  the
members,  but  not  confirmed  according  to  the  statute.  Per
Lord  Ellenborough  (Easter  Term,  53  Geo.  3):—“The
plaintiffs  have  no  right  to  stand  here,  except  by  the  Act  of
Parliament,  and  the  Act  of  Parliament  gives  them  no  such
right,  unless  they  be  lawfully  elected  to  the  office  they  fill;
but  it  appears  they  were  elected  contrary  to  law.  The
section  (33  Geo.  3,  c.  54,  s.  3)  which  permits  an  alteration
of  rules  provides  that  such  alteration  shall  be  subject  to
the  review  of  the  justices,  and  shall  have  no  force  or  effect
until  confirmed  by  them.  I  cannot  look,  therefore,  at  the
rule  altering  the  mode  of  electing  the  stewards.  It  is  admitted ­
  that  the  plaintiffs  were  not  elected  according  to  the
original  rule;  therefore  they  are  not  the  legal  trustees  of
the  society  for  the  time  being,  and  the  effects  sought  to  be
recovered  never  vested  in  them.”
In  Beg.  v.  Godolphin,  8  A.  &  E.  338,  it  appeared  that  certain ­
  alterations  were  made  in  the  rules  of  a  friendly  society
■established  under  the  33  Geo.  3,  c.  54.  The  altered  rules,
however,  were  never  enrolled,  and  it  was  held  that  the
rules  as  altered  could  not  legally  be  acted  upon  ;  and  in
giving  judgment  Lord  Denman  said  it  would  be  well  if  it
were  generally  understood  that  these  societies  cannot  depart
Lom  their  established  rules,  or  neglect  to  comply  with  the
statute  in  the  mode  of  altering  or  repealing  them  without
•exposing  their  property  to  danger,  and  themselves  to  great
expense,  loss,  and  inconvenience.  A  doubt  was  also  entertained ­
  as  to  whether  the  original  rules  continued  in  force
even  for  the  purpose  of  holding  the  society  legal  under
the  statute,  in  consequence  of  the  case  of  Ex  parte  Norrish,
Jac.  162.
In  the  case  of  Beg.  v.  Gotton,  15  Q.  B.  569  ;  19  L.  J.
(n.s.)  Q.  B.  233,  where  the  rules  had  been  approved  accord-