APPENDIX OF OASES. 
210 
against the directors and a portion of the shareholders 
who concurred in the acts complained of. The plaintiffs 
alleged that, being dissatisfied with the management, they 
had, in pursuance of the provisions of their deed of associ 
ation, given a month’s notice of their intention to withdraw 
from the society, and that the directors had denied their 
right so to withdraw. The plaintiffs thereupon filed their 
bill to recover their subscriptions, and by the present 
motion sought to restrain the directors from transferring or 
appropriating the funds of the society at the bankers. The 
defendants contended that the proper course for the plain 
tiffs, if dissatisfied with the conduct of the directors, was, 
according to the rules of the society, to appeal to arbitrators 
duly elected at a meeting for that purpose, and if that step 
■did not produce a satisfactory result, they were then em 
powered to apply to two justices of the peace, whose 
decision would be final. Cbaxworth, V.-C., said that the 
case was one in which the regulations of the society, and 
the provisions of the legislature with regard to such associ 
ations, permitted the members, in the event of a dispute 
arising, to bring the case before the directors for their 
decision ; and if that should be unsatisfactory, to appeal to 
arbitrators, and ultimately to carry the case before two 
magistrates for their determination. The plaintiffs, how 
ever, had thought proper to apply to the court to put a 
construction on their rules, instead of adopting those means 
of redress which were clearly pointed out by the rules 
themselves. He was of opinion that there was no necessity 
for the interference of the court, and refused the motion 
with costs. 
In Grinham v. Card, 7 Exeh. 883, a dispute arose between 
two of the members of the committee of a friendly society 
and the trustees touching the distribution of a fund in the 
hands of the latter, and by one of the rules it was ordered 
that disputes were to be referred to such members of the 
committee as should not be personally interested in the 
matter ; and it was held that the judge of the county court 
had no jurisdiction in such case according to the rule of the 
society, which provided for the reference to the committee, 
and then to private arbitration, of all disputes, and the 
question now raised was, whether this particular dispute 
was one which could have been the subject of a suit in 
equity. The court restrained the judge of the county court 
from hearing the cause, on the ground that the dispute 
ivas one which ought to have been referred under the 
above rule.