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  association, ­
  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  plaintiffs, ­
  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  empowered ­
  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  associations, ­
  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,  however, ­
  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.