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latter Act, as the previous Act is absolutely repealed by it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 bargained
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c. 40, are repealed by the 1st section of 25 and 26 Viet,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.
