APPENDIX  OP  CASES.

231

company  previous  to  the  registration.”  The  case  of  Garnett ­
  v.  Moseley  Gold  Mining  Company,  in  the  Exchequer-Chamber,
  had  no  application  to  the  case  of  contribution.
On  what  was  the  notion  of  contribution  founded  ?  According ­
  to  the  rules  of  partnership.  But  that  contract  of  partnership ­
  as  it  existed,  and  with  respect  to  which  only  the
court  had  power  to  enforce  contribution,  was  one  which
excluded  all  liability  to  contribute,  because  the  parties  had
paid  to  the  full  amount  of  their  shares.  It  was  not  necessary ­
  to  consider  what  were  the  rights  of  the  creditors,  but
only  whether  where  a  company  was  a  limited  partnership,,
and  had  become  the  subject  of  a  winding-up  order,  the
members  of  that  company,  who,  on  the  principle  of  limited
partnership  had  nothing  to  contribute,  must  contribute  in
respect  of  the  rights  of  creditors  who  might  have  claims
against  the  company.  At  the  time  when  the  winding-up
order  was  made,  his  Lordship  thought  he  had  no  such
power.  There  might  be  some  failure  of  justice,  but  that
would  not  warrant  a  construction  that  would  have  the  effect
of  adding  a  new  clause  to  the  Act  of  1862.  It  appeared  to
him  that  these  two  gentlemen  were  not  liable.  The  official
liquidator  must  pay  the  respondents’  costs,  and  have  his
costs  out  of  the  estate.

N.
Note  to  Section  16,  Sub-section  7,  op  the  Friendly
Societies  Act,  1875,  and  Section  12,  Sub-section  8,
op  the  Industrial  and  Provident  Societies  Act,
1876.
These  sub-sections  are  similar  to  sect.  42  of  the  Building
Societies  Act,  1874,  which  is  a  re-enactment  of  sect.  5  of
the  Benefit  Building  Societies  Act,  1836  (6  &  7  Will,  4,
c.  32),  and  has  recently  received  judicial  interpretation  from
Sir  George  Jbssel,  M.  R.,  in  the  case  of  the  Fourth  City
Mutual  Building  Society  v.  Williams  (Law  Rep.  14  Ch.  Div.
140).  This  case  shows  very  clearly  the  advantage  a  society
possesses  in  being  able,  by  a  mere  receipt,  to  discharge
itself  from  all  responsibility  of  inquiring  to  whom  the  legal
estate  ought  to  be  conveyed.  See  Repiort  of  Chief  Registrar
of  Friendly  Societies  for  1879,  pp.  28,  29.