the scale towarc 
APPENDIX OP CASES. 
219 
1 
S; l 
: ~"t the directors and a portion of the shareholders 
:: concurred in the acts complained of. The plaintiffs 
x-; d that, being dissatisfied with the management, they 
j; n pursuance of the provisions of their deed of associ- 
: - given a month’s notice of their intention to withdraw 
r ■ ;lie society, and that the directors had denied their 
so to withdraw. The plaintiffs thereupon filed their 
o recover their subscriptions, and by the present 
:_u sought to restrain the directors from transferring or 
: priating the funds of the society at the bankers. The 
-; lants contended that the proper course for the plain- 
:; f dissatisfied with the conduct of the directors, was, 
s ling to the rules of the society, to appeal to arbitrators 
- - elected at a meeting for that purpose, and if that step 
produce a satisfactory result, they were then em- 
.'od to apply to two justices of the peace, whose 
on would be final. Cranworth, V.-C., said that the 
:--ras one in which the regulations of the society, and 
:: tovisions of the legislature with regard to such associ- 
»:; permitted the members, in the event of a dispute 
g, to bring the case before the directors for their 
: - 011 j and if that should be unsatisfactory, to appeal to 
ators, and ultimately to carry the case before two 
:; trates for their determination. The plaintiffs, how- 
’; had thought proper to apply to the court to put a 
: _ ruction on their rules, instead of adopting those means 
*:-Tress which were clearly pointed out by the rules 
: selves. He was of opinion that there was no necessity 
:! ie interference of the court, and refused the motion 
|i; costs. 
Grinhamv. Card, 7 Excli. 883, a dispute arose between 
f the members of the committee of a friendly society 
s : ; lie trustees touching the distribution of a fund in the 
:-„ s_of the latter, and by one of the rules it was ordered 
: j Jisputes were to be referred to such members of the 
pttee as should not he personally interested in the, 
.. t ; and it was held that the judge of the county court 
:: lo jurisdiction in such case according to the rule of the 
f: i y> which provided for the reference to the committee, 
;hen to private arbitration, of all disputes, and the 
:; ion now raised was, whether this particular dispute 
- ■ me which could have been the subject of a suit in 
y. The court restrained the judge of the county court 
k hearing the cause, on the ground that the dispute 
:: ^ne which ought to have been referred under the 
f: i rule. 
*: l 2 
i: