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:
