1866. WRIGHT V. DEELEY. money sought to be recovered in this action. The said monies, however, were actually payable to the said members at the time this action was brought, but no particular sums of money were specifically set apart for such pay ments. The sum of 2001. appropriated to Mr. Deeley has been, ever since the appropriation, at the Society's bankers ready to be paid by the Society to him. The sum of 2001. appropriated to Mr. Wood was duly paid by the Society under such appropriation on the 10th of October, 1865. At the time of the commencement of this action the Society had at their bankers the sum of 2541. 18s. 10d., which includes the 2007. appropriated to Mr. Deeley as aforesaid. The matters in dispute in this action have not been referred to arbitration under the 15th rule (a). The defendants and the board of management have always been ready and willing to submit them to arbitration. The Society called the plaintiff's attention to the 15th rule on the 24th June, 1865. This action was commenced on the 26th of June, 1865, and at that time arbitrators had been appointed. The plaintiff, before action, applied to the Society for the amount of his claim, but they refused to pay the same upon the alleged ground that they had, under the circumstances, no money in hand applicable to the payment of such claim (6). J. Brown (Digby with him), for the plaintiff.-This action is maintainable. This Society is established under (a) Ante, p. 211. (b) The Court, being satisfied that the defendants were entitled to judgment on the plea, gave no judgment upon the special case, and therefore the questions for their opinion are omitted. the 6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 32, intituled "An Act for the regula- (a) Ante, p. 210. (b) Rule 3.-"Board of Management, &c.-That the business of this Society shall be conducted and managed by three trustees, seven directors and a treasurer, (c) 1 Exch. 494. 1866. WRIGHT v. DEELEY. 1866. WRIGHT v. DEELEY. the construction of the rules of the Society, or any of the clauses, matters, or things therein contained, and also of any additions, alterations or amendments which should or might thereafter arise between the trustees, officers, and other members of the said Society; and this Court held that the trustees were not precluded from suing a member for the amount of his subscriptions and fines. [Channell, B. The substance of that decision is that an agreement to refer does not oust the jurisdiction of the superior Courts where there is an express covenant by another instrument.] The plaintiff's claim is not a dispute between the board and a member of the Society, for the plaintiff ceased to be a member before the dispute arose. In Morrison v. Glover (a) it was held that as some part of the plaintiff's claim was not a matter in dispute between the Society and the defendant as member, but only as mortgagor, the Society was not bound by its rule to refer to arbitration the subject-matter of the action. Farmer v. Giles (b) is an authority to the same effect. A claim by an administrator on a policy of life assurance granted to the intestate by a friendly Society is not within the rule which requires disputes between the Society and a member, or a person claiming on account of a member, to be referred to arbitration: Kelsall v. Tyler (c). Secondly, assuming that the plaintiff's claim is a dispute within the terms of the rule, the plaintiff is not bound by it, because it does not comply with the requisitions of the 27th section of the 10 Geo. 4, c. 56. That section requires matters in dispute to be referred to justices or arbitrators, but the 14th rule refers them to the board of management or arbitrators. (a) 4 Exch. 430. (b) 5 H. & N. 753. (c) 11 Exch. 513. Eyre Lloyd appeared for the defendant, but was not called upon to argue.-He referred to Farmer v. Smith (a). MARTIN, B.-I am of opinion that the defendants are entitled to 'judgment. The declaration states that the defendants are trustees of a building Society, under certain rules enrolled pursuant to the 6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 32. The statute recites that "certain Societies, commonly called building Societies, have been established in different parts of the kingdom, principally amongst the industrious classes, for the purpose of raising, by small periodical subscriptions, a fund to assist the members thereof in obtaining a small freehold or leasehold property, and it is expedient to afford encouragement and protection to such Societies and the property obtained therewith." The statute then proceeds to enact that any number of persons may form themselves into Societies for the purpose of raising, by subscriptions of the members, shares not exceeding the value of 1507. each, a stock or fund for the purpose of enabling each member to receive the amount of his share to erect or purchase one or more dwelling houses. The statute then proceeds, by the 4th section, to incorporate the Friendly Societies Act, 10 Geo. 4, c. 56, and the provisions of the 4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 40, as to enrolment of rules. The rules of this Society form part of the case. There is nothing in them at variance with the provisions of these Acts, or the general law of the realm, and, in addition, they have been certified by the barrister appointed to certify the rules of these Societies. Therefore I apprehend these rules are binding on every member of the Society. The declaration proceeds to state (a) 4 H. & N. 196. 1866. WRIGHT v. DEELEY. 1866. WRIGHT v. DEELEY. that the defendants, as such trustees, are possessed of the monies and property of the Society; it then sets out the 18th rule, and avers that the plaintiff became a member of the Society, and paid a sum of money for subscriptions in respect of shares; that he gave notice of his intention to withdraw from the Society, and that all things happened and conditions were performed, and times elapsed, to entitle him to withdraw from the Society and have the amount of his shares, subject to certain deductions, yet he has not been allowed to withdraw from the said Society, and hath not been paid the amount of his shares. The first question is, whether any cause of action is shewn on the face of the declaration, and whether it is not bad upon demurrer. I think it is; though it is not necessary to decide that point, for I am clearly of opinion that the plea affords a complete defence to the action. The plea commences with a repetition of the statements in the declaration as to the defendants being a benefit building Society. It then sets out the 14th rule, which provides that the board of management shall determine all disputes which may arise respecting the construction of the rules, or of any of the clauses, matters or things therein contained, and in the event of their decision being unsatisfactory, the dispute is to be referred to arbitration in manner provided by the next rule. The facts are, that the plaintiff gave the defendants notice of his desire to withdraw from the Society, and, this withdrawal being assented to, it is conceded that he is entitled to receive back his subscriptions on shares, subject to certain deductions. But the defendants contend that they have a right to regulate the time when the money is to be paid, and that, as previous notices of withdrawal had been given by other members, they became entitled to |