PER CURIAM:— "The parties to this action were all, prior to March 3, 1898, members of the Narada Theosophical Society of Tacoma, a branch of a national organization known as the Theosophical Society in America. This local branch was an independent body, controlling its own property and governing itself subject to the right of appeal to the executive committee of the national body upon any disputed questions arising between the members. The object of the present suit was to recover possession of certain property of the local society, the appointment of a receiver and other relief, the action being mainly based upon an alleged interference with the property rights of the plaintiffs as members of that Branch, and their rights as members in various respects. At the close of plaintiffs' case, on the evidence, a judgment of non-suit and dismissal was granted and the present appeal is from that order and judgment. We think the order was properly made. Section 18 of the By-Laws of the National Society is as follows: "The Executive Committee shall be the Court of final appeal in disputed questions arising between members or in and _between branches_." It is not pretended that any effort was made by the plaintiffs to have the questions involved in the present dispute determined by the committee mentioned in that section, and it is a well-established principle applicable to controversies like the present that until the members have exhausted their remedy within the society the Courts will not assume jurisdiction of the controversy. Oliver v. Hopkins, 10 N. E., 776; Lafond v. Deems, 81 N. Y., 507; Chamberlain v. Lincoln, 129 Mass., 70; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall, 679. Appellants seek to justify their failure to resort to the committee contemplated by section 18, supra, upon the ground that that section was in effect abolished by the action of the national convention at a meeting in Chicago in February, 1898, which practically adopted a new constitution. We think the argument advanced does not meet the objection. Plaintiffs are contending that the action of the national convention was invalid, and if they are right in that respect the constitution and by-laws of the old body are still in force. They have no standing if such is not the fact, and if it is, then the remedy provided by section 18 would appear to be ample. But it does not appear that any effort has been made to obtain within the Society a determination of the grievances, and even were it admitted that the effect of the action of the national convention was to abolish the old constitution, it in nowise follows that the by-laws theretofore adopted would also become ineffectual. Section 18, supra, having been adopted for the government of the national body and its branches, must be given effect until it is repealed either expressly or by necessary implication. So that we think the learned trial judge was right in concluding that the Court should not take jurisdiction of the case.