The facts in this case are substantially like those in the preceding case of The United Society v. Eagle Bank; and, of consequence, the result must be the same.

It was suggested at the bar, but not strongly pressed, that the plaintiffs are not a charitable society, within the meaning of the law. If this were so, it would form a fatal objection to their action. Their suit is founded on their being a charitable society, and by the charter of the defendants, authorized to subscribe for shares in the Eagle Bank, at their pleasure.

That they, however, are a charitable society, within the in-tendment of the law, admits not of a question. The trust as*478sumed by the plaintiffs, is, to receive donations for the support of a bishop; and if the promotion of public objects of utility is a charity, of which I entertain no doubt, a fortiori are donations to support an officer in the Episcopal church, essentia], in the opinion of that church, to their organization. The American Asylum v. The Phœnix Bank, 4 Conn. Rep. 172. Nor can it be controverted, that the trustees appointed to receive donations, in the fulfilment of their trust, are authorized to subscribe for shares in a bank, to secure the funds thus obtained, and render them productive.

But as the plaintiffs, by their subscription, became stockholders in the Eagle Bank, and part of the corporation; on the insolvency of this institution, their part of its capital, pledged to the creditors of the bank, they have no legal authority to withdraw.

I am, therefore, of opinion, that the issue be found for the defendants.

Judgment to be for defendants, (a)