
    *State, on the relation of N. Sharp, v. Trustees of Original Surveyed Township 4, Range 3, Warren County.
    Where the claims of a religious society for a dividend of section 29 have been erroneously rejected, and the proceeds divided among others, for the proper year, such claim can not he charged upon the proceeds of a subsequent year.
    This cause came before the Supreme Court of Warren county mpon the-return of the trustees of' township 4, in range 8, to a 
      mandamus, nisi, awarded against them by the Supreme Court at their term in the year 1824, and was adjourned for decision to this court.
    The society of Shakers, denominated “ United Society of Union Village,” are inhabitants of township 4, in range 3, of Warren county. In this township section 29 is set apart for ministerial purposes. The trustees of the town had refused to distribute any dividend of the proceeds to the society; and, at the May Term of the Supreme Court, in Warren county, a rule was made upon the defendants to show cause, at the next term, why a mandamus should not be awarded, commanding them to divide the proceeds of the section so as to allow a dividend to the society.
    The defendants, in obedience to the rule, appeared at the May Term of the court, 1824, and showed cause.
    Several exceptions were taken to the proceedings; and, among others, the following: that whether the applicants were or were not a religious society, entitled to a dividend of the ministerial section, was a question only triable by jury. This, and all the other causes shown, were adjudged insufficient, and a mandamus, nisi, awarded, requiring the trustees to receive the accounts and' claims of the society for the years 1820 and 1823, and give the agent an order on the treasury for the dividend due, according to the number of members of the society, or show cause to the contrary, at the1 next term.
    To this mandamus, the acting trustees made a return, that their predecessors in office, for the years 1820 and 1823, considering that the society were not entitled to any portion of the rents, had actually divided and paid out to other societies, all the moneys received for those years, so that nothing of the proceeds of those years remained in the treasury, upon which orders could be drawn. Whether this return was sufficient, was the question for decision.
    ^Hammond, for the society.
    Dunlavt, for the trustees.
   By the Court:

The fourteenth section of the act of February 6,1810, to incorporate the original surveyed township, under which the right is claimed, provides, that the “trustees shall pay to the agent of each society an equal dividend of the rent, according to their numbers, within three months after it is received.”

The trustees for the time being, acting under this law, decided the claimants were not entitled, and divided the money within the time prescribed to those whom they adjudged entitled to receive it. It is, therefore, not subject to the order of the present trustees. The order required, if given upon the specific fund, would be unavailing. And we do not conceive that a general order to be paid out of any moneys in the treasury, can be given under the law. The proceeds of each year are specifically appropriated to each society, according to the number of its members for that year. There are different owners of the rents of each separate year, and if injustice be done in making one dividend, it can not be corrected, in a subsequent one, without injustice. We have no doubt but that the Union Society were entitled; a dividend ought to have been made to them, but it was not done. The fund was distributed to others, who are not before the court. Neither are those who made that distribution. The persons entitled to the funds now in the treasury, or that may come into it, are not parties to this proceeding, and a judgment affecting their rights can not properly be pronounced. The consequence of this decision may be the loss of the claimant’s rights. This, it is admitted, is a hardship; but it would be equally a hardship to make them safe at the expense of Others. The return is considered sufficient, and a peremptory mandamus can not be awarded.  