▁separate ▁from ▁its ▁members . ▁It ▁was ▁clearly ▁unnecessary ▁for ▁the ▁achiev ement ▁of ▁its ▁purpose ▁to ▁possess ▁those ▁characteristics . ▁The ▁first ▁pla int iff ▁consequ ently ▁lack ed ▁the ▁requ is ites ▁for ▁a ▁univers itas . ▁ ▁The ▁court ▁held ▁that ▁an ▁association ▁could ▁sue ▁on ▁beh alf ▁of ▁its ▁members ▁under ▁rule ▁ 1 4 ( 2 ) ▁only ▁if ▁there ▁existed ▁a ▁sufficient ▁ne x us ▁between ▁the ▁individual ▁members , ▁in ▁their ▁capac ities ▁as ▁members ▁of ▁the ▁association , ▁and ▁the ▁right ▁that ▁formed ▁the ▁subject - m atter ▁of ▁the ▁lit ig ation . ▁App lied ▁to ▁the ▁present ▁matter , ▁the ▁first ▁pla int iff ▁did ▁not ▁inst itute ▁the ▁present ▁proceed ings ▁to ▁protect ▁or ▁en force ▁an ▁interest ▁which ▁it ▁had ▁as ▁a ▁body ▁or ▁organisation ; ▁it ▁did ▁not ▁propose ▁to ▁en force ▁those ▁rights ▁of ▁its ▁members ▁which ▁they ▁possessed ▁by ▁reason ▁of ▁their ▁membership ▁of ▁the ▁association . ▁The ▁right ▁to ▁claim ▁dam ages ▁from ▁the ▁def endant ▁for ▁the ▁alleg ed ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁was ▁a ▁personal ▁right ; ▁it ▁v ested ▁in ▁each ▁member ▁of ▁the ▁association ▁individually . ▁ ▁The ▁pla int iffs , ▁in ▁dec iding ▁joint ly ▁to ▁purs ue ▁their ▁claims ▁against ▁the ▁def endant , ▁were ▁consequ ently ▁not ▁an ▁" associ ation " ▁of ▁persons ▁within ▁the ▁meaning ▁of ▁that ▁word . ▁Their ▁intention ▁was ▁rather , ▁having ▁regard ▁to ▁the ▁purpose ▁of ▁the ▁first ▁pla int iff ▁and ▁the