Attorney General at the Relation of Benjamin Mander, and the Reverend John Steward, Informant, and the said Benjamin Mander and John Steward, Plaintiff, and Joseph Pearson, Joseph Stanley, Joseph Baker, Thomas Williams, Benjamin Stanley, and Abel Whitehouse, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 1817 |
| Date | 17 July 1817 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 36 E.R. 135
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Att.-Gen v. St. John's Hospital, Bath. 1876, 2 Ch. D. 565; Att.-Gen. v. Bunce, 1868, L. R. Eq. 571; R. v. Ramsay, 1883, 48 L. T. 738; Att.-Gen. v. Anderson, 1888, 57 L. J. Ch. 549.
[353] The attoiinky (juneual. at the Relation of bknjajhx mandek. and the Reverend john steward, Informant, arid the said bknjamix manoeh and john steward, Plaintiffs, and joseph pearson, joskph stanley, joseph baker. thomas williams. benjamin stanley, and abel wihtehouse. Ueff.ndo.nts. July 14-17, US 17. [See Att.-Lfen. v tit. John's Hospital. Bath. 187ii, 'J Ch. D. 505 ; Alt.-Gen. v. Bun.ce, 1868, L. R. G Eq. 371; R, v. Ramsay, 1883, 48 L. T. 738; Att.-Gen. v. Anderson, 1888, 57 L. J. Ch. 54'J.] Information and Bill to quiet the possession of the Relaters and Plaintiffs (one claiming as the surviving Trustee, the other as Minister, of a. protestunt dissenting meeting-house) ; for an appointment of new Trustees ; and an injunction to 136 ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. PEARSON 3 MEB. 354. stay proceedings in ejectment by the Defendants, claiming also to be Trustees of the meeting-house. Upon motion for an injunction, it appearing that the meeting-house was erected in the year 1701, under a trust-deed, whereby the purpose was declared to be " for the worship and service of God " ; the Plaintiffs and Relators contending, from the purpose so expressed, that the intention was for promoting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and that the trust could not be diverted from the purpose for which it was intended; the defendants insisting that the intention was as general as the purpose expressed, and had no regard to any particular tenets ; it being also made a question, whether a trust for support ing Unitarian worship is legal and can be supported; and it being further disputed who, according to the true construction of the deed, were entitled, as Trustees, to the possession ; and whether the Minister of a dissenting congregation, elected for a limited period, is afterwards removable at pleasure ; and also as to the construction of the deed, and as to an alleged agreement or understanding between the parties, with regard to such removal : the injunction was granted (upon, the parties undertaking to abide by such order as the Court should thereafter make), and it was referred to the Master to inquire in whom the legal estate was vested, the particular object (with respect to worship and doctrine) for which the trust was created, the usage of protestant dissenters as to the election of Ministers, and the duration of their office, and whether any agreement or understanding relative thereto subsisted between the parties. The Information and Bill, filed on the 1st of February 18 17, stated that about 150 years ago, a meeting-house, or place of worship for Protestant Dis-[354]-ser ters from the established church, was erected in John-street, Wolverliampton ; and, as well at the time of erecting the same, as from time to time since, various grants and pecuniary bequests and other endowments had been made thereto by different persons, for the purposes of supporting a Minister, and of defraying the expenses of repairing and maintaining the same, and for other purposes of a like nature. That the said meeting-house, together with an adjoining building, which was used as a school-room and as a vestry for transacting the secular affairs of the congrega tion, and. together with a dwelling-house, also adjoining, which had for many years past been used as the residence of the Minister for the time being officiating in the said meeting-house, was originally vested in the names of Trustees for the purposes aforesaid, and declarations of trust thereof were duly executed by such Trustees ; and, as such Trustees had from time to time died, or become incapable to act in the trusts, new Trustees had been nominated and appointed, and the said meeting house and premises had [355] been, by proper conveyances from the surviving or continuing Trustees, conveyed to and vested in such surviving or continuing Trustees and the new Trustees jointly, upon the trusts aforesaid, and the rents and profits, &c., from time to time paid to the Trustees, or to the Minister for the time being, and by them applied to the purposes for which the same were so given. That, in the year 177C , the Plaintiff, Mander (with other persons since deceased), was duly nominated and appointed to be a Trustee jointly with the then surviving or con tinuing Trustees, and the trust premises were by proper deeds conveyed to and vested in them, jointly with the continuing or surviving Trustees, and the same were then become vested in Mander solely by right of survivorship. That the meeting-house was originally built by protestant dissenters, professing Tritii- tarianisni, and for many years such principles were professed by the subscribers and congregation assembling therein, and the said several funds and endowments were by the trusts thereof declared, or by the intentions of the donors directed, to be expended (and were accordingly for many years laid out) in maintaining and promoting a belief in the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, and the Ministers from time to time officiating in the said meeting-house were Trinitarians ; but, in the year 1782, a division in opinion arose between the then Trustees (about ten in number) and the subscribers, us to who should succeed to the then vacant office of minister, and The Reverend Jameson was thereupon elected by a con siderable majority of the Trustees and subscribers, and was duly invited to preside over the congregation ; but the minority of the then acting Trustees and Subscribers obtained possession of the meeting-house and premises, and entirely excluded Jameson therefrom, and proceeded to elect and call The Rcvrrond Samuel Griffiths II MEK. 356. ATTORNEY-OKNKRAI, 7'. PEARSON' to the, office of minister, which cull was accepted by him, and he [356] officiated therein for several years, during which time lie received the profits and emoluments of the office arising out of the said grants and endowments, although he never preached, nor professed to believe, the doctrines, for the maintenance of which the meeting-house was originally built and the said grants and endowments made ; and ever since tliat time the trust premises had been appropriated to support and teach doctrines wholly opposed to those of the original founders, and contrary to the original trusts or intentions of the institution. That, since, Mande.r was appointed a Trustee, there had been no regular nomination of Trustees, but various persons had from time to time intruded themselves, without being properly elected, or having the premises duly conveyed to them, and had received and misapplied the rents, &c. That the Defendants then claimed to be Trustees of the premises, and were in the possession and receipt of the annual income arising therefrom. That the Plaintiff, Steward, was then, and for some time past had been, Minister, and was entitled to the full emoluments of the office, arising as well from the endowments, as from subscriptions for pews, and voluntary subscriptions ; and the plaintiff, Mander, as surviving and sole trustee, was entitled to the possession of the trust premises, and to receive the annual income arising from the said funds and endowments, pursuant to the trusts thereof. The Bill and Information charged that, according to the custom established in the meeting-house, and to the original trusts thereof, no new Trustee could be chosen, without the consent of all the surviving or continuing Trustees. That Mander had never assented to the nomination of the Defendants ; and that, at no time since he (Mamler) was appointed a Trustee, the whole of the Trustees for the time being had concurred in the choice [357] f ne"r Trustees, and therefore the Defendants were not properly authorised to become Trustees, or to take upon themselves the execution of the trusts, and there had been no legal or effectual conveyance made to them. That the intention of the donors was to promote the belief of the Holy Trinity, and that the Meeting-house was built by the voluntary subscriptions of persons having like intentions ; but the Defendants had not so employed the same, and, since they had been in possession, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity had not been taught in the Meeting-house ; but that they belonged to a sect of Protestant Dissenters called Unitarians, professing themselves to be opposed to Trinitarianism ; and, therefore, the said meeting-house and premises, and the annual income of the said trust-funds and endowments, had not been applied pursuant to the trusts thereof. The Plaintiff Ste-im-rd charged, that he was Minister of the congregation, and did then conscientiously and publicly profess to believe in the Trinity, and as such was entitled to the use of the Meeting-house, for the purpose of public worship, and to the occupation of the school-room and dwelling-house thereto adjoining, and to receive and be paid the surplus revenue of the trust-funds and estates, after all out goings were deducted. That he had been Minister for more than three years, and, during that time, the Defendants had not only allowed him a very small part only of the revenues by way of stipend, but had endeavoured to get possession of the meeting-house and school-room, and to exclude him from the occupation thereof, and for such purpose had lately affixed new locks and bolts to the doors, and locked up the iron gates leading into the court yard, and the front doors of the meetinghouse, and refused to allow to the Plaintiff any part of the annual income arising from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others
...any “intelligible” difference with the original doctrines/practices of the congregation. Next is the case of Attorney-General v Pearson (1817) 36 E.R. 135 (“Pearson”) which raised the question of whether a trust deed that was set up to provide a meeting house for “the worship and service of......
-
Mohinder Singh Khaira v Daljit Singh Shergill
...their rights regarding the application and use of the property: see Craigdallie v. Aikman (1813) 1 Dow 1 at 16 and A-G v. Pearson (1817) 3 Merivale 353 at 400, 417–9; Free Churchcase (above) at 611–3, 617, 626 and 643–5 as instances of the court considering its jurisdiction to enforce a tru......
-
Mohinder Singh Khaira and Others v Daljit Singh Shergill and Others
...to its fundamental religious principles, as identified in its contract of association. In the English case of Attorney General v Pearson (1817) 3 Mer 353, 400–401, 36 ER 136, 150) he stated "[W]here a congregation become dissentient among themselves, the nature of the original institution m......
-
Varsani v Jesani
... ... Karsan Patel First and Second Defendants/Appellants and Her Majesty's rney-General [1998] EWCA Civ J0403-7 ... The ... Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Attorney-General ... objects of the charity are to promote the said faith of Swaminarayan." Clause 3 directed ... , at least by way of emphasis, in relation to successors which had not been apparent before ... 17. In A-G v Pearson (1817) 3 Mer.353 a similar question arose in ... ...
-
Discipline in Religious Institutions
...(2001), 7 C.C.E.L. (3d) 37 (Alta. Q.B.); and Graham v. United Church of Canada , above note 14. 23 A.G. v. Pearson (1817), 3 Mer. 363, 36 E.R. 135; Porter v. Clarke (1829), 2 Sim. 520, 57 E.R. 882; Milligan v. Mitchell (1833), 1 My. & K. 446, 39 E.R. 750; Newell v. Aked (1835), 7 Sim. 321, ......
-
SHIFTING PARADIGM OF INVESTMENT BY CHARITIES
...of the articles of the purposes, specific terms of the original charter, by-laws or rights and privileges in the existing property. 89(1817) 36 ER 135 at 150. 90General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland v Lord Overtoun[1904] AC 515. 91Cf Jeremy Benjamin, “Reinvigorating Nonprofit Dire......
-
Discipline in Religious Institutions
...(2001), 7 C.C.E.L. (3d) 37 (Alta. Q.B.) and Graham v. United Church of Canada , above note 14. 23 A.G. v. Pearson (1817), 3 Mer. 363, 36 E.R. 135; Porter v. Clarke (1829), 2 Sim. 520, 57 E.R. 882; Milligan v. Mitchell (1833), 1 My. & K. 446, 39 E.R. 750; Newell v. Aked (1835), 7 Sim. 321, 5......
-
Discipline in Religious Institutions
...As set out above at section B. 22 Wigglesworth v. Phipps (2001), 7 C.C.E.L. (3d) 37 (Alta. Q.B.). 23 A.G. v. Pearson (1817), 3 Mer. 363; 36 E.R. 135; Porter v. Clarke (1829), 2 Sim. 520, 57 E.R. 882; Milligan v. Mitchell (1833), 1 My. & K. 446, 39 E.R. 750; Newell v. Aked (1835), 7 Sim. 321......