Attorney General v Cock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 1751 |
| Date | 04 May 1751 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 177
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[273] attorney-general v. cock, May 4, 1751. Master of the Bolls pro Lord Chancellor.-After a bequest, before the Mortmain Act, of 50 charged on land to P. J. the minister of a Baptist meeting-house, certain other premises were devised away, charged with an annuity of 10 " to the minister belonging to that meeting-house." (The 50 and the annuity of 10 were charged on distinct premises. B. L.) This' held a valid charitable bequest for the ministers in succession, and not personal to P. J.-[Supplement, 343.] Anne Partridge began her will with giving several pecuniary legacies, and among others gives to Philip James, the master or pastor at the meeting-house at Marloes 50, absolutely to his own use : then in a different clause, " Item, I give and bequeath " to William Cock, his heirs and assigns for ever, the premises (describing them) .charge-' " able nevertheless with an annuity of Wperann. which I give to the minister belonging " to the meeting-house at Marloes aforesaid : but if the said house at Marloes should " not be used as a meeting-house after my decease; then to the minister of any other " place the protestant dissenters, called Baptists, shall meet in, provided it be in the " parish of Hemel Hempstead "; with power to the said minister to enter on the premises and distrain. , Philip James enjoyed the annuity to his death in 1748. The present information was at the relation of his successor for establishment :of the charity and continuance of the payment against devisee of the real estate charged therewith. For Eelator. This is not intended for the particular person then minister of the congregation, but in perpetual succession as long as that congregation continued. The court cannot set it aside but on foundation of not being a charitable use. Whether a charity to a congregation of protestant dissenters is a good or superstitious charity, has been no question since the stat. of William an&Mary. In Lloyd v. Spillet,- 3 Wil. 344, it was not doubted but that dissenting ministers might take. (Affirmed on a rehearing by Lord Bardwicke, C. See 2 Atk, 148, and Barn. Rep. Gh. 384.) In Attorney-General v. Andrews, 9 March 1748 (1 Ves. sen. 225. Qua vide notes and references), copyhold lands not surrendered to use of the will were devised for benefit of quakers; on a bill Lord Chancellor established it. It is not in case of a superstitious use, that the king gives it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robb and Reid v The Right Rev Bishop Dorrian
...CopestakeENR 6 East, 328. Jack v. Reilly 2 H. & Br. 301. Incorporated Society v. Richards 1 Dr. & War. 320. Attorney-General v. CockENR 2 Ves. Sen. 273. Morris v. MorrisUNK Ir. R. 7 C. L. 295. Batteste v. Maunsell Ir. R. 10 Eq. 314. Charitable devise 7 & 8 Vict. c. 97, ss. 15, 16 Pretenced ......
-
Sims v Quinlan
...v. OgdenENR 1 Cox, Ch. Cas. 316. Russell v. Kellett 3 Sm. & Goff. 264. Gates v. JonesENR 2 Vern. 266. The Attorney-General v. CockENR 2 Ves. sen. 273. Bunting v. MarragutENR 19 Beav. 163. The Attorney-General v. GuiseENR 2 Vern. 266. De Themmines v. BonnevalENR 5 Russ. 288. Thrupps v. Colle......