Attorney General v Matthews
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 83 E.R. 501
IN CHANCERY.
[167] term. sanct. trin. anno 28 car. II. in banco regis. \&z t^.l** attorney general against matthews in chancery. General charities are not within the power of the commissioners but of the King himself, and to be settled on information in Chancery by the King. Upon a decree made by the Commissioners of Charitable Uses, being brought hither, and exceptions taken thereunto, the case was : Henry Frier seised in fee 7 Car. 1 infeoffed several persons in trust, and by his will appointed they should pay 1001. per annum to three parishes in London, scilicet A. B. and C. for the poor of those parishes; and likewise appointed some other charities now determined, and of the residue he 502 TRIN. 28 CAR. II. IN B. R. 2LEV. 188. declared they should stand seised to the use of the poor in general for ever: after the death of Henry Frier, Dr. Frier his son and heir whom he disinherited upon some displeasure, contested this settlement and will in the Court of Wards, 8 Car. 1, and at last the matter was referred to the King: who by the advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lord Keeper Coventry awarded, that the hundred pounds per annum should be distributed to the three parishes, sr.il. 201. to A. and 401. apiece to B. and C. and that 801. per annum for ever, should go to the rebuilding and repair of the church of St. Paul's London : the residue to Dr. Frier and his heirs; this award was confirmed by several orders in the Court of Wards, but no formal decree was made, neither there nor in the Court of Chancery, where the King in his award ordered it should be settled by decree also. And the trustees were to convey the lauds subject to these uses to Dr. Frier, and the land [168] having ever since been enjoyed by him, and the trust performed, accordingly the Commissioners of Charitable Uses upon complaint to them, made a decree, whereby they settled the whole estate to charitable uses, without regard to former proceedings, the King's award, or the former orders of the Court; and this decree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morice v The Bishop of Durham
...could be more vague than the object in Frier v. Peacock (Finch, 245. More fully stated under the title of The Attorney General v. Matthews, 2 Lev. 167) ; the poor in general. How could that be executed 1 Were all the poor in the kingdom to partake of the bounty t It was impossible to execut......
-
Moggridge v Thackwell
...effect, the Court would apply it as near as can be. (Note : Mr. Cox said, that distinction was taken in the Attorney General v. Matthews, 2 Lev. 167 ; and the Lord Chancellor observed, that by a manuscript note it seemed to be the notion of Mr. Brown, a considerable practiser in this Court ......
- A-G; British Malaya Trustee & Executor Company Ltd and Others v; Re MSE Angullia, deceased