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.
Attorney General against Matthews
[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...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
4 cases
-
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......
- A-G; British Malaya Trustee & Executor Company Ltd and Others v; Re MSE Angullia, deceased
-
Moggridge v Thackwell
...but cannot take 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 practise......
-
Re Smith. Public Trustee v Smith
... ... 258 , 275, and of Lord Cave in the same case sub nom. Attorney-General v. National Provincial and Union Bank [ 1924 ] A. C. 262 , 264, 265, explained ... F52 9 Ves. 399 ... F53 10 Ves. 522 , 540 ... F54 Att.-Gen. v. Matthews ( 1676 ) 2 Lev. 167 ... F55 13 Eliz. c. 4 ... F56 3 Mer. 684 ... F57 10 ... ...