Attorney General v The Fishmongers' Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 276
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 2 Beav. 151. See Attorney-General v. Mayor, &c., of Dartmouth, 1883, 48 L. T. 936.
276 ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. FISHMONGERS' COMPANY 8 MY. * CR. 11. [11] the attorney-general . the fishmongers' company. (Kneseworth'e Will.) June 1840; Jan. 13, 1841. [S. G. 2 Beav. 151. See Attorney-General v. Mayor, (fee., of Dartmouth, 1883, 48 L. T. 936.] The decree of the Master of the Rolls in Attorney-General v. Fishmongers' Company (Kneseworth's Charity), 2 Beav. 151, affirmed by the Lord Chancellor; his Lordship being of opinion that the property was devised to the company, for their benefit, subject only to certain charges, which, except in one particular, were declared illegal by the Act 1 Ed. 6, c. 14, and there being no evidence that, in that one particular, the charge had not been properly satisfied. The facts of this ease are stated in the second volume of Mr. Bea van's Reports (page 151 et seq.). The relators now appealed from the decree of the Master of the Rolls, dismissing the information, with costs. The view taken of the case by the Lord Chancellor's judgment, and the references mada by his Lordship to the points raised before him, appear to render auy report of the arguments upon the appeal unnecessary. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Anclerdon, in support of the appeal. Sir W. Follet, Mr, Wigram, and Mr. Romilly, in support of the decree. Jan. 13, 1841. the lord chancellor [Cottenham]. The object of this information is to fix upon all the property derived by the Fishmongers' Company under the will of Sir Thomas Kneseworth the character of trust property, for charitable purposes, either those specified in his will, or other purposes, a/ pres, or, at least, to establish and provide for the charities so specified. [12] If it shall appear that Sir Thomas Kneseworth's will did not devote the property so given to charitable purposes, but gave it to the Fishmongers' Company, subject to and charged with certain payments for charitable or other purposes, the first and principal object of the information fails. In considering this point, the provisions for loans to members of the Fishmongers' Company must be kept distinct from the preceding provisions ; for if, as in the case of Attorney-General v. Smythies (2 Russ. & Mylne, 717), the preceding charities have only charges upon the property, and the property, subject to such charges, be given to some ultimate charitable purpose, such preceding charities are not entitled to participate in any increase of the funds. The testator's will gives the property to the Fishmongers' Company, ta the intent that they and their successors should keep, fulfil, and perform his will and intent, and every article thereof, as after declared and specified ; which is not inconsistent with an intention that they should enjoy the property, subject to such performance of such his will and intent. He then directs that the property should be kept up and repaired, so as to produce an income equal to the payments and performance of his legacies and bequests ; and, after giving such legacies, and providing for the audit of the accounts, imposes a fine upon the company for neglecting the audit, to be levied out of the issues and profits of the property. He then directs that all the surplus rent* and profits, after payment of all charges above rehearsed, should be laid in a chest in the treasury of the company, and, together with 100 marks to be paid by his executors, applied for the purposes of repairing and new-building the premises, and for the purposes of the loans; and, after providing for such [13] loans, directs that in default of the company performing the directions of his will, his said legacy or bequest -to tho company of his said lands should from thenceforth be void, and all their title and interest therein should cease and determine ; and he, in that case, gave the same to the City of London, to the intent that they should perform all the directions of bis will, except the directions as to the loans, and that the Fishmongers' Company, either rich man or poor man, should have no more profit of the issues of the said lands, but by the discretion of the Corporation of London. It is impossible to attend to these provisions of the will, and to entertain any doubt, but that, according to the principles of the cases of Attorney-General v. Corporation of Bristol (2 J. & W. 294), Attorneif-General v. Smythies (2 Russ. & Mylne, 717), and Attorney-General v. Cordwainers' Company (3 Mylne & Keen, 534), the gifts and 9 MY. & CR, 14. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. FISHMONGERS' COMPANY 277" o directions in this will, which precede the provision as to the loans, are merely charges upon the property, and that, if they had been legal, those to whom the property is jiven subject to such charges would only be bound to discharge them as given, whatever might be the value of the property. I am also of opinion that the same principle applies to the provision as to loans to members of the Fishmongers' Company, although that is less definite as to the amount; and that if there had been no legal objection to that provision, all that the company would have been bound to do would have been to furnish, out of the surplus rents, the accommodation intended. The company were to have the benefit of the surplus of the property, subject to the observance of the: testator's direction for the benefit of the poor members of it. This, though a charitable provision, was only the mode prescribed by the testator, [14] in which the company \vere, in part, as amongst themselves, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carey v Cuthbert
...Chalmer v. Bradley 1 J. & W. 51. Sibbering v. Earl of BalcarrasENR 2 De G. & Sm. 735. Attorney-General v. The Fishmonger's CompanyENR 5 My. & Cr. 16. Colyer v. FinchENR 5 H. L. C. 905. Scott v. JonesENR 4 Cl. & Fin. 382. O'Connor v. HaslamENR 5 H. L. C. 170. Burke v. JonesENR 2 v. & B. 275.......
- Orr v Ford
-
Mare v Lewis
...J. Ch. 648. Jorden v. MoneyENR 5 H. L. C. 185. Aylward v. Kearney 2 Ball & Bea. 463. The Attorney-General v. The Fishmonger's CompanyENR 5 My. & Cr. 16. Blair v. BromleyENRENR 2 Ph. 354; 5 Hare, 542. Cleland v. Leech 5 Ir. Ch. R. 478. Craig v. WatsonENR 8 Beav. 427. Smith v. PocockeENR 2 Dr......