Bryan against Whistler, Clerk
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1828 |
| Date | 01 January 1828 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 1050
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 2 Man. & Ry. 318; 6 L. J. K. B. O. S. 102. Referred to, Ashby v. Harris, 1868, L. R. 3 C. P. 529; North Manchester Overseers v. Winstanley, [1908] 1 K. B. 843; [1910] A. C. 7.
See Batty v. Faulkener, 3 B. & A.. 288. Shorts. McCarthy, 3 B. & A. 626. Granger v. George, 5 B. & C. 129. bryan against whistler, Clerk. 1828. Where a rector granted to A. B. by parol, leave to make a vault in the parish church, and to Jbury a certain corpse there, and that he should have the exclusive use of the vault; and afterwards, without the leave of A. B., opened the vault, and buried another person there : Held, that no action could be maintained against him for ;so doing; for that if the rector had power to grant the exclusive use of a vault, he could not do it by parol. Semble, that a rector cannot grant a vault in the church, but only leave to bury there in each particular instance. [S. C. 2 Man. & Ry. 318; 6 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 102. Referred to, AsUy v. Harris, 1868, L. E. 3 C. P. 529; North Manchester Overseers v. Winstanley, [1908] 1 K. B. 843; [1910] A. C. 7.] Case for disturbing a vault. The first count of the declaration stated that the defendant was rector of the parish church of St. Clement, Hastings, and plaintiff being desirous of burying one M. A. W. in a vault in that church, on, &c. applied to the defendant, as such rector, for permission to make a vault there for that purpose, and to put up a tablet or monument near the vault to perpetuate the same; and the defendant, as such rector, in consideration of 201. to be paid to him for such permission, consented and agreed that the plaintiff should have permission to make such vault and to put up such tablet, and should have the sole and exclusive use of such vault, upon being paid 201. and 11. Is. for the service. Averment, that the plaintiff did at 8 B. & C. 289. BRYAN V. WHISTLER 1051 his expense make such vault, and cause the body of M. A. W. to be buried therein, and put up a tablet, and pay the defendant 201. for such permission, and 11. Is. for the service, yet the defendant intending to injure the plaintiff, and to deprive him of the exclusive use and benefit of the vault, and right of interment therein, and [289] to disturb the remains of the said M. A. W., afterwards, to wit, on, &c., broke into and damaged the said vault, and wrongfully, and without the leave of the plaintiff, caused the same to be opened, and interred therein the body of another person. The second count, after stating the agreement with the defendant, alleged that the plaintiff, with the knowledge and consent of the defendant, put up a tablet near the vault with a certain inscription thereon, viz. "In a vault beneath this tablet (appropriated to the family of T. B.) are the remains of M. A. W., &c.;" and then concluded as in the first count. Third count alleged generally that the plaintiff by the consent and agreement of the defendant, given in consideration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v Leadbitter
...374), Jkc v. HagworlUm/hwn (1 B. & Cr. 634; 3 D. & R. 16), Hetolim v. Sfiipjiam (5 B. & C. 222; 7 D. & R. 783), firj/aw v. tf'Ms'&r (8 B. & C. 288 ; 2 Man. fe R. 318), iijr^Ms v. /nflre (7 Bing. 682 ; 5 M. & P. 712), dicker v. C'owper (1 C. M. & R. 418), Gamngtm v. Jioo/s (2 M. & W. 248), B......
-
Caroline Bridges against Richard Blanchard
...immediately, and that this Court would not consider what might be determined in the case by a Court of Equity), Bryan v. Whistler (8 B. & C. 288). On the other hand, where it conveys an interest for a time certain, the licence may be irrevocable, as amounting to a lease, [544] Begina v. Win......
-
M'Mahon v Leonard, Whiteside and Another
...Jour., N. S. Exch. 401; S. C., 6 Exch. 927. Brickell v. Hulse 7 A. & E. 454. Hewlins v. ShippamENR 5 B. & C. 221. Bryan v. whistlerENR 8 B. & C. 288. Gawton and the Lord Dacre's caseENR 1 Leon. 219. Inter the Parishes of Gatton and MillwichENR 2 Salk. 536. Saunders v. OwenENRENRENR 1 Lord R......
-
Mason against Hill and Others
...water from a particular spot, was an easement, and could be granted only by deed : Hewlins v. Shippam (5 B. & C. 221), Bryan v. Whistler (8 B. & C. 288). In Winter v. Brockwell (8 East, 308), and Liggins v. Inge (7 Bingh. 682), licence was held irrevocable, but there the thing to be done wa......