Harrison Robinson and Jane Mary his Wife v The Marquis of Bristol and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1852 |
| Date | 09 June 1852 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 138 E.R. 451
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 20 L. J. C. P. 208; 15 Jur. 926. Reversed in Exchequer Chamber, 11 C. B. 241.
[208] harrison robinson and jane mary his Wife v. the marquis of bristol and others. June 9, 1851. [S. C. 20 L, J. C. P. 208; 15 Jur. 926. Reversed in Exchequer Chamber, 11 C. B. 241.] k. count in quare impedit stated that one A. was seised in fee of a moiety of the advowson of the church of Brauncewell-with-Dunsby-and-Anwick, and was entitled to present to the same every alternate turn, the other moiety of the advowson belonging to B.; that A., in his turn, being so seised, presented C., who was on such presentation admitted, instituted, and inducted; that afterwards the church became vacant by the resignation of C., whereupon B. presented the said A., who was admitted, instituted, and inducted; that A., being so "seised of the said moiety of the advowson, died; that the said moiety descended to the plaintiff; and that, the church having become vacant by the death of A., it belonged to the plaintiff to present in the turn of A.-The defendant pleaded, that A. was not seised of a moiety of the advowson of the church of Brauncewell-with-Dunsby-and-Anwick, modo et forma.-It was found, by a special verdict, that Brauncewell-with-Dunsby was a rectory,'and An wick a vicarage,-the rectory having been theretofore appropriated and the vicarage indowed according to law; that R. G. being seised in fee of the advowson of the vicarage of Anwick, and the Earl of Bristol of the advowson of the rectory of Brauncewell-with-Dunsby, by deed, dated in March, 1703, reciting that the parties were desirous that the cure of the vicarage and rectory should both be supplied by one clerk, it was agreed, that, whenever the churches should be void, the Earl and R. G., their heirs and assigns, should present their clerks to the same alterius vicibus ; that, in April, 1718, an act of union was made by the bishop of the diocese, with the consent of R. G-., the then patron of the vicarage of Anwick, and the Earl of Bristol, the patron of the rectory of Brauncewell-wpth-Dunsby, and sealed with the episcopal seal, whereby the bishop "consolidated, united, and annexed the said vicarage and parish church of Anwick, with its rights, &c., to the aforesaid rectory and parish church of Brauncewell, and did, by those presents, commit the cure of the souls of the parishioners of the said church of Anwick to the then rector of the parish church of Brauncewell, and the rectors thenceforward for the time being of the said church of Brauncewell, and decreed that the said united churches should from that time be thereafter held and reputed as one benefice only, and that one fit person, at the alternate presentation of the Earl of Bristol and R. G., their heirs and assigns, to be canonically instituted, &c., should at all times thereafter possess the same," &c.-The consenting parties to that arrangement, and their respective heirs, continued to present alternately one clerk to the united benefice, down to the year 1760.-In December, 1760, R. G., son and heir of R. G. in the act of union mentioned, and Susannah his wife, conveyed to A. " all that the perpetual advowson, nomination, donation, or alternate right of presentation, and free disposition, of and to the vicarage of the parish church of Anwick aforesaid, arid all other the manors or lordships, advowson, impropriations, tenements, tithes, hereditaments, and parts and shares of manors or lordships, advowsons, &c., of them, the said R. G. and Susannah his wife, or either of them, situate and being in Anwick aforesaid."-The special verdict further found that the title of A. to the said moiety of the said advowson of the church of Brauncewell-with-Dunsby-and-Anwick, in the declaration mentioned, was derived in no other way than by that indenture :-Held,-first, that, assuming the legal effect of the act of union to have been to unite the two churches of Brauncewell-with-Dunsby 452 ROBINSON V. THE MARQUIS OF BRISTOL 11C. B.2C and Anwick, and thereby create a new advowson of the church of Brauncewell-witl Dunsby-and-Anwick, such new advowson did not pass by the deed of 1760, as "a that the perpetual advowson, nomination, donation, or alternate right of present! tion and free disposition of and to the vicarage of the parish church of Anwick," c under the subsequent general words " and all other the advowsons and parts ( advowsons situate and being in Anwick aforesaid."-Secondly, that the specif verdict negativing any other title in A., except that derived from the deed of 176( the subsequent presentation by him, and the institution and induction of his clerl as alleged in the declaration, did not constitute a seisin which gave him a title b usurpation,-such usurpation (since the 7 Ann. c. 18), being merely evidence c seisin, and not a title of itself.-Semble, that the act of union per se could not s operate as to alter the rights of the respective patrons to their advowsons; bu that some deed by the parties themselves was essential to give full effect to it. Quare impedit. The count stated, that one Samuel Hazlewood, theretofore, t wit, on the 4th of June, 1812, was seised of a moiety of the advowson of th [209] church of Brauncewell-with-Dunsby-and-Anwick, in the county of Lincoln, as i gross by itself, as of fee and right, and was entitled to present to the same ever alternate turn, that is to say, one turn in every two turns, the other moiety of th said advowson, and the other of the said two turns, then belonging to Frederic William, Earl of Bristol, as in gross by itself, as of fee and right; and, being so seisei thereof, he the said Samuel Hazlewood afterwards, to wit, on the day and year las aforesaid, presented to the said church, then being vacant, in the proper turn of hir the said Samuel Hazlewood, one R. D. R. Spooner, his clerk, who, on the presenta'tio; of the said Samuel Hazlewood, was admitted, instituted, and inducted into the same in the time of peace, in the time of our late sovereign lord George the Third : and the said Samuel Hazlewood being so seised of the one moiety of the said advowson a aforesaid, and Frederick William, Earl of Bristol, being seised as of fee and right o the other moiety of the said advowson of the said church of Brauricewell-with-Dunsbj and-Anwick, and with the right to present to the same in the other of the said tw turns as aforesaid, the said church afterwards, to wit, on the 3rd of June, 1826 became vacant [210] by the resignation of the said R. D. R. Spooner, whereby i then belonged to the said Frederick William, Earl of Bristol, as in his proper turn, t present to the said church; whereupon the said Frederick William, Earl of Bristol, t wit, on the 10th of June, 1826, presented to the said church the said Samuel Hazle wood his clerk, who, on the presentation of the said Frederick William, Earl o Bristol, was admitted, instituted, and inducted into the same, in the time of peace, ii the time of our late sovereign lord King George the Fourth: That the said Samue Hazlewood, being so seised of the said moiety of the said advowson of the said churcl of Braunce well- with-Dunsby-and- An wick, as above mentioned, afterwards, to wit, 01 the 18th of March, 1846, died so seised of his said estate therein; after whose deatl the said moiety of the said advowson descended to the said Jane Mary, then the wifi of Harrison Robinson, as the only sister and heiress of the said Samuel Hazlewood the then patron and holder thereof, whereby the said Harrison Robinson and Jam Mary his wife became seised of the said moiety of the said advowson of the said churcl of Brauncewell-with-Dunsby-and-Anwick, in right of the said Jane Mary: That th said church having become vacant by the death of the said Samuel Hazlewood ai aforesaid, and still being vacant, it then belonged and still belongs to them, the saic Harrison Robinson and Jane Mary his wife, in right of the said Jane Mary, to presem as in their proper turn, that is to say, in the turn which was of the said Samue Hazlewood as aforesaid, a fit person to the said church, being so vacant as last afore said; and the said John, Bishop of Lincoln, William, Marquis of Bristol, and Lore Charles Hervey, unjustly hindered them from presenting a fit person to the saic church, and still do hinder them, whereby, &c. The marquis pleaded that the said Samuel Hazlewood [211] was not seised of i moiety of the advowson of the church of Brauncewell-with-Dunsby-and-Anwick, ir manner and form as the said Harrison Robinson and Jane Mary his wife had above alleged. Issue thereon. The case came before the court upon a special verdict which found as follows :- That, before and at the time of the making of the act of union hereinafter men tioned, Brauncewell-with-Dunsby was a parish in county of Lincoln, and a rectory C. B. 212. ROBINSON V. THE MARQUIS OF BRISTOL 453 ad that Anwick was then also a parish in the said county, and a vicarage (the rectory f Anwick having been theretofore appropriated and the said vicarage endowed scording to law): That, before and at the time of the sealing and delivery of the deed ereinafter mentioned, Robert Gardiner was seised as of fee in gross of the advowson f the said vicarage of Anwick, and John, Lord Hervey (afterwards John, Earl of tristol), was seised as of fee of the advowson of the said rectory of Brauncewell-with-)unsby; and that, the said respective parties being so seised as aforesaid, a certain eed bearing date the 29th of March, 1703, was then duly signed, sealed, and delivered y the said Robert Gardiner and the said John, Lord Hervey, respectively, viz., one iart by the said Robert Gardiner, and the other part by the said John, Lord Hervey, ,s follows:- "Articles of agreement indented, had, made, and concluded upon the 29th of /[arch, in the second year of the reign of...
To continue reading
Request your trial