Joyce v Osborne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1693 |
| Date | 01 January 1693 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 21 E.R. 784
COURT OF CHANCERY
joyce versus osborne. The Father of the Defendant was seised of a Rectory impropriate, and, as he apprehended, of the Perpetual Donation of the Vicaridge; the Endowment whereof was very small, and the Vicaridge-House being very much in decay, he conveyed another House and Lands to Trustees and their Heirs, for the better Maintenance of the Vicars, &c., and conceiving the Vicaridge to be Donative, did in the said Conveyance appoint how the Vicars should be qualified, and directed the Trustees and their Heirs to make a Lease of the said House and [41] Lands for 80 Years to the Incumbent for the Time being, if he should so long live; which was accordingly done, and his Appointment observed for some time. . But the Donor being mistaken in his Title, for the Vicaridge was Presentative, and not Donative, and by this Means the Right of Presentation being fallen to the King by Lapse, the Plaintiff was presented under that Title : But the Defendant excepted ò against him in regard he was not qualified according to the Appointment in the Deed, and thereupon the Trustees refused to make a Lease unto him of the said House and Lands ; whereupon he exhibited his Bill to be relieved. The Court declared, That the Qualification required by the Deed was occasioned through the Ignorance of the Donor, who thought the Vicaridge to be Donative; but that the Benefit of the Grift, and the Arrears thereof ever since the Plaintiff had been incumbent, ought to redound to him : For in Cases of Charitable Uses, the Charity is not to be set aside for want of every Circumstance appointed by the Donor; if it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robb and Reid v The Right Rev Bishop Dorrian
...Grieves v. Case 1 Ves. J. 519. Thornber v. WilsonENR 3 Drew. 245. Pensterd v. PavierENR Tothill, 34. Pember v. Inhabitants de KingtonENR Nelson, 40. Joyce v. OsborneENR Tothill, 34. Partridge v. Strange Plowd. 88. Underwood v. Lord Courtown 2 Sch. & Lef. 65. Doe d. Williams and Protheroe v.......
-
O'Hanlon v Logue
...104. (4) [1897] 2 I. R. 426. (1) I. R. 10 C. L. 104. (2) [1898] 1 I. R. at p. 446. (1) I. R. 10 C. L. 104. (2) Tothill, 34. (3) Ibid. (4) Nelson, 40. (5) Amb. (6) 1 Ves. Jun. 546. (7) 1 Keen, 803. (8) 3 Drew, 245. (9) I. R. 11 C. L. 292. (10) [1897] 2 I. R. 426, at p. 449. (11) [1903] 1 I. ......
-
Is There a Need for Greater Regulation of Insolvency Practitioners in New Zealand? Exploring the Options for Reform
...Registrar of Companies (the Registrar) received significant complaints about Norris, a liquidator handling eight separate liquidations in Nelson. 40 Following a thorough investigation, the information was referred to the Official Assignee (OA). The OA made wide-ranging allegations against N......
-
Burnley Corporation Act 1900
...township of Reedley Hallows For the like construction within the district of Brierfield For the like construction within the district of Nelson 40 One hundred and forty-seven thousand and eight pounds Thirty years. Nine thousand seven hundred and seventy-nine pounds Thirty years. Five thous......