Moreland v Richardson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 1856 |
| Date | 14 July 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 1238
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 883; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 726; 4 W. R. 765.
[596] moreland v. richardson. July 10, 14, 1856. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 883; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 726; 4 W. K. 765.] Persons had purchased family graves in perpetuity in a private burying-ground, which was afterwards closed by order of the Queen in Council. There was no formal grant executed, but their title was merely evidenced by a receipt for the purchase-money stating the purchase. Held, that they were entitled to an injunction to restrain the trustees from removing or injuring the graves or gravestones, &c. But held, also, that the relief must be limited to the spot purchased by the Plaintiffs, and that the rights of the trustees to the remainder was unaffected. In 1757 and 1766 the Rev. George Whitfield, being desirous of establishing chapels, with suitable burial-grounds adjoining, obtained leases of a piece of ground in Tottenham Court Road, whereon he erected a chapel, partly by subscription and partly out of his own moneys; the remainder of the ground was appropriated to the purposes of a burial-ground. After the expiration of the last lease, the inheritance of the property was, in June 1831, purchased and conveyed to the trustees of the chapel, and it was, in the same year, mortgaged to Mr. Tudor to secure £6000 advanced by him. The trustees and managers, on the 30th of June 1831, caused an advertisement to be published in the Times newspaper, stating as follows :-" Tottenham Court Chapel and Burial-Ground. The above premises being now purchased in perpetuity, and placed in the hands of trustees, those persons who held family graves under the late lease, and wish to purchase them, are requested to apply to Mr. Nodes [the clerk and sexton], who will give them every necessary information." The five Plaintiffs respectively, and several other persons possessed of private or family graves or vaults in the burial-ground, thereupon purchased graves in perpetuity. They protected these graves or vaults by headstones [597] and footstones, or by brickwork covered in with large stone slabs or tombstones, or monuments. No grants appeared to have been ever executed of this right of burial, but the contracts were evidenced by receipts given to the purchaser, the earliest of which was dated in 1833. It was in the following form :- "Feb. 4, 1833.-Received of Messrs. John Curtis and Henry Hanks, ten pounds, ten shillings for a family grave in the burial-ground of Tottenham Court Chapel, which grave is now sold in perpetuity, and is situated in the ground on the south side of the chapel near the entrance gate.-For the trustees, oliver nodes, " £10, 10s. Od. Clerk and Sexton." The burial-ground, having become filled, was closed for the purposes of burials, by an order of the Queen in Council, pursuant to the provisions of the 15 & 16 Vicfc. c. 85, 16 & 17 Viet. c. 134, and 18 & 19 Viet. c. 128. In May 1856 Messrs. Harmer, builders, by the direction of the Defendants Lainbeer, Hone and Dunn (acting, as the Court held, as trustees or managers) commenced levelling the ground of the churchyard. In doing so, they pulled down and removed the tombs, tombstones, &c., of the private or family graves or vaults purchased by the Plaintiffs and others, and they employed the stones in paving the courtyard surrounding the chapel, which, for that purpose, they cut and defaced. It was also alleged that the Defendants intended to convert the churchyard to other purposes. 22BEAV. S98. MORELAND V. RICHARDSON 1239 [598] Under these circumstances, the five Plaintiffs filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atkinson v King
...Bench. ATKINSON and KING. The Duke of Beaufort v. PatrickENR 17 Beav. 60. Moreland v. RichardsonENR 22 Beav. 596. Wood v. LeadbitterENR 13 M. & W. 838. Carr v. BensonELR L. R. 3 Ch. App. 524. Rich v. BasterfieldENR 4 C. B. 783. The King v. PedleyENR 1 Ad. & E. 822. Bower v. PeateELR 1 Q. B.......
-
Atkinson v King
...4 C. B. 783. Duke of Devonshire v. EglinENR 14 Beav. 530. Duke of Beaufort v. PatrickENR 17 Beav. 60. Moreland v. RichardsonENR 22 Beav. 596. Cornish v. StubbsELR L. R. 5 C. P. 334. Carr v. BensonELR L. R. 3 Ch. App. 532. Bower v. PeateELR 1 Q. B. D. 321. Gandy v. JubberENR 5 B. & S. 78. Du......
-
Between Richard Moreland, John Curits, Henry Hanks, Thomas Broadwood and John Thomas Neate, Plaintiffs; and The Reverend Joseph Wilberforce Richardson since dismissed, William Harmer since dismissed, John Harmer (since dismissed), Benjamin Laimbeer, William Hone and Samuel Dunn, Defendants
...William Harmer since dismissed, John Harmer (since dismissed), Benjamin Laimbeer, William Hone and Samuel Dunn Defendants. S. C. 22 Beav. 596. 2 BEAV. 33. MORELAND V. RICHARDSON 269 [33] Between richard moreland, john curtis, henry hanks, thomas broad-wood and john thomas neate, Plainti/s; ......
- Bendall v McWhirter