Saint Saviours in Southwark in an Information

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1611
Date01 January 1611
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 266

IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER

Saint Saviours in Southwark in an Information

[21] saint saviours in southwakk in an information. In an information of intrusion against A. and B. the defendants claim and justitie by force of a lease made unto them by the Queen of the rectory of Saint Saviours in Southwark in the year 33 Eliz. and the truth of the case was, that the church-wardens of the church of Saint Saviours, and their successors were incorporated by letters patents, in which patents, it was contained that the parishioners or the greater number of them, every year should elect two church-wardens, and that the said church-wardens and their successors are a corporation capable to take, purchase, and sell, and after the said charter so made in regard of the great number of the parishioners of the said parish, the bishop of the diocess made an order, that the parishioners should appoint a certain number of the said parish to be called vestrie men, the which vestrie men, should have the election of the church-wardens from time to time, for and in the name of the whole parish, and after it was used, that the said vestrie men elected the church-wardens accordingly for a long time, and that A. and B. being so elected the Queen anno 33 Eliz. made a, lease to them for years by the name of A. and B. church-wardens of the parish of Saint Saviours, &c., and their successors rendriiig rent, and this appearing to be the case upon evidence to the jury; the barons moved two points. First, if the election made by the vestrie men were a good election to make them a corporation capable to purchase within the intent of the Kings charter, in so much that saith, that they shall be elected by the greater number of the parishioners, and here but a small number that is the vestrie elected them ; and as to that it seems by the barons, that in regard it was not given in evidence that others of the parish to a great number did withstand, or gain-say the said election or nomination, it being made a day usual and place certain, and therefore all the parishioners by intendment were knowing of it, or might by intendment of law have been present at the said election, it being in an open place where every parishioner might make resort, and did not, therefore it was held that! this election was as good as if all the parishioners had met and elected them, for it were hard iii' law, if the election by these that are present should not be good when the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
94 books & journal articles
  • The Problem with Preferable Procedure
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 2-2, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...Company Ltd., [1981] 1 R.C.S. 553, 560; Mayer c. Cast Terminal Inc., C.S. Montréal, no 500-06-000030-979, 3 mars 1998, j. Melançon, à la p. 21. 35 C.c.Q., art. 3148(3). 36 Hyprescon Inc. c. Madison Chemical Industries Inc., J.E. 2001-1907 (C.S.), à la p. 5. 37 précité note 20. C.c.Q., 38 We......
  • Les Recours Collectifs et le Droit International Privé Au Québec
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 2-2, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...Company Ltd., [1981] 1 R.C.S. 553, 560; Mayer c. Cast Terminal Inc., C.S. Montréal, no 500-06-000030-979, 3 mars 1998, j. Melançon, à la p. 21. 35 C.c.Q., art. 3148(3). 36 Hyprescon Inc. c. Madison Chemical Industries Inc., J.E. 2001-1907 (C.S.), à la p. 5. 37 précité note 20. C.c.Q., 38 We......
  • In a Class All its Own: The Advent of the Modern Class Action and its Changing Legal and Social Mission
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 2-2, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...Company Ltd., [1981] 1 R.C.S. 553, 560; Mayer c. Cast Terminal Inc., C.S. Montréal, no 500-06-000030-979, 3 mars 1998, j. Melançon, à la p. 21. 35 C.c.Q., art. 3148(3). 36 Hyprescon Inc. c. Madison Chemical Industries Inc., J.E. 2001-1907 (C.S.), à la p. 5. 37 précité note 20. C.c.Q., 38 We......
  • Typicality, Preferable Procedure, and Superiority: Ontario Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and Rule 23 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 2-2, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...Company Ltd., [1981] 1 R.C.S. 553, 560; Mayer c. Cast Terminal Inc., C.S. Montréal, no 500-06-000030-979, 3 mars 1998, j. Melançon, à la p. 21. 35 C.c.Q., art. 3148(3). 36 Hyprescon Inc. c. Madison Chemical Industries Inc., J.E. 2001-1907 (C.S.), à la p. 5. 37 précité note 20. C.c.Q., 38 We......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 provisions

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT