Stoughton v Reynolds

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of the King's Bench
Judgment Date01 January 1748
Date01 January 1748

English Reports Citation: 92 E.R. 804

IN THE KING'S BENCH.

Stoughton
and
Reynolds

S. C. 2 Str. 1045; Cas. t. Hard. K. B. 274. Discussed, Wilson v. M'Math, 1819, 3 Phill. 83; 3 B. & Ald. 244 n. (b). See R. v. D'Oyly, 1840, 12 A. & E. 160. Referred to, Bremner v. Hull. 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 760; Edney v. Smallbones, 1869, 21 L. T. 507; R. v. Bishop of Salisbury [1901], 1 K. B. 578; 2 K. B. 225. See now Local Government Act, 1894, s. 31(1).

[168] de term. sanct. trin. 9 & 10 georgii II. in the king's bench. stoughton versus reynolds. [S. C. 2 Str. 1045; Cas. t. Hard. K. B. 274. Discussed, Wilsm v. M'Moth, 1819, 3 Phill. 83; 3 B. & Aid. 244 n. (b). See E. v. D'Oyly, 1840, 12 A. & E. 160. Referred to, Brcmner v. Hull, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 760; Edney v. Smallbones, 1869, 21 L. T. 507 ; B. v. Bishop of Salisbury [1901], 1 K. B. 578 ; 2 K. B. 225. See now Local Government Act, 1894, s. 31 (1).] Whether the parson, &c. can adjourn the vestry by his own authority. The declaration sets forth, that the plaintiff being an inhabitant of the parish of All Souk in Northampton, was chosen churchwarden and offered himself to Dr. Reynolds, chancellor of the diocese, to be admitted into that office; upon his being refused, he moved for a mandamus to the doctor, who returned that the plaintiff was not chosen churchwarden but another person was. This was an action for a false return, and a special verdict was found, viz. that in the parish of All Souls, the vicar has immemorially had the nomination of one of the churchwardens ; that the time appointed for chusing churchwardens, was on such a day in Easter week 1734, when the vicar nominated Mr. Lowlk, and the parishionera the plaintiff; and that in Easter FORTESCUB, 19. IN THE KING'S BENCH 805 week following in the year 1735, the vicar chose the same person ; and upon a dispute arising in the assembly, whether the parishioners could chuse the plaintiff Stoughton a second time, the vicar adjourned the assembly till next morning, but that part of the parish who were for the plaintiff, staying behind, elected him; and the other part assembling on the morrow, elected another person. [169] Abney : The question is, in whom the right of adjournment is? It is now held in many cases, and has beet) determined, that the eighth canon of 1603, is contrary to law, and has never been received as law. Cro. Jac. 532. Hard. 378. Carthew 118, as it is a custom against common right, so it is against common law ; and on that consideration ought...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • John v Rees
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
    ...action must be dismissed (post, pp. 1309H–1310B, 1312E–1313A–1314B, 1316E–H, 1318C–E, H–1319C). Stoughton v. Reynolds (1736) 2 Stra. 1045; Fort. 168; Reg. v. D'Oyly (1840) 12 Ad. & El. 139; National Dwellings Society v. Sykes [1894] 3 Ch. 159 and Rex v. Churchwardens of St. Mary, Lambeth (1......
  • The Queen against Hedger, Esquire, and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 1 January 1840
    ...: which is a right (b)1 Note (b) to Rex v. The Archdeacon of Chester, 1 A. & E. 346. (c)1 2 Str. 1045. S. C., Ca. K. B. temp. Hardw. 274; Fortescue, 168. (by Ibid. (c)2 Note (b) to Bex v. The Archdeacon of Chester, 1 A. & E. 346. (b)3 3 Phill. Ecc. Eep. 67. S. C., note (b) to Wilson v. M'Ma......
  • Wayte and Others against German
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1794
    ...Abr. 289, and the case of The C/Mmberlain of London, 5 Co. 62. 3 Leon. 264. 1 Roll. Rep. 109. Brownl. 215. (h) See Stougfiton v. Meynolds, Fort. 168. Stra. 1045. Cases T. H. 274. (i) Keilway 189. The Year-Book, 1 Hen. 7, pi. 25. (k) Winch, 53, 63. (I) But see 2 Roll. Abr. 289. Cro. Eliz. 65......
  • Chan Sze Ying v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2948 (Lee Chuen T'ng, intervener)
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 24 December 2020
    ...of Ecclesiastical Law by F. N. Rogers Q.C. published in 1840. The passage says that [the decision in Stoughton v. Reynolds, 2 Str 1045; Fort. 168, which stood for the proposition that a chairperson cannot disrupt a meeting while it is in orderly progress]: ‘by no means interferes with the r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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