Wellbeloved v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1822 |
| Date | 08 November 1822 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 16
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Cf. In re Lea, 1887, 34 Ch. D. 528.
Charities.
[40] wellbeloved v. jones. Nov. 8, 1822. [Cf. In re Lea, 1887, 34 Ch. D. 528.] Charities. The Attorney-General is a necessary party to all suits for charitable funds, except where a legacy:is given to the officer of an established institution, as part of its general funds. Where a legacy is given for permanent charitable purposes, to persons having no corporate character, the Court will not, without a reference to the Master, allow the fund to be paid over to those persons, even where they are intrusted by the testator with the management of the fund. This was a bill filed by certain persons, who described themselves as trustees or officers of a dissenting academical institution, against the executors of Samuel Jones, for payment to them of a legacy of 5000 bequeathed to that institution. Samuel Jones, by his will, dated 19th December 1818 (after giving several annuities and legacies) gave and bequeathed the sum of 5000 unto his brother William Jones, his nephew, Samuel Jones Lloyd, and James Darbyshire the younger (the Defendants in this cause) their executors, administrators, and assigns, upon trust, to transfer and assign the same sum and the stocks, funds and securities wherein the same should be invested, unto the following officers for the time being of an academical institution established at York chiefly for the instruction of dissenting ministers, and commonly called the Manchester New College removed to York, viz., the theological tutor, the visitor, the president, the treasurer, and the vice-president, resident in Manchester; which said several officers, together with such other persons as they should think proper to choose (in case they should think an additional number of trustees necessary) should stand possessed of the said sum of 5000 and the stocks, &e., in trust, to pay and apply the dividends and interest thereof in augmentation of the salaries of .such conscientious dissenting ministers as should stand most in need of such assistance, and s the said trustees should ap-[41]-prove; a preference being given to those who should have been students in the York institution. And in case such institution should cease, r be given; up, then in trust, that the persons in whose names the said trust monies should be then invested, should transfer the said principal sum to the principal officers for the time being of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wyld v Silver
- Kytherian Association of Queensland v Sklavos
-
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v DELANEY. [Exchequer.]
...v. HoweENR Temp. Edw. 4, cal. 2, 44. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. The Attorney-General 3 Rus. 142. Wellbeloved v. JonesENR 1 S. & S. 40. The Attorney-General v. BagotUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 48. The Incorporated Society v. Richards 4 Ir. Eq. R. 177, 211; 1 D. & W. 258. Durour v. ......
-
Jon Duffell by his litigation guardian Jane Derrin v James John Duffell
...officer in respect of the superintendence of all charitable trusts, private and public: Wellbeloved v Jones (1822) 1 Sim & St 40 at 42–3; 57 ER 16 at 61 The affidavit of Mr Singh set out the structure and governance of the proposed trustee, the approach it takes to trusteeship, its regulato......