Wright v Hobert
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 318
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMOM PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER.
See Goodman v. Mayor of Saltash, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 642; In re Christchurch Inclosure Act, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 531.
case 32. weight against hobert. [See Goodman v. Mayor of Saltash, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 642; In re Christchurch Inclosure Act, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 531.] A grant of land to charitable uses, viz. "that as many of the inhabitants of the parish of A. as were able to buy three cows might feed them on the land from May to August," extends to every inhabitant who has three cows.-S. C. Duke, 164. Upon an appeal from a decree of commissioners of charitable uses (a), The case was: A certain piece of land called the Lizard, in the parish of Wimmerton, containing about forty acres of pasture, was formerly the inheritance of two persons, who several hundred years past conveyed the same to trustees and their heirs, to the use of themselves, and the survivor of them, for life, and after their decease, to the intent, that as many of the inhabitants of that village as were able to buy three cows might put them there to grass, in the day-time, from the first Monday in May to the first clay of August for ever ; and from that day to be in common for all the inhabitants £65] there until Lady-Day following, and then to be inclosed for raising the grass until the first Monday in May for ever. But this grant not appearing before the commissioners, it was pretended that the (a) That an award must be reasonable, see 1 Roll. Abr. " Arbitrament," B. 12. Linsey v. Ashton, 2 Bulst. 39. Anonymous, 1 Keb. 92. Tavener v. Shingley, Cro. Car. 226. Alley v. Cox, 3 Keb. 479. Godfrey v. Godfrey, 2 Mod. 304. (4) See Jones' case, 1 Roll. Rep. 380. Brown v. Broivn, 2 Ch. Cases, 140. S. C. 1 Veru. 157. (a) See 43 Eliz. c. 4. 9 Geo. 2, c. 36. 9 MOD. 68. MICHAELMAS TEEM, 10 GEO. 1. IN CHANCERY 319 lands were given to the poor of that parish ; and that about one hundred years past, the town and the church where this grant was kept, were burnt; and so the evidence that it was given to the poor was destroyed by fire (b). Whereupon the commissioners decreed, that Sir John Hobert, who was lord of the manor, should make a feoffment of these lands to the use of himself and others, and their heirs, in trust, to put out some of the poor boys of that parish every year to some trades. From which decree the plaintiff appealed (c), arid objected against it, that there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Peggs v Lamb
-
Chichester Diocesan Fund & Board of Finance (Incorporated) v Simpson
...of a parish or town or of any particular class of such inhabitants is (as I understand the law) a charitable trust"; and he cited Wright v. Hobart, 9 Mod. 64, in which Lord Macclesfield established as a charitable trust an ancient grant of land for the pasture during three months of the ye......
-
Westropp v Congested Districts Board
... ... xxii, pp. 299–322. The right created by the deed was valid, at least qua existing lives: Lord Dungannon v. Smith ( 8 ). In Wright v. Hobert ( 9 ) a grant of law to charitable uses, “that as many of the inhabitants of the parish of A as were able to buy three cows might feed ... ...