Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Ecclesiastical - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Sands's Case [1803] EngR 314; (1803) T Raym 93; (1803) 83 ER 51 (B)
1803


Ecclesiastical

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Gates v Chambers [1824] EngR 66; (1824) 2 Add 177; (1824) 162 ER 259
1824


Ecclesiastical

[ Commonlii ]
 
Ongley v Chambers [1824] EngR 356; (1824) 1 Bing 483; (1824) 130 ER 193
12 Feb 1824


Ecclesiastical, Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe On The Joint And Several Demises Of The Rev H D Broughton And D W Stow v John Gully [1829] EngR 58; (1829) 9 B & C 344; (1829) 109 ER 128
1829


Ecclesiastical, Land
A rector in 1814, and after the 13 Eliz. e. 20, had been repealed, in consideration of 600l, granted, bargained, and sold the rectory and glebe lands, and all tithes, &c for 100 years, to the grantee of an annuity for securing the same, After the passing of 57 G. 3, c. 99, by deed, reciting the grant of the annuity, and that A. B. had agreed to lend the rector 600l to enable him to redeem the annuity, the grantee of the same, in consideration of 600l, by direction of the rector, assigned to A. B. the 600l by him paid for the purchase of the annuity, and the term, and the rector confirmed to A. B. the rectory for that term, for the purpose of securing the repayment of the sum advanced by him to redeem the annuity, as well as other sums : Held, that inasmuch as the term was created after the passing of the 43 G. 3, e. 84, which repealed the 13 Elk. e. 20, against charging bengfices, the assignment of it for the purpose of securing the money paid as the consideration for the annuity, was valid, and vested the legal estate in A, B., although made after the 57 G. 3, c. 99, which, perhaps, revived the 13 Eliz c. 20, so far as related to charges upon benefices.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Wise v Metcalfe (1829) 10 B&C 299
1829


Ecclesiastical, Land
The responsibility of a lay rector to his church was to keep it into substantial repair but without ornament.
1 Citers


 
Maddison v Nuttall [1829] EngR 280; (1829) 5 Bing 226; (1829) 130 ER 1266 (B)
11 Jan 1829


Ecclesiastical

[ Commonlii ]
 
Tooth v The Dean And Chapter Of Canterbury [1829] EngR 460; (1829) 3 Sim 49; (1829) 57 ER 919
13 May 1829


Ecclesiastical, Land
The Dean and Chapter of C., being rectors of a parish, leased all the tithes belonging to the rectory. The lessees filed a bill for tithe of hops against the occupiers, to which the vicar was made a party as claiming that tithe. The occupiers then file a cross-bill against the dean and chapter and their lessees, for a discovery and production of documents. Demurrer by the dean and chapter alIowed.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The Rev John Rudd, Clerk v John Wright, John Wood, John Coupe, James Wagstaff, Ann Chambers, And John Horncastle [1830] EngR 820; (1830) You 147; (1830) 159 ER 942
10 Nov 1830


Land, Ecclesiastical

[ Commonlii ]
 
Southall v --- [1831] EngR 560; (1831) You 308; (1831) 159 ER 1010
25 Apr 1831


Ecclesiastical

[ Commonlii ]
 
The King v The Inhabitants Of Ossett-Cum-Gawthorpe [1832] EngR 778; (1832) 4 B & Ad 216; (1832) 110 ER 437
1 Nov 1832


Ecclesiastical

[ Commonlii ]
 
Bishop of Ely v Gibbons (1833) 4 Hagg Ecc 156; [1833] EngR 261; (1833) 4 Hag Ecc 156; (1833) 162 ER 1405
1833


Ecclesiastical
Responsibility for the repair of the parish church was, absent some special custom to the contrary shared between the rector and the parishioners.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Ex Parte Winfield [1835] EngR 791; (1835) 3 Ad & E 614; (1835) 111 ER 546
9 Jun 1835


Ecclesiastical
The Court will grant a rule absolute in the first instance for a madamus to the archdeacon, to swear in a party as churchwarden, on affidavit of due election, demand and refusal, and of notice to the archdeacon of the application to the Court ; the ground of refusal not appearirig by the affidavit in support of the rule.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v The Vestrymen and Churchwardens or St Pancras Middlesex (1839) 11 Ad and E 15; [1839] EngR 1019; (1839) 11 Ad & E 15; (1839) 113 ER 317
1839

Lord Denman CJ
Administrative, Ecclesiastical
The applicant sought an order of mandamus requiring the Vestrymen and Churchwardens to hold a meeting of the parishioners for the election of Vestrymen and auditors for the Parish on the grounds that a meeting previously held for that purpose had been conducted unfairly, in that on a vote to nominate four inspectors for the election of Vestrymen, two lists of four were prepared by the two parties, that is the Churchwardens on the one hand and the Meeting on the other. On a show of hands, the Churchwardens expressed their decision in favour of their list. This was disputed; and those in favour of the list demanded a division of the voters present in order that the numbers on each side might be counted. The Churchwardens refused to take this course and declared the election carried by the show of hands. Lord Denman CJ, giving the judgment of the court said: "…. The show of hands ought to be fairly taken. Was it so taken? A strong doubt was expressed at the time whether the Churchwardens had not made an erroneous report of the numbers on each side: it is even now sworn, by several who were present, that the majority was the other way; nothing could be more reasonable than the demand that the numbers should be divide and be counted. If this had been done with closed doors, certainty would have been obtained in a few minutes. But the Churchwardens took upon themselves to declare the respective numbers in favour of that party to which they avowedly belong at the very moment when they refused to ascertain the truth. The affidavits now produced by them and many others of their belief in respect of this doubtful matter, do not meet the just complaint that they might have spoken with perfect knowledge; and that belief is, indeed, founded on the remarks and reasonings which are detailed and are very far from being conclusive. These considerations have brought us to the opinion that the mandamus ought to be issued"
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Leake v The Marquis of Westmeath [1841] EngR 1239; (1841) 2 M & Rob 394; (1841) 174 ER 328 (B)
20 Dec 1841


Ecclesiastical, Family
A decree of the Court of Arches for alimony is not admissible in evidence without proof of the proceedings in the suit. Where a suit is removed by appeal from the Consistory Court to the Court of Arches, the judgment of the Court of Arches is not admissible in evidence without shewing that Court to be duly in possemion of such suit by producing the process of appeal, viz the transcript of the proceedings sent from the Court below.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Smith v Galbraith (1843) 5 D 665
1843


Ecclesiastical, Scotland

1 Citers


 
Khajah Hidayut Oollah v Rai Jan Khanum [1844] EngR 833; (1844) 3 Moo Ind App 295; (1844) 18 ER 510
1 Aug 1844


Ecclesiastical, Family, Commonwealth
By the Mahomedan law, continual cohabitation and acknowledgment of parentage is presumptive evidence of marriage and legitimacy.
[ Commonlii ]
 
In the Case of The Office of the Judge Promoted By Brookes The Younger v Cresswell [1847] EngR 804; (1847) 1 Rob Ecc 606; (1847) 163 ER 1151
2 Nov 1847


Ecclesiastical

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Queen v The Tithe Commissioners For England And Wales [1849] EngR 1214; (1849) 14 QB 459; (1849) 117 ER 179
18 Dec 1849


Ecclesiastical

[ Commonlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.