Page images

paying his ecclesiastical dues, and frustrate the pious intentions of his ancestors.

Watf. 109. 2 Inft. 361.

$ 16. As the computation of time concerns the church, it is therefore made according to the rules of the canon law, that is, by the calendar for one half year, not counting twenty.eight days to a month ; and the day on which the church becomes void, is not to be taken in the account.

[blocks in formation]

$ 17. As to the time from which the fix months are to commence, the rule of the canon law in all cases was, that the six months should be reckoned, not from the time of the voidance, but from the time when the patron had notice of the voidance. As if the incumbent dies beyond sea, the six months shall not be counted from the time of his death, but from the time of the patron's knowledge thereof.

18. 328.

$ 18. Where a clerk is refused for want of learning, or on account of his morals, the patron ought to have notice, that he may present another in due time. Yet if he neglects to do so, the lapse shall incur, from the death or cession of the former incumbent, and not from the time of notice.

Id. 329.

$ 19. It has also been held, that although no lapse shall incur, if no notice be given, yet if in such case a stranger presents, and his clerk is instituted, and inducted; and the patron gives no disturbance within fix months, he has no remedy for that turn, because induction is a notorious act, of which he is bound to take notice.

induction before

$ 20. If the clerk be not tefused, but the bishop only Id. 329. delays the examination of him, whereby the six months pass, no lapse shall incur : because the church remains void by the bishop's own fault, and he is thereby a disturber.

$ 21. After a church has lapsed to the immediate Wats. 115. ordinary, if the patron presents before the ordinary has filled the church, the ordinary ought to receive his clerk. For lapse to the ordinary is only an opportunity of filling a trust, viz. of appointing a proper person to fupply the living, in case of the patron's neglect, which being performed by the patron himself, the ordinary can then derive no advantage from it.

$ 22. All those who are sole feised in fee, in tail, or Who may

present. for life; or possessed for a term of years of a manor, to which an advowson is appendant; or of an advowson in gross, may present to the church whenever it be

cornes vacant.

$23. Where a person is seised or intitled to an advowson in right of his wife, he must present in his own name and that of his wife, and not in his own name only, in right of his wife.

§ 24. Where a lefsee for life of a manor to which & Roll. rise an advowson is appendant aliens the manor in fee, and 351. after the church becomes void, the lessor may present

C 3

Id. 352

before entry. But if tenant for life of an advowfon in
gross levies a fine came cco, &c. and the church be-
comes void, the lessee shall present, because the rever-
fioner did not make his election to take advantage of
the forfeiture, and the present presentment being a
chattel interest vested in the lessee, it could not be di-
vested by the presentment of the person in reverfion.

[ocr errors]

Ch. 1.

S 25. It has bcen stated that a man may be tenant by the curtesy and a woman tenant in dower of an advowson; in which case they may of course present to the church.


Wats. ch. 9.
i Inst. 388 a.

§ 26. Where a person is seised in fce of an advow. son and the church becomes void in his lifetime; if he dies before he has presented, the right of presentation devolves to his executors, because it is considered as a chattel real.

Watí. 76.

$ 27. But if the incumbent of a church be also seised in fee of the advowson of the same church and die, the right to present will devolve on his heir, and not his executor. For the 'avoidance and descent to the heir happening at the same instant, the title of the heir shall be preferred, as the most ancient and worthy.

Smithley v.
Dyer 135 a.

§ 28. Where a person has a grant of the next presentation only to a church, such right is considered as a chattel real, which if not disposed of, will vest in his


§ 29. An

i Inft. 186 b.

§ 29. An advowson may be held

be held in joint-tenancy, Joint-tenants. in which case all the joint-tenants must cancur in the presentation, and where an advowson is vested in

Wilson v. trustees under the usual words of limitation, they are Kirkshaw, joint-tenants : and therefore upon any avoidance must

7 Bro. Parl.

Ca. 296. all join in presenting a clerk.

1 Ver. 413.


S 30. Lord Coke says that if there be two joint- 1 Inf. 186.b.

365 tenants of an advowson, and one presents without the other, this is no usurpation upon his companion : But if the joint-tenant who presented dies, it shall serve for a title in a quare impedit brought by the survivor. And if one joint-tenant presents, or if they present severally, the ordinary may either admit, or refuse to admit such a presentee, unless they joined in presentation. And after the fix months, he may in that case present by lapse.

S 31. By the common law, where an advowson de

Coparceners. fcends to coparceners, and they cannot agree to present,

i lnst. 166 b.

2 Init. 365. the eldest fifter shall have the first turn, the second shall have the next turn, and so of the rest, according Plowd. 333. to their feniority. And this privilege extends not only to their heirs, but to the several aslignees of every coparcener ; whether they acquire the estate by conveyance, or by act in law, as tenant by the curtesy; who shall have the same privilege by presenting in turn, as the sisters had.

S 32. The estate of an advowfon descended to two Buller v. daughters as parceners. The church became vacant Epifc. Exeter, twice in their time, and both joined in presentation.

i Vel. 340.

The eldest married settled her estate in the common way and died. A vacancy happening, the husband of the eldest intitled to her estate as tenant by the curtesy or under the settlement claimed to present.

The question was whether the alternate turn of presentation among coparceners continued to the grantee, that is, whether the persons to whom it was conveyed, were to be considered as enjoying the same privileges, of presenting in turn, as the sisters and parceners, if they had their own estate. Mr. Baron Clark was clearly of opinion upon the authority of the passage in 2 Inft. 365. above stated that the husband of the eldest fister was entitled to the presentation.

The doctrine here laid down has been fully recognized by the Court of Common Pleas in the case of Barker v. Lomax, as reported by Lord Chief Justice Willes.

Willes Rep 659.


S 33. Although coparceners make composition to present by turns, this being no more than the law doth appoint, expreffio eorum que tacite infunt nihil operatur ; therefore they remain coparceners of the advowson, the inheritance of which is not divided.

$ 34. By the statute Westminster 2. c. 5. it is provided, that where an advowson descends to coparceners, though one presents twice, and thereby usurps upon his co-heir, yet he that was negligent shall not be barred, but another time shall have his turn to present when it falleth.

S 35. Tenants

« PreviousContinue »