Difference between a church appropriate, and not appropriate. In appropriations, all will be now an avoidance happen, and in such case the The difference between a church appropriate. and not appropriate is that the former is annexed to the corporation or person to whom it is appropriated, and his or their successors for ever, the latter is only for the life of the incumbent. Hence those who had appropriations could originally no more grant their title of appropriation to others, whereby to make the grantees perpetual incumbents of them as ap propriations, than incumbents of churches presentable could convey by their sole act their incumbencies. (3) Although by any thing which can now be shown an appropriation may be defective, yet it (1) Grendon v. The Bishop | of Lincoln, Plowd. R. 493. Mallet v. Trigg, 1 Vern. R. 42. rard, Hob. R. 308. Grendon v. The Bishop of Lincoln, Plowd. R. 496. (3) Wats. Cl. L. ch. 17. 189. (2) William Wright v. Ger- 195. 2 Rol. Abr. 341. have been done cor will be intended in respect of the ancient and intended to continual possession that all was done which might make the ancient appropriation good; rectly. for records and letters patent and other writings either consume, or are lost and embezzled; if an appropriation had been questioned in the life time of any of the parties to it, they might have shewn the truth of the matter; but after the death of all the parties, and the succession of ages, during which a church has been esteemed rightfully appropriate, the ancient and long possession of the owners must prevail, as the loss of the original endowment of a vicarage is supported by prescription, and an augmentation may be thereby presumed. (1) tion. A church appropriate may become disappro- Church dispriate; first, by the dissolution of the religious appropriated. First, house or corporation whereunto the appropri- by dissoluation was granted; because the perpetuity of person is then gone, which is necessary to support the appropriation. So it has been said by Hobart, that if the statutes had not continued the appropriations to the king, they had been dissolved, ipso facto, by the dissolution of the houses. (2) (1) Bedle v. Beard, 12 R. 5. Crimes v. Smith, 12 Rep. 4. Hunston v. Cocket, Cro. Jac. 252. Britton v. Wade, Cro. Jac. 515. (2) Wright v. Gerrard, Hob. | R. 306. Grendon v. The Bishop of Lincoln, Plowd. Rep. 497. Secondly, by present ment. Thus, when the order of the templars (to whom divers appropriate parsonages belonged) was dissolved, and their possessions granted to the prior of St. John of Jerusalem, in England, Justice Herle, in 3 Edw. III. said that if the Templars had granted their estates in the appropriations to the hospitalers, that is, to them of St. John's of Jerusalem, the hospitalers should not have it; for it was granted only to the templars, and they could not make an appropriation thereof over unto others, that which was appropriate unto the templars being disappropriate by the dissolution of their order. (1) Secondly, by presentment; as if the person presented be inducted, the church is thereby made presentative, the incumbent so instituted and inducted is to all intents and purposes complete parson, and it amounts to a reunion of the vicarage and parsonage. In this way Lord Dyer disappropriated a church, the appropriation of which belonged to him. The appropriation at first being made by a judicial act, cannot be undone by any private act of the patron, but only by presentment, which is also a judicial act, and which completes the disappropriation without institution or induction (*) Sir Hen. Spelm. Apol. ch. 29. 141. and without any previous agreement between patron and ordinary. (1) Lord Coke says, if a woman be endowed of an advowson which is appropriated, and she present, and her incumbent is admitted, instituted, and inducted, albeit the incumbent die, yet is the appropriation wholly dissolved, because the incumbent, who came in by presentation, had the whole state in him (2); but according to what is said in the case of Lancaster v. Lucas, such disappropriation shall only be during the life of the widow, for if such a thing is done by lessee for years, it can only hold during his term of years. (3) It has been even said, that if an appropriator presents to a vicarage by the name of a parsonage, such presentation alone will disappropriate the church, although a presentment by a stranger to an advowson appropriate is void, even if the clerk is both instituted and inducted. (4) An appropriation being once fairly severed When an apcan never be again reunited, unless by a repeti- propriation tion of the same solemnities ("); but a present- ed. once sever Impropriations. Number of. ation by usurpation, and institution and induction thereon does not disappropriate. (') Before the general council of Lateran, either in one thousand one hundred and seventy nine, or one thousand one hundred and eighty, appropriations might have been made to laymen, but by that council, which was received in England as part of the law of the land, laymen were made incapable of appropriations granted to them. (') By the 27 Henry VIII. chap. 28, and the 31 Henry VIII. chap. 13, the statutes of the dissolution of monasteries, it was enacted, That the king should have and enjoy to him and his heirs for ever, all monasteries, parsonages, appropriate and religious houses, with their sites, circuits, precincts, and revenues, in as large and ample a manner as the abbots and religious houses held and enjoyed them. The religious corporations being thus dissolved, the king granted the advowsons and other of their possessions to laymen, and the advowsons, benefices, rectories, and livings which have since that period got into lay hands, are called impropriations, of which there are in Eng (1) Com. Dig. tit. Adv. Part 2. ch. 2. Bishop of WinD. 4. chester's case, Gwm. 187. (*) Linden, 160. Decret. 2 Vin. Lect. 87. Bishop of Greg. 9. 1. 3. t. 30. c. 19. St. David's v. Lucy, 1 Salk. 2 Inst. 641. Degge, P. C. R. 136. |