May 25, 1817. INFORMA TION.-DE titled to any part of the relief, a general demurrer will not hold. They admit that if a corporation has revenues applicable to the repair of bridges, highways, &c. CHARITABLE that it is a charitable foundation; and it is here MURRER USE. 66 66 alleged as a fact that the corporation holds lands, which, by the terms of the grant, are applicable to these purposes. The Master of the Rolls and Lord Chancellor were clearly of opinion that it was stated that the lands were vested in the corporation for the repair of bridges, public buildings, and highways, which have been held to be charitable purposes. The information has the substantive allegation that, "the said estate and revenues, "&c. were so granted and vested in them (the corporation) for divers public uses and purposes, "for the improvement of the said city, and the preservation and support of several public buildings, bridges, highways, and establishments "therein." This cannot be said to be the mere legal effect of the charter. It is a distinct and substantive allegation, that there are in the grants certain objects which are considered as charitable objects. In the charging part of the information it is stated," that, according to immemorial usage, "&c. the corporation revenue should be laid out "and applied in upholding divers public buildings "and bridges in the city and liberties of the said "city, and in repairing, cleansing, and lighting, "the streets, and highways, in the said city, and "the liberties thereof: and that various grants of 99 1817. TION.-DE- USE. "land and other hereditaments to the whole cor- May 25,, "porate body were made for these purposes.' Here are two distinct allegations of the application INFORMAof these revenues, not merely by the charter, but by the practice also, and that grants of land were CHARITABLE made for these purposes independent of the charter. And though all the lands are not granted for these purposes, and the lands which are given for such purposes are not specified, are we not to have a discovery? On this ground alone the demurrer ought to be overruled. If the complaint had been at the instance of one freeman, that the corporation were applying the revenues to party purposes, and particularly against the interests of the freemen, a question would arise which could not be easily disposed of. The question has been agitated. In the case of the Corporation of Colchester v. Lowten, the point, Colchester though not decided, was spoken of as doubtful. Corporation v. Lowten, In the case of Rer v. Watson, in 2 T. R. 204. 1 Ves. Beam. 226, 244, Ashurst, J. expressed an opinion that equity would 245. give relief, and that extra judicial opinion was mentioned in the case of the Corporation of Colchester v. Lowten. The facts, as they must be for the present taken, are that Lord Gort was made Chamberlain in 1786, that he never accounted to the whole body, nor to a select portion of it: and applied the revenues to his own private purposes, and that these proceedings took place in concert with the Common Council; so that there is an allegation of collusion. Besides, the Chamberlain May 25, 1817. is a trustee of a fund for charitable purposes, and the Attorney-General has clearly a right to call him INFORMA- to account. The demurrers are bad also in form, for they are speaking demurrers, introducing new CHARITABLE facts. TION.-DE- USE. Mr. Bell. A corporation has clearly a right to alienate its landed property. Whether it can apply its funds to improper purposes has not perhaps been Rex v. Wat- decided; but the dictum of Ashurst, J. is against son, 2 T. R. that 200. 204. power. If mayor or receiver applies the corporation charity fund to his own use, he is liable to account, though the proceeding should be sanctioned by the corporation, as in Sir T. White's charity, Duke 577.-But here the receiver never accounted to the whole corporation. Sir T. White's Charity, Vid. 2 Vern. 397. Col. P. C. 280.-2 Bro. P. C. 236. Mr. Leach, (now Sir J. Leach, V. C. E.) The Attorney-General stated merely what he considered as the effect of the charter, and the practice merely of applying the funds to charitable uses would not fix upon this the character of a charitable trust. But even though it were a charitable trust, the Court will leave the officer to account to the corporation, unless it is averred that the corporation colluded and it is not averred that the whole corporation colluded. The demurrers were not speaking demurrers; no new facts were introduced, and what were so called were only reasons. Order AFFIRMED. ENGLAND. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY. RANCLIFFE (LORD), and others-Appellants. THOMAS PARKYNS, and others EL ECTION. MISTAKE. LENGTH OF FATHER seized in fee of a manor and lands, &c. in R.; by Feb. 16, 18, settlement on his second marriage, limits estates tail to 20, 23, 25; March 2, 4, the sons of the marriage in his lands, &c. in R. without 1818. mentioning the manor, the ultimate remainder in the lands to himself and his heirs. The father having still the manor of R. and the reversion in fee of the lands, &c. and having two sons of the marriage, afterwards makes PURCHASER a will by which he devises all his manor and lands, &c. FOR VAL. CON. in B. and R. to his sons for life, with remainders to their WITHOUT sons in tail. Expressions in the will from which, if NOTICE. there had been nothing to oppose that construction, it might be reasonably conjectured or concluded that the MISSIONS IN testator intended to devise immediate estates for life to ANSWERS, &c. his sons, not only in the manor which was his own, but in the lands, &c. in R. in which they had estates tail under the settlement, and thereby to raise a case of election. But in the will he expressly ratifies and confirms the settlement, and every thing therein contained. Held by the Court of Chancery that this was not a case of election, and the judgment affirmed in Dom. Proc. Lord Eldon, (C.) observing that it is difficult in any case to apply the doctrine of election where the testator has a present interest in the estate devised, although it may not be entirely his own; and here he had manor, and the reversion in fee of the lands; and expressly confirmed the settlement in all its parts; and you cannot, as against that express declaration of intention to the contrary, take it by conjecture, call it demonstration plain, necessary implication, or what you will, but still only conjecture, that he does not mean to confirm. A. by will dated 1735, devises all his real estates in these general words, to his daughter I. for life, remainder to Feb. 16, 18, 20, 23, 25; March 2, 4, 1818. ELECTION.- FOR VAL. CON. her first and other sons in fee. Marriage of I. and B. (B. having no notice of the will) and petition in 1746 to parliament for an act to enable them to make a settlement, they being minors, in which petition I. is represented as entitled in fee to certain estates which had belonged to her father A; and act passed and settlement made on that ground. B. by settlement made in 1776, gives considerable interests to C. his eldest son by his wife I. which C. could not otherwise have in his father's life-time. Will of A. of the existence of which the parties had been before ignorant, discovered in 1799; bill in 1800 by C. claiming the estates under the will of A. his ANSWERS, &c. grandfather, as eldest son of I. dismissed in Chancery without costs; and the decree affirmed under the circumstances; it being uncertain whether the estates in question passed under the general words in the will of A. and whether the representation to parliament might not have been correct; B. honestly believing that he was a purchaser for val. con.; so long a time having elapsed, &c. LENGTH OF TIME.-ADMISSIONS IN in 1800. Case of the Leake and Thorpe estates. Bill filed 1799; THE case made by the bill as amended in 1800, amended bill which will be found more particularly stated in the Lord Chancellor's judgment, was generally and in substance as follows: By articles made in 1707 on the marriage of Sampson Parkyns, eldest son of Sir Thomas Parkyns, and Alice Middlemore, Sir Thomas and Sampson covenanted to settle certain premises in Great or East Leake, and Thorpe in Glebis or in the Clotts, in the County of Nottingham, to the use of Sampson for life, then to the use of Alice for life, remainder to the use of the first and other sons of the marriage in tail male, remainder to the right heirs of Sir Thomas. The marriage took place: Sampson died leaving a son Thomas; and afterwards, in 1716, a settlement was made in pursuance of the articles, conveying to Thomas an estate |