Case ID: va_30/html/0537-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CARR, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Overseers of Poor of Henrico v. Hart.
    May, 1831.
    Chancery — Jurisdiction to Unjoin Overseer of Poor frocn Selling QSefoe Lands of Churchy — The rector of the protestan! episcopal church of the parish of H. insisting that the glebe land of that parish was a private donation lo the church made before the revolution, and so reserved to the church within the exception of the statute of 1802 for the resumption of glebe lands, 1 Rev. Code. ch. 32, b. and therefore claiming the legal estate of this glebe land, flies a bill in chancery, praying an injunction to inhibit the overseers of the poor of the comity from selling the same, under the general provisions of the statute: lllii.r), the court of chancery has no jurisdiction of such a case.
    This was an appeal from a decree of the superiour court of chancery of Richmond, upon a bill exhibited by the reverend William IT. Hart, against William Montague and others, Overseers of the poor of the county •of Henrico, wherein he alleged, That the glebe land of the parish of Henrico in that county, was a private donation for the use and benefit of the rector of that parish, made more than a hundred years ago, and therefore exempted from sale, *and preserved to the church, by the exception contained in the statute of January 1802, providing for the resumption and sale of glebe lands of the protestant episcopal church, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 32, b. p. 79, 81. That, at the time that statute was enacted, the reverend John Buchanan, now deceased, was rector of the parish, and incumbent of the glebe : and the plaintiff having been, some years before his death, appointed his assistant, was by him put into possession of the glebe, and permitted to enjoy the rents and profits thereof. That, upon the death of Mr. Buchanan, the plaintiff was regularly chosen his successor, and solemnly instituted rector of the church and parish of Henrico, and thus became entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the ;>lebe belonging- to the parish. But that the Overseers of the poor, proceeding under the general provisions of the statute, had advertised the glebe for sale. Therefore, the bill made them defendants ; called upon them to shew their authority for so proceeding; and prayed that they should be in joined from selling or otherwise disposing of the glebe. The injunction was awarded.
    The Overseers of the poor answered, That the glebe in question having become vacant by the death of the reverend John Buchanan, the late incumbent, they had advertised the same for sale, as was their duty, under the general provisions of the statute of January 1802. That the glebe lands in Virginia, generally, were purchased by public contributions of, or assessments in the form of parish levies upon, the people of the respective parishes, in pursuance of statutes of the colonial legislature; they referred to the acts of March 1655, act 9, 1 Hen. Stat. at large, p. 400, and of October 1748, ch. 34, 6 Id. p. 88. That if this glebe was, as the bill alleged, a private donation for the use and benefit of the rector of the parish, it formed an excep-, tion to the general mode by which such lands were acquired for the church ; an exception which it was incumbent on the plaintiff to establish by proper proof; and, unless he should be able to prove that the glebe was a private ^donation, and therefore excepted from the general disposition, which the statute of January 1802 required to be made of vacant glebe lands, it became the right and the duty of the Overseers of the poor, upon the death of the late incumbent, to make sale of it.
    The depositions of two aged witnesses were taken and filed, to prove the declarations of many old inhabitants of the parish, now dead, that the glebe in question was given to the episcopal church by one Farrar ; and that such was the ancient and general report and understanding, among the inhabitants of the parish, as to the manner in which the glebe was acquired. And to account for not producing the deed of the donor Farrar to the church, it was proved, thaf many of the records of the county court of Henrico, and papers deposited in the clerk’s office, were destroyed by the british army in 1781.
    The chancellor, upon the hearing, perpetuated the injunction ; and the Overseers of the poor appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued here by Williams and Daniel for the appellants, and Stanard for the appellee.
    But the only point considered and determined by this court, was the question of jurisdiction, Whether the case stated in the bill, was proper for relief in equity ?
    
      
       See monographic note on “Injunctions” appended to Claytor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518.
    
   CARR, J.

It has been decided by this court (so often and so recently that I need not cite the cases) that where a party has a complete remedy at law, equity will not interfere. We have also decided upon solemn argument, that a court of equity is not the proper tribunal to try legal titles, and that a bill bringing before this court, the dry legal title to lands, is demurrable : Stuart’s heirs v. Coalter, 4 Rand. 74, is one of the cases in which this point was decided, after the most careful examination. Upon the case stated in the bill, did the plaintiff want the aid of equity ? He had, as he says, the legal title and the possession ; and the K'glebe was a private donation, protected by the exceptions contained in the statute of January 1802. What had he, then, to fear from the defendants’ sale of the property ? That sale could not divest his possession, nor affect his title in the least: he had only to hold on, and let the defendants’ vendee bring- his action : and then the legal title would have been discussed, and passed upon, in that forum to which such questions properly belong. But he has come into equity, whose aid he does not need, according to his own shewing ; and brought up for its decision a title to real estate purely legal. Such a bill should never have been entertained.

The other judges concurring, the decree was reversed, and bill dismissed.