Court Of Common Pleas, Tu...
- u racui upon wnicn this actibn turned wrerc put Into a special case for the determination of the Court. It appearas that the plaintiff and the defendant were both inhabitants of thepasrith of Bury St. Edmonds, and that some yeara ago an order had beow raade at a vestry to ercct a new towrer to the parish church. At the time that order was made, and also whilst it was executing, the plaintiff was clnsrchwarden, and the defendant had not only been present at the vestry, and signed thc minutes when It was wnade, but had also been employed as a plumber in carrying it into effst asod had given nome airections to the carpenter as to the way in which hewas toplace the boards to receivethe lead. Theehurchwardens msdeayateto de. fray the expense oftbis erection; but it was quasked for some'irregu. larity. The plaintiffthen commenced an actlon agaimtthe defendant to recover fr-RI him his share in the expensets w.hich had been in. curred; and the question which the Court had to decide was, whe- ther the defendant, having signed the mninuta of the vestry, had made himself personally liable for thc expenscs which had been in. curred in carrying the order of the vertry into execution. Air. Sergeant PELL was this day heard on behalf of the plaintiff, and contended that the action he had brought was, In point of law, strictly maintainable. The LotD CHIEF JUSTICE, in deliverin$ the opiniou of thie Court, said, that there had been no contract, either implied or cx- press, on the part of the defendant to defray the expenses of this building. When a man went to a vestry to consider the proprietv of repairing the church, or the work.house, or any oher parish buld ing, he had no idea of making himsclfpersonally Iinblefor the sums whieh might he expended on such repairs: indeed, if a man's,I attendance ac a vestry were to saddle him withsuch expenses, vestries uwonld be very thinly attended in future. Nothing could be more UnJUst, in his opilion, thian, to make individuals who took an active part at vestries in the iinaamcial concerns of the parish personally liable for what they did for the general benefit of the wUole parish. It would be makir,g 20 persons pay for what benefitted a tbousand, and placing tho same tax unon a tnan with 51. a year as upon the man with as many thousands. The repairs were to be defrayed out of a rate levinet on the whole parish ; and if the rate had been proverly levied in this instance, the plaintiff would have been put in posses- sion of funds, out of which he could have discharged the expenses he had incurred ott gehalt of the parish. Ie lie had neglected to inake a good rate, it was his own fault, and he could not be allowed to turn round and make gnother peissn responsible for the effectsof it. tinder these circumstances, as there was neither an express or im- plied contract ou the:part of the tdefendanit, he lield the action net to be Inaintainab)e The other Judges concurred in this opinion. A nonsuit in to be entered as against the plaintiff. The Judges then rose, and adjouzned to the Exchequer Chamber. COUBRT OF-COMMON PLEAS, TISrESAY. No9. 23. LA2TCASTER V. FREW6R.