brown case William richardson appellant John chapman and other respondent that  February Mews dig v way xiv see brown v Higgs Ves it be a universal  proposition and of great moment to the safety and property of mankind that a  trustee ought strict to pursue the tenor of his trust without pervert it  direct or indirect to his own personal advantage and therefore where a  executor entrust with the disposition of some church preferment make a  presentation to a under a secret condition for his own benefit the  presentation be set aside and he be decree to present a more proper person  where a trustee fail in perform his duty it be the office of a court of equity  to interpose and guide he where such court be bind in conscience to set aside  the act of a trustee it will at the same time decree the proper act to be do  not by refer the matter to his discretion which be forfeit but by direct he as  a mere instrument to perform the thing decree order of Lord keeper Henley  reverse word of desire request or recommendation for request and  recommendation be consider as convertible term be sufficient to create a trust  provide that the property be certain and the object distinct mark where any  person give property and point out the object the property and the way in  which it shall go that create a trust unless he show clear that his desire  express be to be control by the legatee and that he shall have power to defeat  it see Gwillims Bac Abr title use and trust seven and Fonblanques treat Eq lib  c in n and the case there cite see burn ecclesiastical law edit by Fraser vol  I p doctor John potter late archbishop of Canterbury be entitle to the next  presentation to or disposition of several benefice or dignity in the church  common brown er p call options do by his will date the that of August  bequeathe the same in the word follow I give and bequeathe to my executor all  my options in trust nevertheless that in dispose of the say options regard be  have accord to their discretion to my old son Mr potter archdeacon of Oxford  to my soninlaw the husband of my daughter to my present and former chaplain  and other domestic particular to doctor Tunstall my chaplain and to Mr hall my  librarian also to my worthy friend and acquaintance particular to the reverend  doctor Richardson of Cambridge who will I hope in due time find some  opportunity to rectify those mistake in his print account of my dear and most  honour patron archbishop tenison of which he have be by I advertise and the  archbishop appoint George Paul LL D John Andrew LL D and the respondent  chapman his executor the archbishop die on the that of October and soon after  doctor Paul and the respondent chapman prove his will dr Andrew have die in  the testator lifetime the dignity or preferment of the treasurership of the  cathedral church of Chichester one of the options belong to the brown  archbishop and the first which fall become vacant about the year whereupon the  respondent chapman be present to the same by his cotrustee dr Paul though he  have be prefer by the archbishop in his lifetime to the live of Allington and  Mersham in the county of ken and to the archdeaconry of Sudbury in the county  of Suffolk together of the yearly value of pound and upward under such  presentation of the respondent chapman to the treasurership of Chichester dr  potter and the soninlaw of the archbishop file their bill in the court of  chancery insist that dr potter as be first name in the clause in the  archbishop will and after he the soninlaw be entitle before any other object  to be present to the options as they become vacant and pray that the Lord  bishop of Chichester may be stay by injunction from inducting the respondent  chapman into the treasurership and for other relief dr Paul by his answer to  the bill say that the respondent chapman have be one of the archbishop  chaplain he the say dr Paul take into consideration that in case of his death  the sole right of presentation to the options on a vacancy will vest sole in  the respondent chapman and that chapman may by mean thereof be hinder from  have any of the options for his own benefit but that the plaintiff in the suit  or any of the other object name in the testator will may at any time afterward  be present to all the other options on a vacancy he do present the respondent  chapman to the dignity of the treasurership of Chichester and further say that  he be Willing to join in present the several other person name or point out by  the archbishop in his will to the options as the same shall become vacant and  do not intend in case the respondent chapman shall be establish in the  treasurership to present he to any other of the options the respondent chapman  by his answer give the like reason for his be present to the treasurership and  further say that he be Willing and desirous and believe dr Paul be Willing and  desirous from time to time as the other remain options shall become vacant to  present thereto the several person name or point out by the archbishop in his  will accord to the best of their discretion and accord to the trust repose in  they and say that he believe dr Paul do not intend to present he the say  chapman to any other of the options in case he shall be permit to hold the  treasurership of Chichester and deny have give out that he or dr Paul will  hinder and prevent the plaintiff from all future benefit and advantage from  any other of the options which may then after become vacant or that he will  take to his own use all the say options the injunction obtain in that suit  have be dissolve soon after put in the answer the respondent chapman be  establish in the dignity of the treasurership of Chichester which brown be not  only of considerable yearly profit but be increase in value to the respondent  by the drop of two life in a lease of a estate belong to the same for the  renew of which the respondent chapman demand pound the place or dignity of  precentor of Lincoln be the three option which become vacant the second be a  rectory with cure of soul and this vacancy be occasion by the death of dr  Trimnell upon the that of may brown er p the respondent chapman have long  intend to procure this option to himself have early intelligence of dr  Trimnells death and on the that of may set out for bugden but not find the  bishop at home go on to Lincoln and inquire into the state and condition of  the house belong to the precentorship and talk with one Mr hold the agent of  the late precentor widow relate to the furniture of the house and the time  that the widow may probable be permit to stay in the same and from thence go  to the bishop of Lincoln who he meet upon his visitation at Hatfield on the  saint of June and desire the bishop to admit he into the office or dignity of  precentor as patron of that turn upon his own prayer but the bishop do not  think proper to comply with the proposal and tell he that he will write to he  upon the subject and accord afterward write and inform he that if he chapman  have be absolute patron of that turn he will have admit he to the  precentorship upon his prayer but as it appear he be not such patron but only  in trust he desire to see a extract of the archbishop will and a copy of the  order of the court of chancery relate to the treasurership of Chichester  before he will determine whether he can proper admit he to the precentorship  or not the respondent chapman find from the answer give by the bishop that it  will be difficult to procure himself to be admit to the precentorship in the  manner he have first propose form another scheme to accomplish his purpose and  with that view get the respondent venner a nephew of the wife of archbishop  potter who then reside upon a vicarage to which he have be prefer in the  county of ken to meet he at Rochester upon the that of June and at such  meeting the respondent chapman tell he that he have long intend to serve he  and that there be then a option vacant by which he design he shall be benefit  and then tell he that the precentorship and canonry residentiary of Lincoln be  become vacant and talk to he about the nature and business of the  precentorship and before venner have give any answer to what be so mention the  respondent chapman tell he that perhaps the option itself may not be suitable  to he and ask he if he shall not like something else instead of the option  such as his the say chapman live of Mersham whereupon the respondent venner  desire to have the live of Mersham instead of the precentorship and the  respondent chapman then brown ask venner if he will signify so much to the  bishop of Lincoln upon which venner declare that he will and do accord during  the meeting at Rochester upon the that of June sign a certificate or petition  to the bishop of Lincoln for that purpose this certificate be afterward  destroy and the respondent chapman think it necessary that venner shall  certify to the bishop that he have have a offer make he of the precentorship  afterward send to venner to come to London whereupon venner meet the  respondent chapman in London upon the that of June when chapman tell venner  that he be not quite satisfy with what they have do with regard to the option  and the respondent chapman with a view that neither venner himself nor any one  else may have it in his power to say that he chapman have procure or persuade  venner to make a exchange again explain the nature and duty of the option and  make a pretend offer to venner of a presentation thereto and venner decline  such offer and say that he choose to exchange the same for Mersham the  respondent chapman at such meeting of the that of June procure venner to sign  another certificate to the bishop in the word follow know all man by these  present that I Samuel venner clerk vicar of Sutton Vallence in ken nephew to  the late most reverend doctor John potter archbishop of Canterbury by his wife  and one of those who be capable by his grace will of the benefit of some  option leave by the say will have have the offer from the reverend doctor John  chapman executor of his say grace will of a presentation to the chantorship of  Lincoln one of the say options now vacant for which I be very thankful but I  hereby declare that upon due deliberation and for several reason of private  convenience thereunto I move I choose in lieu thereof and in the way of  exchange for the say chantorsbip certain other preferment more suitable and  more agreeable to I in the present possession of the say doctor chapman which  he at my instance be Willing to assign and exchange to I for that purpose and  it be therefore my most earnest desire and my humble request to the right  reverend the Lord bishop of Lincoln that he will be please instead of myself  to admit the say doctor chapman to the say chantorship of brown er p Lincoln  and to put he in due form info the full possession thereof witness my hand and  seal this that day of June in the year of our Lord Samuel venner the  respondent venner at the time of sign this certificate be only bachelor of art  and incapable of hold any other live with his vicarage and the respondent  chapman be not patron of the live of Mersham nor of any other of the  preferment which be then in his possession a caveat be enter with the bishop  of Lincoln against admit the respondent chapman to the precentorship and the  bishop have thereupon inform the respondent chapman that brown it be necessary  he shall make a presentation the respondent chapman find he can not be present  as patron on his own prayer and be so press to make a presentation he on the  that of July sign a presentation of the respondent venner to the option which  he deposit in the hand of a friend of his own who be a stranger to Mr venner  and do not acquaint he that he have make such presentation till the that of  July and after the respondent venner be make acquaint with the same he never  pray to be admit thereon on the that of December the appellant file his bill  in the court of chancery against the respondent chapman and venner and the  Lord bishop of Lincoln which be afterward amend and the other respondent be  make defendant charge the several matter before state and that the first or  principal view of the respondent chapman be to obtain the precentorship to  himself without resign any preferment and when he find a difficulty in so do  he then first resolve to make use of venner in order to procure the  precentorship for himself upon exchange of other preferment of less value and  that the respondent venner be present to the option upon a agreement or  collusion between he and chapman that venner shall exchange the precentorship  with the respondent chapman for some of chapman preferment of less value than  the precentorship and it be further charge that all the person particular name  in the archbishop will have either from the archbishop in his lifetime or  since his death by mean of his opinion receive some benefit or preferment  except the appellant who have since the archbishop death alter his print  account of the life of archbishop tenison agreeable to the intimation give by  the archbishop in his will and all the respondent except the bishop of Lincoln  be require to set forth whether they claim to be present to the precentorship  of Lincoln and the bill pray that the presentation of the respondent venner to  the precentorship may be deliver up to be cancel and that the respondent  chapman may be compel to present the appellant and that the Lord bishop of  Lincoln may be direct to admit institute and induct the appellant into the  precentorship and that the trust repose in the respondent chapman may be  execute accord to the true intent of the archbishop express in his will and  that the bishop may in the mean time be restrain by injunction from do any act  for the induction installation or establishment either of the respondent  venner or chapman or any other person to the say precentorship to which bill  the several defendant put in their answer and the respondent chapman and  venner by their answer insist that venner be present for his own benefit and  advantage and without any agreement or promise whatsoever for all exchange but  the respondent chapman admit that he for twelve month pass and upward have  within himself a intention of make a exchange with Mr venner for the option in  case brown venner after his be admit shall be Willing to make such exchange  and believe that he have be and will in such case be Willing to make a  exchange with he but that he be not absolute determine within himself and  therefore can not set forth in case venner shall be admit to the vacant option  and shall offer to change with he for any preferment of his whether he shall  or shall not comply with such offer the respondent venner by his answer say  that in case he have be induct into the vacant option upon the presentation  make by the respondent chapman without any obstruction or impediment he shall  after such induction have be Willing and do within himself intend to exchange  the same with the respondent chapman for his live of Mersham or some other  preferment in his possession in case the respondent chapman will have consent  thereto the respondent dr potter Dr Sayer dr tanner and dr mill by their brown  er p answer renounce and resign all right or claim of be nominate or present  to the precentorship and the respondent dr tanner and dr mill say they be the  more Willing induce to relinquish all right or claim thereto in order to open  the way to the appellant who they know to be a person very much respect by the  late archbishop potter in his lifetime the respondent Tunstall and the  respondent hall by their answer several insist on a prior right to the  appellant under the trust of the archbishop options be name next after his son  and soninlaw and the respondent hall bring a cross bill pray relief upon the  foundation of such right but it will be immaterial to take further notice of  their claim the say respondent not have appear to the appeal and have thereby  relinquish all pretence of right and the bishop of Lincoln by his answer to  both bill say that he be Willing to be restrain from inducting install or  establish the respondent venner or chapman or any other person in the place or  dignity of precentor until the right and matter in dispute between the  appellant and the other respondent shall be full hear and determine by the  court both cause be afterward at issue diverse witness be examine and  publication pass and the bishop be examine as a witness prove the several  application make to he by the respondent chapman as before state and Mr Thomas  potter prove that the respondent chapman acquaint he that he chapman intend to  take the precentorship himself and to resign his lesser live to the respondent  venner and that if he Mr potter have no objection the bishop be desirous to  carry the exchange into execution but that upon Mr potter object that venner  be only a bachelor of art be incapable of take a dispensation to hold two live  the respondent chapman reply that point have be consider and settle and that  Mr venner be to go again to the university and keep as many term brown as will  enable he to take the degree of master of art which with a chaplainship to  some nobleman will qualify he for a dispensation and that it will be no  difficult matter to obtain the consent of the archbishop of Canterbury or his  successor to exchange his chapman life in the live of Mersham for the life of  Mr venner and that upon his Mr potter ask what be to become of the live in the  mean time he reply that he chapman shall keep possession both of the  precentorship and the live make a stipulate allowance thereout to the  respondent venner on the that that that and saint of November both cause come  on to be hear together before the Lord keeper Henley when his lordship see his  opinion at large burn ecclesiastical law be please to order that the bill  bring by the appellant and also the bill bring by the respondent hall shall  stand dismiss as against the Lord bishop of Lincoln with S cost and as against  the other defendant without cost and that the injunction obtain by the  appellant shall be dissolve from this decree of dismission the present appeal  be bring and on behalf of the appellant it be insist c York e will that there  be not a plain proposition in conscience nor of great moment to the safety and  property of mankind than that a trustee ought strict to pursue the tenor of  his trust without pervert it direct or indirect to his own personal advantage  for this purpose court of equity control the conduct of trustee and the same  care and jealousy which be employ in the regulation of private trust must be  deem peculiar due to such as be of a public nature and concern the sacred  office of religion that the sole view of the respondent chapman throughout  this whole transaction be to secure the preferment in question for himself  when he can not prevail to be admit direct on his own request his whole art  and attention be exercise to gain it in consequence of a indirect collusive  engagement with the respondent venner and this fact appear from the  conversation between they as state in both their answer it appear also from  his conversation with Mr potter and above all from the write memorandum lie  before the bishop in the form of a certificate from the respondent venner  import that he be desirous to take some other small preferment in the  possession of dr chapman instead of the precentorship which be much more  valuable the presentation be not draw up in favour of venner till after repeat  refusal of the bishop of Lincoln to admit dr chapman and information receive  that a bill in chancery be to be file against he it be then detain in the  custody or power of dr chapman for several brown er p week before it be  transmit to the bishop and when it be transmit the respondent venner never  tender himself for admission upon it that these fact be not deny by the answer  of either of they and prove as legal to the conviction of a court of justice  as they do in reason to every man own private conscience brown that a  collusive agreement or plan be form or enter into between the party to procure  the precentorship for dr chapman and that this plan have exist without  alteration except in the manner propose for accomplish it from the beginning  to the end of the transaction and it be admit by the answer of both that in  case the presentation make to venner shall not be cancel the intention remain  of resign in favour of dr chapman though the agreement be verbal deny that the  selfish conduct and breach of trust complain of in this case be high aggravate  in respect to the respondent chapman by his personal obligation to the  testator who be his patron by the considerable accession to his preferment out  of these options since the testator death through the mean of his cotrustee dr  Paul by the disclaimer in his answer to dr potter bill of any future  expectation of advantage from they and by the simoniacal nature of his deal  with the respondent venner against the reason rule and authority of the canon  law and of all the canon which bind the clergy and which be support in some  instance by penalty to be inflict in the temporal court under the authority of  act of parliament but it be object I that the trust in question confer no  right or interest upon the person particular name in the devise which can  entitle they to any remedy in law or equity it be a mere recommendation leave  by the testator to the discretion of his trustee whether they will attend to  it or not in any one instance and the options be submit to their absolute  power of dispose without control two that suppose for argument sake the devise  of the options be proper to be consider as a trust in a court of equity yet  the respondent chapman have perform it accord to the testator intent by  present the respondent venner who be a friend and acquaintance of the late  archbishop to the preferment in question III that allow the utmost force to  the argument urge against the respondent both in respect to the trust and the  manner of perform it yet the court be not warrant by any rule of equity or  precedent in similar case to decree a presentation in favour of the appellant  to the first of these objection it be say that the trust be allow to be  discretionary so far as concern the order of choice among the object name or  describe but be plain limit within the circle of those object many reason of  prudence and honour may make it proper to depart from the strict letter of the  devise with respect to the priority of any one claimant but it will be absurd  to suppose that the trustee be invest with a power of neglect wanton or  without cause every one of the beneficiary and trust anxious point out by the  testator and of confer the preferment in question upon themselves or other at  their own pleasure that the appellant construction of the devise be not only  most agreeable to the intent of the testator who have propose so many fit and  worthy brown object but be the most eligible construction to be make upon the  will of a archbishop of Canterbury dispose of the fruit of the prerogative of  that see by his own discretion as far as possible rather than by the will and  pleasure of a executor who if this notion prevail may sell the grant of a  option with impunity in defiance of a express trust that the construction  contend for be also agreeable to many adjudge case of a like nature word of  desire advice and recommendation to a executor be always deem legatary  especial when accompany with a devise express in trust and convey a right or  interest which may be maintain in a court of equity even though the testator  himself shall forbid any suit or action to be bring for the performance of his  will in that respect and the only case in which such word be hold not to be  legatary be where they be inconsistent with the antecedent right or interest  devise to that person to who they be address in such case the subject matter  of the recommendation have be once absolute devise away it can be presume that  the testator intend to use his subsequent word of recommendation in a legatary  sense which will be to construe his will as inconsistent with itself in one  and the same sentence as to the second objection it be not to be imagine that  the late archbishop speak of his friend and acquaintance in his will at his  time of life after his study brown er p and labour and in the high rank of  dignity will mean to include in that description a youth who have be send to  the university not long before his will be make and to who education his grace  contribute something but the fruit of which education must be uncertain at  that time as well as the profession which he may choose to follow and it be  plain from the particular instance of the appellant be name by the archbishop  that his grace mean to describe person in the church who he have peculiar  honour with his intimacy conversation and good opinion but suppose the  respondent venner to be a object describe within the meaning of the archbishop  will yet he be to be regard in this cause as a colluding instrument in the  hand of the respondent chapman to serve the purpose of break the trust in  deceit of the bishop of Lincoln and the jurisdiction of the court of chancery  and therefore ought not to be suffer to take the benefit of a presentation  obtain by a corrupt agreement or make out with a corrupt intention which be  still admit to exist and in answer to the three objection it be submit that  the relief contend for fall within all the general rule of trust wherever a  trustee become incapable of perform his duty it be the office of the court to  interpose and guide he whether his incapacity proceed from weakness or  corruption constant experience prove this in the case of guardian and trustee  of every denomination and there be no instance where the court be bind in  conscience to set aside the act of the trustee brown in which it have not at  the same time decree the proper act to be do not by refer the matter to his  discretion which be forfeit but by direct he to perform as a mere instrument  the thing decree that the appellant stand now the preferable and indeed the  only object before the court he have equal merit in the view of the testator  with most of those who be name he have comply with the condition require in  the devise he never receive any preferment from the archbishop in his lifetime  either before or after the make of his will the statute of that college in the  university of Cambridge of which he be master preclude he from accept any  benefice with cure of soul this circumstance be know to the archbishop and be  consider by he as appear in evidence and the appellant have the peculiar merit  at his own great experience and hazard of detect in this suit the misconduct  of two respondent and vindicate the honour of the testator trust it be  therefore hope that the decree of dismission will be reverse and that the  appellant will have such or the like relief as be pray by his bill on the part  of the respondent dr chapman it be contend c Pratt t jewel that he as survive  trustee have a absolute power of dispose of the vacant options to such of the  object describe by the archbishop will as he shall think the most deserve for  though the will observe a order in class the several object whereby those  first recommend may seem to have some priority of right give they yet the  trustee be not command to give such preference but be only request to have  regard to the several person there mention in the disposition of these options  from whence the respondent have always apprehend the archbishop mean to repose  a entire confidence and discretion in his trustee as his substitute to  nominate from time to time such as they upon due consideration of all  circumstance very believe the archbishop himself in the like case will  probable have select for the vacant option but if the respondent have no such  power of choice then not only the present but every other option as it fall  must be dispose of to the son and soninlaw of the archbishop in the order they  stand in the will although they be already most ample prefer and those who  stand behind must be for ever exclude unless those first mention will be  please out of their courtesy to pass by some little benefice for the present  turn for the sake of a better expectation whereas the respondent can not help  think that the archbishop will have judge those worthy gentleman very  sufficient provide for and will have choose in such case among his poor friend  some other person who merit as well as condition in life may require  subsistence as well as reward that if this discretion be take away then all  consideration of fitness and propriety must be lie aside neither merit or  learning or doctrine can be any recommendation on the one side nor the want of  these accomplishment any disqualification on the other brown the high dignity  as it may fall out must be give to the mean and perhaps the most unworthy the  old and young the single and marry man the poor and rich must all in their  turn have such brown er p casual preferment allot to they as chance shall drop  however improper or unsuitable to their condition but the respondent can not  believe that his patron ever mean to impose so servile a office on his trustee  and from these consideration it follow that no court of justice be capable of  try the merit of the several candidate much less be any such court able of  itself to exercise this discretionary power not only because it be a mere  personal confidence and incommunicable in its nature but because the court can  obtain by any possible method that knowledge of the party and their  circumstance which be absolute necessary to decide in the choice that in the  present case the respondent dr chapman when he have take a survey of the  archbishop friend can not help consider the case of Mr venner he be a nephew  of the archbishop wife and a first cousin consequent to his own child he have  be in some measure adopt by the archbishop in his lifetime who have give he  his education and have himself prefer he to a small live he be a person of  unblemished character and competent learning encumber with a large family and  without any other maintenance than that single live the only one the  archbishop have a proper opportunity of give he in his lifetime these  particular weigh with dr chapman and he can not be bring to think that any one  of his patron worthy friend and acquaintance be in all these respect so well  entitle to the archbishop bounty and this consideration determine he to give  Mr venner the preference and take the first care of he in the disposition of  this vacancy but though the respondent dr chapman principal view be to serve  Mr venner yet he will have be better please if by the mean of this  precentorship he can have extend the archbishop favour to more than Mr venner  and therefore if he may have be permit by take the precentorship himself to  have give out of his own preferment a good live to Mr venner and the  archdeaconry of Sudbury either to dr Tunstall or Mr hall he may have gratify  more than one person accord to which scheme he can have be no gainer himself  because those two preferment so propose to be exchange be in truth of more  value than the precentorship but when this scheme be render impracticable by  the opposition of those who will be content with nothing less than the whole  precentorship the respondent dr chapman return to his first object Mr venner  and present he free to the option without any contract promise or engagement  direct or indirect whereby he may avail himself or receive any benefit either  by any future exchange or in any other manner whatsoever it be however charge  that in this whole transaction dr chapman have no other view than a corrupt  design brown to procure the benefice for himself that Mr venner be the  instrument pitch upon to accomplish this scheme by way of bargain and that  even the presentation now make be infect with the same corrupt bargain and  therefore ought to be set aside in a court of equity but no part of these  charge be prove and the respondent dr chapman hope he shall not stand convict  by suspicion without proof when he have most solemnly deny the charge in his  answer upon oath and it will be very hard upon he to be adjudge guilty of  simony only because the appellant have be please to charge it in his bill  where every plaintiff be at liberty to charge what he please without the least  regard to truth on the part of the respondent venner it be say c Pratt t jewel  that he conceive himself to be within the description of the person to any of  who dr chapman as survive executor may in his discretion dispose of the late  archbishop options it can not be suppose that the archbishop mean that his  executor in dispose of these options shall be oblige to observe the order in  which the object be mention in his will for that will in effect be leave they  no discretion or power of disposition at all though it appear on the face of  the will that the testator intend and in truth the nature of the thing require  that they shall have the full and free exercise of a discretion which in the  nature of it be personal and not communicable but must be whole leave to the  private judgement of the person who be invest with it that if a court of  equity shall take into consideration and examine into the degree of fitness of  the object for the preferment in question in order to determine to which of  they dr chapman shall in any instance give the preference in dispose of these  preferment it will be difficult to say by what rule or measure the court can  guide itself in the exercise of such right or power of control or in judge  which of the competitor all thing consider shall be deem the fit and most  proper brown er p object but the respondent venner hope that in the present  instance there can be no ground to object to the choice make of he and the  preference give to he by dr chapman on this occasion the archbishop son and  soninlaw have be ample provide for Mr venner relation to the archbishop family  the care which his grace have take of his education his know regard and  concern for his welfare his declare intention of provide for he which he have  not a opportunity of effectual do in his lifetime and his circumstance and  numerous family be presume to be sufficient reason for dr chapman dispose of  the option to he in preference to any of the other claimant and especial the  appellant that the pretence that the presentation make of the respondent  venner to this option be not fair and absolute and for his sole benefit or  that it be make on any agreement for the benefit of dr chapman be altogether  groundless and unsupported by any proof the respondent venner be not nor brown  can be affect by any fraudulent or unfair view or scheme impute by the  appellant to dr chapman in the disposal of the option in question but he be  well satisfy from the know honour of dr chapman that all such suggestion be  groundless and unwarrantable the exchange of preferment at first propose in  order to extend the benefit of the few remain options be to be submit to the  Lord bishop of Lincoln such exchange be not illegal and have be do on other  occasion the bishop make no objection to it and be desirous only that it shall  appear with certainty to be free on the part of Mr venner but when dr chapman  find that the provide for two in the manner he at first propose be attend with  difficulty he determine that the respondent venner shall have the full benefit  of the vacant option and present he accord if however dr chapman can still be  suppose to entertain any hope or expectation of any future exchange the  respondent venner be not privy thereto nor be they find on any promise or  assurance give by he the doctor can have no mean of compel Mr venner to comply  with any such hope or expectation nor can any such exchange ever be effect  without the consent and concurrence of the bishop of the diocese it be  therefore hope that the decree or order of dismission will be affirm and the  appeal dismiss with cost but after hear counsel on this appeal it be order and  adjudge that the order of dismission therein complain of shall be reverse and  it be further order that the presentation make by the respondent dr chapman of  the respondent venner to the precentorship in question shall be set aside and  that the same shall be deliver up by such of the party in who custody or power  it be to the appellant to be cancel and that the injunction to stay the  admission of the respondent venner to the say precentorship shall be make  perpetual and that the respondent dr chapman shall in due form forthwith  present the appellant to the Lord bishop of Lincoln to be admit to the say  precentorship and it be further order that the respondent dr chapman shall pay  the appellant the cost of this suit in the court of chancery to be tax by a  master and that the say court shall give all necessary and proper direction  for carry this judgement into execution jour vol p