attorneygeneral v lord Foley June bro p c S c a person building a chapel on  land of which he have a lease and the owner stand by and see it build without  obstruct it do not give the former a right to the chapel or to nominate the  relator have erect a chapel of ease on some land of which they be in  possession under a lease the owner see it in the course of the building and  make no objection the information be to establish the right to the chapel and  to have the right of nominate a curate to officiate in it and to establish the  nomination that have be make by one Collins it be argue on the part of the  relator that have build the chapel and the owner of the land stand by and not  obstruct they it be now too late to set up a claim to it that it be for public  service and must be suppose to be give up to the public as where a man owner  of ground erect building in the nature of a street it be suppose to be for the  benefit of the public and he can afterward stop the way and the case of the  attorneygeneral v Brereton Ves be cite on the part of the defendant Lord Foley  it be argue that he have purchase of Lord Abergavenny the soil on which the  chapel be erect the question therefore be whether Lord Foley have a right to  the chapel and if so whether he have dickens not a right to nominate a curate  to officiate in the chapel or to remove he from it Lord Foley purchase the  soil of Lord Abergavenny and have the same right as Lord Abergavenny have if  he be entitle to the soil he be entitle to whatever be build on it and if he  have such right he have a right to dispose of it which he have do the soil  certain belong to Lord Foley unless Lord Abergavenny have do some act to  divest himself of that right it be insist by the plaintiff that as Lord  Abergavenny suffer the chapel to be build and be privy to it he design it for  public benefit and can now reclaim it so if a man lie out building in the  nature of a street it be suppose to be for the benefit of the public it will  be so for ever and a action of trespass will not afterward lie against  passenger but the plaintiff must show he have a title to the soil at the time  he build the chapel it be true he have a temporary title by virtue of a lease  but that do not give he a title after the lease be expire so Lord coke say in  Rep and Lord coke in Inst say albeit people build chapel yet it be necessary  before they be property call so that they shall be consecrate this chapel have  not be consecrate by the bishop consequent it be no chapel but lie property  and must belong to a layman if so to who more proper than to Lord Foley the  purchaser a chapel of ease have a district that district be oblige to keep it  up this be not so who be to repair it dickens and if a chapel of ease the  parson be to nominate so hold in Hobart Lord Hardwicke c the first question  and fundamental point of this suit be to establish a right to the building and  soil as a perpetual chapel for the use of the inhabitant and unless that point  be establish all the rest fall to the ground if that be establish then the  other question will arise whether Lord Foley have a right to nominate a curate  and if to nominate whether he have not a right to remove and then another  question will arise as to establish the nomination of Mr Collins I will for  the present suspend my judgement upon the fundamental point and give my  opinion upon the latter question first if it be consider in the light of a  private chapel it seem to I that Lord Foley have a right to nominate the  chapel have be erect thirtyfour year in all this time five curate have be  appoint no other proof of nomination but that of Mr Collins which be a parti  dickens er p cular case what be do by Mr Le Hant carry with it the appearance  of a nomination that be the only evidence of nomination to this chapel and  after this length of time I must consider the patron to have the nomination it  be true if there be no contract or write to the contrary the rector or vicar  will have it suppose it to be a establish chapel if Lord Foley have once  nominate I can not have remove his nominee the next question be in respect to  the licence by the bishop of Hereford that licence determine at his dickens  death the word be at my pleasure all lease at will determine at the death of  the grantor now as to the fundamental point whether the informant have a right  to have the chapel establish and that depend upon the question whether the  owner of the inheritance of the soil by act do by or acquiesce in by he give a  rialit to the inhabitant of a village to erect a chapel for divine worship on  his soil and give such a right as to establish it against he but that be not  this case this case be very different from that of the attorneygeneral v  Brereton which have be cite there be in that case a endowment of part of the  tithe the plaintiff do not pretend to any right or grant but only that Lord  Abergavenny know of the building and do not obstruct it it have be argue that  where a person in possession of land build a house on it and the person who  have the legal estate permit he to build and take no notice of his right the  court will not permit he afterward to make use of such right to claim the  house next it be insist that the chapel ought to be consider for the use of  the public as if a owner let we his land be use as a highway he can afterward  shut it up as to the first ground this be by no mean a case within that rule  for in this case the inhabitant know their title and upon that title only they  build whereas it be requisite to have the benefit of the rule the party shall  build on a apprehension the estate be his own dickens it be of no  signification that the place on which the chapel be build be a place that be  use for sport all place near town will be use as such at time beside the  ground appear to have be on lease from the year there be not a sufficient  foundation to determine on Lord Abergavenys permit the land to be build on  that he forfeit or lose his right if it be not to be consider in that light  then it be say it ought to be consider as a donation Lord Abergavenys have  permit the land to be use and build upon for public use the case of leave land  for street or public highway bear some analogy to this case but there be a  manifest difference the shut up of a highway be a annoyance to the public and  no contract can be make the inhabitant contract with Cheltenham for a lease  and get it what occasion for any other right the question therefore that  remain be whether that permission or nonobstruction of Lord Abergavenny to  erect the chapel for public use be a donation I be of opinion it be not there  be the letter of the d October be a very strong piece of evidence against the  relator it be not four month after the lease for it be plain Lord Abergavenny  expect the inhabitant to treat with he to take some grant and to make some  acknowledgement dickens in short it be my opinion that a person the owner  stand by and see a building go on though for public service be not a  sufficient ground in equity to establish a right against he and therefore let  the information be dismiss dickens er p