But even admitting that the Overseers could so dispose
of the property of the Indians, for promoting a particular religious
worship in Marshpee, (which is explicitly denied,) could they convey
any thing to Mr. Fish beyond the period of their own existence? By the
law establishing the Overseers, they had no power beyond leasing land
for two years. How then, could the Overseers grant for life to Mr.
Fish the improvement of the parsonage and Meeting-house? They might
have given it to him from year to year, while they were in office, but
on the abolition of the Overseers, in 1834, and a restoration of
civil rights to the owners of the fee of the parsonage, the Marshpee
Proprietors, how could Mr. Fish continue to hold the parsonage against
their will? Was it by virtue of his settlement, so that he now claims
the land as a sole corporation? But a minister cannot be settled or
constituted a sole corporation, without a parish to settle him. "A
minister of a parish seized of lands in its _right_ as parsonage
lands, is _a sole corporation_, and on a vacancy, the parish is
entitled to the profits;" 2d Dane's Abrg. 342. 7 Mass. Rep. 445. Mr.
Fish is not seized of a parsonage in right of any parish or religious
society, and therefore he cannot be a sole corporation. In point of
fact, there was no legal parish in Marshpee, when Mr. Fish went there
and took possession, under the Overseers, and not in right of
the parish. A parish or precinct as the law then was, must be a
corporation entitled and required to support public worship, and
having all the powers and privileges necessary for that purpose.
Pages:
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194