
    The Inhabitants of the First Parish in Brunswick. versus John Dunning, Jun., and Others.
    A minister of a town, or parish, seised of lands in right of the town or parish, as parsonage lands, &c., is for that purpose a sole corporation, and holds the same to him and his successors.
    tn case of a vacancy in the office of minister, the town or parish is entitled to the custody of the lands, and may enter and take the profits until there be a successor.
    Every town is considered to be a parish, until a separate parish be formed, when the inhabitants and territory not included in the separate parish form the first parish; and the minister of such first parish by law holds, to him and his successors, all the estates and rights which he held as minister of the town before tlie separation.
    This was an action of trespass for breaking and entering the close of the plaintiffs. The parties agreed to submit the cause to the determination of the Court upon certain facts stated. If thereon the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled by law to maintain the action, judgment was to be rendered in their favor for a sum agreed as damage, and for costs; otherwise they were to become nonsuit, and the defendants to have judgment for their costs.
    The facts agreed were, that the Pejejpscut proprietors, so called, being seised in fee of a. large tract of land, including [ * 446 ] * what is now the town of Brunswick, on the 23d day of June, 1715, voted and laid out, for the use of the ministry in said town, one hundred acres of land in said town, being the close described in the plaintiff’s declaration, which is called the ministerial lot, and in which the alleged trespass was committed. Robert Dunlap was the first Congregational minister settled in the toxvn, and during his ministry he occupied said lot. John Miller, the second Congregational minister, settled in the town, was ordained in the year 1761, and during his ministry occupied the said land, and erected the frame of a house thereon. In January, 1794, Ebenezer Coffin was settled as successor to Mr. Miller, and, during his ministry, which continued to the year 1800, he caused the said lot of land to be surveyed, and exclusively occupied the same. Since the dismissal of the said Coffin, no other minister has been settled as his successor.
    On the 20th of June, 1794, a number of the inhabitants of Brunswick and Harpswell, in the county of Cumberland, and Bath, in the county of Lincoln, with their polls and estates, were incorporated, by the name of The Baptist Religious Society in Brunswick, Harps-well, and Bath, with all the privileges, powers, and immunities, which other parishes in this commonwealth are by law entitled to.” 
    
    On the 22d of February, 1803, certain persons named, with their families and estates, together with such others, being inhabitants of the town of Brunswick, as had or might, within two years after passing the act of incorporation, associate themselves for the same purpose, in the manner thereinafter described, were incorporated into a religious society, by the name of The Baptist Society in Brunswick, with all the powers, privileges, and immunities, to which other parishes are entitled by the constitution and laws of this commonxvealth. 
    
    On the 4th of July, 1781, the said Pejepscut proprietors made a grant to said town of Brunswick of a lot of land in the said [ * 447 ] town, by metes and bounds, supposed to contain * one thousand acres ; but further granted, “ that in case there should be more than one thousand acres within the said bounds, the overplus, be it more or less, should be appropriated and granted for the support of the gospel in said town of Brunswick forever; that is to say, for the use and improvement of the Rev. John Miller, the then present pastor of the church in said town of Brunswick, and his successors in said office forever.
    
      On these facts Alden, of counsel for the defendants, contended that there had been no such division of the town of Brunswick into two parishes, as is contemplated in the statute of 1786, c. 10, § 4, 5, and that therefore the lands appropriated to the support of the ministry in the town still belonged to the town at large; so that the plaintiffs could not maintain this'action.
    
      Mellen, for the plaintiffs,
    cited the cases of Weston vs. Hunt, 
       and Windham vs. Portland. 
      
    
    
      
       1 Mass. Special Laws, 528.
    
    
      
       3 Mass. Special Laws, 111.
    
    
      
       2 Mass. Rep. 500.
    
    
      
       4 Mass. Rep. 384.
    
   Curia.

When a minister of a town or parish is seised of any lands in right of the town or parish, which is the case of all parsonage lands, or lands granted for the use of the ministry, or of the minister for the time being, the minister, for this purpose, is a sole corporation, and holds the same to himself and his successors. And in case of a vacancy in the office, the town or parish is entitled to the custody of the same, and for that purpose may enter and take the profits, until there be a successor. Every town is considered to be a parish, until a separate parish be formed within it; and then the inhabitants and territory, not included in the separate parish, form the first parish; and the minister of such first parish by law holds, to him and his successors, all the estates and rights which he held as minister of the town before the separation. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the plaintiffs are entitled to the custody and profits of the close, in which the supposed trespass was committed, and they are therefore entitled to judgment.

Defendants defaulted  