
    Revere versus Gannett.
    Where a corporation had built a meetinghouse, and sold the pews to individuals, it was held, that an execution against the corporation could not be extended on the pulpit.
    Trespass quare clausum fregit. Upon a case agreed by the parties, it appeared, that certain land was conveyed to the Cambridge Port Meetinghouse Corporation, by deed of the 15th of April, 1806, for the purpose of building a meetinghouse. On the 1st of March, 1808, (by St. 1807, c. 72,)the members of the corporation, together with the polls and estates on a certain territory in Cambridge, called Cambridge Port, were incorporated into a parish. By the 5th section of this act, it is provided, that the Meetinghouse Corporation may convey to the parish all the property of the Meetinghouse Corporation, subject to the payment of their just debts ; after which the powers of the Meetinghouse Corporation should be extinct, except so far as might be necessary for collecting assessments already made, and fulfilling existing contracts. The Meetinghouse Corporation built a meetinghouse in 1805, and on the 2d of February, 1809, conveyed to the parish all their interest and estate in the meetinghouse and in the land under and adjacent to it, excepting the péws ; all or nearly all of which the Corporation had sold by auction to various individuals previously to the passing of the act last mentioned The plaintiff recovered a judgment in an action of debt against the Meetinghouse Corporation in 1821, and on the 2d of July of the same year extended his execution on the pulpit of the meetinghouse, as the property of the Meeting house Corporation. On the Sundays following, until the date of the writ, the defendant, with notice of the extent, occupied the pulpit as the settled minister of the parish ; and this is the-trespass complained of.
    Minot, for the plaintiff,
    contended, among other things, that the Meetinghouse Corporation continued in existence for the purpose of fulfilling its contracts, and that the plaintiff’s judgment against it was rightfully recovered ; that whether the 'egislature had a light to impose a restriction on the alienation of their property, or not, they by selling, and the parish oy buy-mg, in pursuance of the statute, had assented to the restriction ; and that the parish held the property, subject to the payment of the debts of the Meetinghouse Corporation.
   But per Curiam.

Supposing these points in favor of he plaintiff, the levy of the execution on the pulpit does not *give him a right to maintain this action. The Meetinghouse Corporation had sold the pews to individuals. The purchasers must be supposed to take with the pews that which renders them valuable. The sellers can have no right to take away the windows of the meetinghouse, or the walls, or the pulpit, or the singers’ loft. The proprietors of pews are entitled to various privileges, such as passing through the aisles, being addressed from the pulpit, &C. There is no property in the pulpit distinct from the right of enjoying the house for public worship. The levy on the pulpit is therefore void, and the plaintiff, according to the agreement of the parties, must be '■ome nonsuit. 
      
       As to the rights of proprietors of pews, see Daniel v. Wood ante, 102,104, note (l)
     