This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1866 ...their powers, and trustees and visitors will be kept to their duty in like manner.--Tinkler v. Wandsworth (e), Ware Argument. v. Regent's Canal Co. (/), Willis v. Childe (g) Long V. Gray (A). The trustees here acted mala fide, even assuming that they had jurisdiction. They assumed to dismiss for cause, but the evidence shews a want of good faith.--Bummer v. Chippenham (i). There is a trust in favor of the plaintiff, and that gives jurisdiction. The plaintiff is interested in the endowment, and is entitled to be paid so much of it as is annexed to his chair, and it is clear that whether the endowment is in gross or distinct, this is so; Baugars v. Bivaz establishes this. Long v. Gray establishes the jurisdiction of the court (a) 32 Beav. 596. (6) 10 Jur. N, S.(1864J 669. (c) 1 Jur. N.S. 709; 2 Kyd, 174, 267. (rf) 2 Kyd, 241. (-) 2 DeG. & Jones, 264. (/) 5 Jur. N. 8. 25. (g) 13 Beav. 117. (A) 9 Jur. N. S. 805; 1 Moore, P.C. N.S. 461. (i) 2 Kyd, 59; 2 Lord Raymond, 1240. 14 Ves. 245. eral v. Clifton (a). both on the ground of trust and proceeding illegally. 1866. Even if the ordinary salary did not constitute a trust within the meaning of a court of equity, these trustees have the administration of a specific fund in behalf of the plaintiff, namely, his allowance from the commutation fund; as to this sum, at least, they are trustees for him. The college was in effect commuted with as representing the clerical professors, and the court will see that the plaintiff is not illegally cut off from the benefits secured to him by that arrangement. The existence of a contract does not necessarily exclude jurisdiction. Daugava v. Rivaz, and numerous other cases, establish this. The statutes under which the plaintiff was removed were not duly passed, and the cour..