terwards consisted only of the Episcopalian contributors and members. The act of 1784, ch. 88. provided that, at all future clections of Vestries, no person should be allowed to vote, who did "not profess himself a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and actually contribute towards its support." Although this act was repealed by the act of 1786, ch. 12. yet the same act saved the management of their property and regulation of their discipline, according to the rules of their own sect, to all religious societies. By the canons of the Episcopal Church, subsequently passed, the right to elect Vestries is confined to the "freeholders and housekeepers, who are members of the Protestant Episcopal Church within the parish, and regularly contribute towards the support of the Minister, and to the common exigencies of the church within the parish." These canons being assented to by the various parishes which they govern, and not being inconsistent with the laws of Virginia, are not denied to be in force for parochial purposes. Now, there is not in this record the slightest proof, that any election of the Vestry has been made in any other manner, than that pointed out by the canons of the church; and the answer of the defendants expressly avers, that the choice has been constantly made according to the canons of the church, and that no person belonging to the Falls Church, has ever been a contributor, or ever offered to vote at any election. It seems to the Court, therefore, that, the elections being regularly made, by persons qualified according to the canons, the whole foundation of the objection is removed.

1824.

Mason

V.

Muncaster.

1824.

Mason

No inference can be deduced from this circumstance, in proof of the Alexandria Church having separated itself from the parish, and become a Muncaster. distinct and independent society.

V.

It has been said, that the parishioners of the whole parish are the cestuis que trust of the glebc and other parochial property, and ought to be parties to any bill to dispose of it. But in an accurate and legal sense, the parishioners are not the cestuis que trust, for they have, individually, no right or title to the property. It is the property of the parish, in its corporate or aggregate capacity, to be applied and disposed of for parochial purposes, under the authority of the Vestry, who are its legal agents and representatives. Upon the sale of the glebe, the proceeds become parochial property, and must be applied for the common benefit, the maintenance of the Minister, the repairs of the churches, and other parochial expenses, by the Vestry, in good faith. But the mode, and extent, and circumstances, under which the fund is to be applied, are necessarily left to the discretion of the Vestries, from time to time chosen. An abuse of their trust, or duty, is not to be presumed; and if it should occur, the same remedy will belong to the parishioners as in other cases, where money is wantonly misapplied to wrong purposes, which constitute a common fund for the benefit of the whole parish, and not for the benefit of a part. It will be sufficient to decide upon such a case when it shall arise in judgment. But the individual parishioners residing out of Alexandria county, were no more necessary to be made

parties to the bill praying a sale of the glebc, than the individuals residing within the county. Both were represented in the only way known to the laws, by the Vestry duly appointed to manage parochial concerns.

These are some of the reasons which have led the Court to the conclusion that has been already stated, to wit, that the Vestry of the church in Alexandria is, in succession, the regular Vestry of the parish of Fairfax.

This decision renders it unnecessary to consider the other points raised at the argument; and it remains only to declare, that the judgment of this Court is, that the decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill, be affirmed with costs.

1824.

Doddridge

V.

Thompson.

7

[LOCAL LAW.] ·

DODDRIDGE V. THOMPSON and others.

Under the reserve contained in the cession act of Virginia, and under the acts of Congress, of August 10th, 1790, ch. 67. [xl.] and of June 9th, 1794, ch. 238.[lxii.] the whole country lying between the Scioto and Little Miami rivers, was subjected to the military warrants, to satisfy which the reserve was made..

The territory lying between two rivers, is the whole country from their sources to their mouths; and if no branch of either of them has acquired the name, exclusive of another, the main branch, to its source, must be considered as the true river.

The act of June 26th, 1812, ch. 452. [cix.] to ascertain the western boundary of the tract reserved for the military warrants, and which provisionally designate Ludlow's line as the western boundary, did

not invalidate the title to land between that line and Roberts' line, acquired under a Virginia military warrant, previous to the passage of that act.

The land between Ludlow's and Roberts' line was not withdrawn from the territory liable to be surveyed for military warrants, by any act of Congress passed before the act of June 26th, 1812, ch. 432. [cix.]

ERROR to the Circuit Court of Ohio.

This cause was argued by Mr. Clay, for the plaintiffs, and by the Attorney-General, for the defendants.

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

Both parties in this cause claim under grants made by the United States, in that tract of country which was reserve by Virginia, out of her cession to Congress, for the purpose of satisfying the claims of her officers and soldiers on continental establishment. The reserve was at first dependent on a deficiency of good land, to satisfy those claims, in a territory reserved for the same objects in Kentucky, which was then a part of Virginia; but the necessity of making this fact appear, was afterwards dispensed with, and the deficiency was admitted to exist. The plaintiff, having the oldest patent, has, of course, the better title, if his patent be valid.

A case was agreed in the Circuit Court, on which a pro forma judgment was rendered for the defendant, which is now before this Court on a writ of error.

The plaintiff claims under a military warrant, issued to one of the officers of the Virginia line, on continental establishment; and the defendant, under a purchase made from the United States, subsequent to the emanation of the plaintiff's grant. The first question made in the cause is, whether the land in controversy be within the Virginia reserve. The words are, that if the quantity of land reserved, on the south-east side of the Ohio, "for the Virginia troops on continental establishment, should prove insufficient for their legal bounties, the deficiency should be made up to the said troops, in good lands between the Scioto and Little Miami."

In 1790, Congress passed an act," in which, after reciting that the agents for the troops of Virginia had reported, to the Executive of that State, that there was a deficiency of good lands in the territory reserved on the south-east of the Ohio, and, after directing the Secretary of War to make a return to the Executive of that State of the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, who served in the Virginia line on continental establishment, it is enacted, "that it shall and may be lawful for the said agents to locate, to and for the use of the said troops, between the rivers Scioto and Little Miami, such a number of acres of good land, as shall, together with the number already located between the said two rivers, and the number already located on the south-easterly side of the river Ohio, be equal to

n2 U. S. L. 179.

1824.

Doddridge

V.

Thompson.