Legal Definitions - quare incumbravit

Quare incumbravit was a historical legal action in English law, now abolished. It was a type of writ or legal proceeding used to challenge a bishop who had appointed a new cleric to a church position (known as a benefice) under specific, problematic circumstances.

The purpose of a quare incumbravit was to compel the bishop to explain why he had "encumbered" or complicated the church's affairs by making such an appointment. This action was only applicable when:

• A benefice became vacant.
• Within six months of the vacancy, and while a legal dispute (a "quare impedit" action) was ongoing regarding who had the right to nominate a new cleric to that benefice, the bishop received a "ne admittas" writ. A "ne admittas" was a specific legal warning instructing the bishop *not* to admit or appoint anyone to the benefice until the dispute was resolved.
• Despite this warning and the ongoing legal challenge, the bishop proceeded to appoint his *own* chosen cleric to the vacant benefice.

In essence, the quare incumbravit was a mechanism to hold a bishop accountable for acting prematurely and potentially undermining the legal process and the rights of those disputing the presentation to a church office. This writ was abolished by the Real Property Limitation Act of 1833.

Here are some examples illustrating how a quare incumbravit would have applied:

• Example 1: Defiance of a Legal Warning

  Imagine the benefice of St. Peter's parish becomes vacant. Lord Ashworth claims the right to present a new rector, but Lady Beatrice also asserts her right, leading to a "quare impedit" action between them. During this dispute, a "ne admittas" writ is served on the Bishop of Kent, explicitly warning him not to appoint anyone. However, the Bishop, believing the parish needs immediate leadership and favoring his own chaplain, quickly appoints the chaplain to St. Peter's. Lord Ashworth or Lady Beatrice could then issue a quare incumbravit to force the Bishop to appear in court and explain why he appointed his chaplain despite the ongoing legal challenge and the explicit "ne admittas" warning, thereby "encumbering" the church with a potentially illegitimate appointment.

• Example 2: Prejudicing a Rightful Claimant

  Consider the vicarage of Holy Trinity, which has become vacant. Sir Reginald believes his family holds the ancient right of presentation, while the local monastery also claims this right. Their "quare impedit" case is proceeding through the courts. After the Bishop of Wessex has been duly served with a "ne admittas" writ, he nevertheless appoints one of his favored scholars to the vicarage. This action significantly prejudices Sir Reginald's claim, as the position is now filled, making it much harder for him to assert his right even if he wins his "quare impedit" case. Sir Reginald would use a quare incumbravit to challenge the Bishop's action, compelling him to justify why he filled the benefice prematurely and against the legal warning, thereby complicating the resolution of the rightful presentation.

• Example 3: Undermining the Legal Process

  Suppose a rectory becomes vacant, and two prominent landowners, Mr. Davies and Mr. Evans, both claim the right to present a new rector. They initiate a "quare impedit" action to resolve their dispute. Within the six-month period after the vacancy, and after the Bishop of Mercia receives a "ne admittas" writ, the Bishop appoints a cleric from his own diocese, stating that the parish cannot remain without a spiritual leader for an extended period. Mr. Davies or Mr. Evans would issue a quare incumbravit to compel the Bishop to explain why he "encumbered" the rectory by making an appointment during an active legal dispute and after being explicitly warned not to, thus undermining the legal process designed to determine the rightful patron.