of heirs it went to the king, as all other property goes to the king for the want of heirs.  The right of visitation arises from the property.  It grows out of the endowment.  The founder may, if he please, part with it at the time when he establishes the charity, and may vest it in others.  Therefore, if he chooses that governors, trustees, or overseers should be appointed in the charter, he may cause it to be done, and his power of visitation may be transferred to them, instead of descending to his heirs.  The persons thus assigned or appointed by the founder will be visitors, with all the powers of the founder, in exclusion of his heir.[14] The right of visitation, then, accrues to them, as a matter of property, by the gift, transfer, or appointment of the founder.  This is a private right, which they can assert in all legal modes, and in which they have the same protection of the law as in all other rights.  As visitors they may make rules, ordinances, and statutes, and alter and repeal them, as far as permitted so to do by the charter.[15] Although the charter proceeds from the crown or the government, it is considered as the will of the donor.  It is obtained at his request.  He imposes it as the rule which is to prevail in the dispensation of his bounty in all future times.  The king or government which grants the charter is not thereby the founder, but he who furnishes the funds.  The gift of the revenues is the foundation.[16]

The leading case on this subject is Phillips v.  Bury.[17] This was an ejectment brought to recover the rectory-house, &c. of Exeter College in Oxford.  The question was whether the plaintiff or defendant was legal rector.  Exeter College was founded by an individual, and incorporated by a charter granted by Queen Elizabeth.  The controversy turned upon the power of the visitor, and, in the discussion of the cause, the nature of college charters and corporations was very fully considered.  Lord Holt’s judgment, copied from his own manuscript, is found in 2 Term Reports. 346.  The following is an extract:—­

“That we may the better apprehend the nature of a visitor, we are to consider that there are in law two sorts of corporations aggregate; such as are for public government, and such as are for private charity.  Those that are for the public government of a town, city, mystery, or the like, being for public advantage, are to be governed according to the laws of the land.  If they make any particular private laws and constitutions, the validity and justice of them is examinable in the king’s courts.  Of these there are no particular private founders, and consequently no particular visitor; there are no patrons of these; therefore, if no provision be in the charter how the succession shall continue, the law supplieth the defect of that constitution, and saith it shall be by election; as mayor, aldermen, common council, and the like.  But private and particular corporations for charity, founded and