Anderson v. Brock

• Citation: 3 Me. 243
• Parties: ANDERSON & AL. v. BROCK
• Decision Date: 01 April 1825
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

3 Me. 243

ANDERSON & AL. v. BROCK

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, York

April, 1825

[Syllabus Material]

THIS was an action of trespass for breaking the close of the plaintiffs, who styled themselves, in the original writ " John Anderson and Isaac Bracket, both of Alfred yeomen." After the cause came into this Court, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their writ, by adding that they sued " as deacons and overseers of the society of shakers in said Alfred," which was granted, though objected to by the defendant.

At the trial, which was before the Chief Justice, upon the plea of soil and freehold in the defendant, the plaintiffs offered as witnesses certain members of the same society of shakers of which they were deacons; to whose admission the defendant objected, on the ground of their alleged interest in the event of the suit, it being one of the articles of their association that " the members should possess one joint interest" in all the temporalities of the church, and should be equally entitled to the use of the common property according to their several necessities; --but upon the witnesses executing in Court a release to the plaintiffs of all their interest in this action, and in the damages which might be recovered in it, and the plaintiffs executing to them a release from all obligation to pay any costs which the defendants might recover against the plaintiffs in this action; --they were admitted to testify.

The plaintiffs then read a deed from Barbara Brown to Gowen Wilson, Joshua Harding, and Jonathan Nowell, styled deacons or overseers entrusted with the care and management of the estate and temporal interest of the family of shakers in Alfred, conveying the locus in quo to them and their successors and assigns in trust for said family or society for the support of the gospel among them, the relief of the poor, and their common support, and for other pious and charitable uses; --and then shewed from the records of the society, that the plaintiffs were their regular successors.

The defendant contended that the title did not pass to the plaintiffs by this deed and by such succession; --and further objected that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the action at this time, because it appeared by the book of records of the society, that while this action was pending, John Anderson had resigned the office of deacon, and others were appointed in his stead.

Both these objections were overruled by the Chief Justice, and a verdict, under his instructions, was returned for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court.

Motion to set aside the verdict sustained.

Shepley, for the defendant, objected first to the amendment of the writ, which he said wholly changed the nature of the action, and was therefore inadmissible. It stood on a cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs in their own right, to which their executors would succeed as privies; but it was now changed to a title en autre droit, the interest in which would pass to their successors in office. Haynes v. Morgan 3 Mass. 210.

As to the witnesses,--they had a direct interest in the cause of action, being joint owners of the common fund, which would be increased or diminished by the result of this suit, and which their releases did not affect. Nor could the plaintiff's release discharge their pecuniary liability to contribute to the expenses of the suit, for this the plaintiffs had no power to do. At most it was but a private undertaking of the plaintiffs to indemnify them; but cannot operate to discharge them from the common obligation to contribute to the common burthens. The principle of a community of interests and rights and liabilities, enters deeply into, and pervades the foundations of the religious faith of this society, and cannot be eradicated. Each witness, whether he executes a release or not, is still a member of the family, and entitled to a support from the common stock; and if the suit is unsuccessful, that support is to be derived from a diminished fund.

The resignation of Anderson, he contended, ought to abate the suit, there being no provision by law for his successor to come in and prosecute it.

But he insisted that the deacons or overseers of the shakers were not a corporation within the statute respecting grants to charitable uses, and so were incapable of taking in succession. There can be no church, without a parish; and as the shaker societies do not assume parochial forms, their deacons are not within the terms of the law, not being deacons of any churches. Boutelle v. Cowdin 9 Mass. 254. Further, in the construction of that statute, the intent of the legislature is to be gathered from the state of facts as they existed when the law was enacted; but at that time no such people as shakers were known; and the quakers or friends, so far from being objects of the fostering care of the government, were the subjects of its severest animadversions. It is not therefore to be supposed that the legislature would grant any new capacities to the officers of a people whom they were endeavoring to banish from the Commonwealth.

J. Holmes and Goodenow for the plaintiffs.

As to the amendment, they said that it did not affect the action, which still remained the same as before; it only designated the character in which they claimed damages and the persons to whom they were accountable. If they are compellable to account, they are trustees, and therefore are rightly described in the writ. If not, they are entitled to damages in their own right. But either way, it was of no importance. Kincaid v. Howe 10 Mass. 203. Leighton v. Leighton 1 Mass. 433. Besides, the granting of leave to amend is a discretionary act of the Judge, preparatory to the trial, and not during its pendency; and if improperly exercised, it is not open, in this form, to the defendant's objection, within the meaning of the statute. Haynes v. Morgan 3 Mass. 208.

As to the witnesses; --it would be strange if any persons could place themselves in such relations to each other as could not be changed even by themselves. Here they have executed mutual releases. If an agent acting for two persons release to one of them, he devolves no increased responsibility on the other; but only assumes it himself; --and thus the rights of the plaintiffs against the society, remain now, as they were before, unaffected by the release. But independent of the releases, there exists no compulsary power to enforce a contribution in the case. The covenant, by which all shakers are bound to each other, and which forms a part of this case contains an express stipulation that the parties shall never resort to legal remedies against the society or its members. It is a perpetual bar, containing a formal surrender of their legal rights, and retaining...