White v. Britton

Decision Date29 November 1906
Citation56 S.E. 232,75 S.C. 428
PartiesWHITE et al. v. BRITTON et al.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; Watts Judge.

Action by Frances C. White and others against John J. Britton and others. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

See 51 S.E. 547.

L. D Jennings and Haynsworth & Haynsworth, for appellants. Lee & Moise, for respondents.

WOODS J.

This action was brought to obtain a permanent injunction against the interference by the defendants with the plaintiffs' possession of a lot of land containing one acre and the dwelling house situated thereon, the circuit judge holding the right of possession to be in the defendants, Leonard E White, A. Walker Newman, and John J. Britton, as trustees and not in the plaintiffs, dismissed the complaint, and ordered the plaintiffs to return the possession to the trustees. The case depends upon the solution of legal questions, there being no ground for serious controversy as to the material facts.

On January 14, 1896, James G. White executed a deed conveying the land in dispute to "Leonard E. White, A. Walker Newman, and John J. Britton, Jr., trustees." The trust is thus set out in the deed: "To have and to hold all and singular the said premises before mentioned unto the said Leonard E. White, A. Walker Newman, and John J. Britton, Jr., trustees, and their successors, heirs, and assigns, in trust for the use of the preacher or preachers who are now serving and who may hereafter serve the Zoar Church [which is one of the churches within the bounds of the South Carolina conference of the M. E. Church, South], and for no other purpose, and the same shall revert to the grantor or his heirs if sought to be disposed of or used for any other purpose and full power is hereby given to the trustees aforesaid, the survivors of them and their successors in office, in case of a vacancy in the trustees, by death, resignation or otherwise, to continually fill such vacancy by the remaining trustees electing a successor who shall be clothed with all the powers herein granted." The church cleared the land and built a parsonage on it which was occupied by its regular pastor until 1904. In that year Zoar Church was transferred to Oswego circuit, and in that circuit there was another parsonage, which was used by the minister in charge instead of the Zoar parsonage. In this condition of affairs, Zoar Church having no need of its parsonage, Rev. W. C. Gleaton, who had served the church as pastor for the year 1903, was allowed to continue to occupy and use the property, though he had become a local preacher, and had no official connection with Zoar Church, except that he occasionally officiated there at the direction of the presiding elder when the regular pastor was sick. In January, 1905, Mr. Gleaton, having again been assigned regular pastoral work elsewhere, moved away. The house was then locked up and the keys taken by the trustees, some of the parsonage furniture remaining in the house. Under the policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, Zoar Church may, however, at any time be attached to a circuit in which the use of this parsonage would be required. After Mr. Gleaton moved out, the plaintiff, Miles H. White, one of the heirs at law of James C. White, who conveyed to the defendants as trustees, claiming that the land had reverted by reason of violation of the conditions of the deed, undertook to take possession of the premises, and had entered the house by breaking open the door, when the trustees, Britton and Newman, interfered and a personal altercation ensued. After this both parties claimed to be in possession, and this suit was brought by Miles H. White and the other plaintiffs, heirs of James G. White, to restrain the defendants from interfering with the alleged possession.

The exceptions will not be discussed or even set out in detail for the broad question is, whether the conditions of the trust deed have been so violated as to produce forfeiture of the title and right of possession. The plaintiffs first contend that the trustees have forfeited the property by attempting to sell it. There was some evidence to the effect that Britton, one of the trustees, offered to sell the property. This was denied by Britton, but whether he made the offer to sell or not is of no consequence, for there is no evidence that he had any authority from a majority of the trustees, and the unauthorized act of one trustee could not be imputed to all as an effort to sell resulting in a forfeiture under the deed. It was beyond the power of one of these trustees by his independent action to control or...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT