Begular Predestinarian Baptist Church of Pleasant Grove v. Parker

• Decision Date: 12 June 1940
• Docket Number: No. 25475.,25475.
• Parties: BEGULAR PREDESTINARIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF PLEASANT GROVE et al. v. PARKER et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

373 Ill. 607

27 N.E.2d 522

BEGULAR PREDESTINARIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF PLEASANT GROVE et al.

v.PARKER et al.

No. 25475.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 17, 1940.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1940.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; William B. Wright, judge.

Suit to quiet title by the Regular Predestinarian Baptist Church of Pleasant Grove and others agaisnt Sam Parker and others, wherein defendant Sam Parker filed a counterclaim, and the persons named as heirs at law of Madison G. Williams joined in a separate counterclaim. From a decree for complainants, all of the defendants except one appeal.

Affirmed.Forth, Schuman & Forth, of Granite City, William A. Miller and Alfred S. Pfaff, both of Salem, and Walter W. Donley, Jr., of Peoria, for appellants.

Harry C. Moore, of Centralia, and Fred Courtney Arthur and Arthur H. Shay, both of Streator, for appellees.

MURPHY, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Marion county entered in a suit quieting the title to one-half an acre of land which has an oil and gas well on it. In 1876, Madison G. Williams and Susan J. Williams, his wife, conveyed the tract in question by warranty deed to J. W. Snider, D. D. Sands and M. G. Williams, trustees of the Regular Predestinarian Baptist Church at Pleasant Grove, and their successors in office, ‘To have and to hold the same for church purposes as long as the same is used by the Regular Predestinarian Baptist Church as a place of meeting, but when such use is discontinued the said piece of land shall fall back to the grantors.’ August 26, 1938, the trustees of the church executed an oil and gas lease to Charles A. Baldwin and Clinton G. Farthing. They developed a well and began pumping oil therefrom. The church, its trustees and their lessees, are the plaintiffs in this suit. In 1891, Madison G. Williams, who owned the fractional quarter of which the tract in question was a part, conveyed the whole fractional part to Perry O. Bower and Theodosia E. Bower, but excepted the one-half acre previously conveyed to the church ‘as long as held by said church for church purposes then to revert to Perry O. Bower and Theodosia E. Bower.’ Defendant Sam Parker claims that by this exception the possibility of reverter held by Madison G. Williams was conveyed to the Bowers and by mesne conveyances is now held by him.

August 28, 1938, Flora Albert, Alpha Scrivner, Charles Daniels, Rufus Daniels, Mrs. Janie Bookhout, Jane York and Mary L. Jones Ker, and heirs-at-law of Madison G. Williams, executed an oil and gas lease to Allen Rule and W. R. Clarke. The defendants are Sam Parker and Effie Parker, his wife, the heirs-at-law of Madison G. Williams, and their lessees. Sam Parker filed a counter-claim and all the persons named as heirs-at-law of Madison G. Williams joined in a separate counter-claim. The decree appealed from dismissed the counter-claims and decreed that Sam Parker and Effie Parker, and the persons named as the heirs-at-law of Madison G. Williams, and their lessees, be forever enjoined and restrained from asserting any right, title or interest in the lands as long as the same was used by the church as a place of meeting, or from asserting any right or title in or to the oil and gas produced or to be produced as long as the church used the premises as a place of meeting. All the defendants, except one of the lessees, joined in this appeal.

It is conceded the deed of Madison G. Williams and Susan J. Williams to the trustees of the church created in the grantee a base or determinable fee, and that the only right remaining in the grantor was a possibility of reverter. It is well established by the decisions of this court that a possibility of reverter is incapable of alienation or devise but will pass by descent to the grantor's heirs. North v. Graham, 235 Ill. 178, 85 N.E. 267, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 624, 126 Am.St.Rep. 189;Presbyterian Church v. Venable, 159 Ill. 215, 42 N.E. 836,50 Am.St.Rep. 159;O'Donnell v. Robson, 239 Ill. 634, 88 N.E. 175;Dees v. Cheuvronts, 240 Ill. 486, 88 N.E. 1011.

The exception contained in the deed of Madison G. Williams to the Bowers did not convey to the Bowers the naked possibility of reverter held by Williams. Even if apt words of conveyance had been used, the interest would not have passed for it was not a subject of alienation. Since the Bowers received no title the mesne conveyances to Sam Parker conveyed nothing and his counter-claim was properly dismissed.

The heirs of Madison G. Williams contend plaintiffs use of the property was strictly limited to church purposes and that the execution of the oil and gas lease and the use to be made of the premises under its terms was so foreign to the purposes for which the property was conveyed, that the lease and the use to be made thereunder forfeits the title conveyed to the church. In support of such construction defendants make reference to sections 41, 42 and 43 of the Corporations Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1874, chap. 32, pars. 41, 42, 43) and sections 41, 42 and 43 of the Corporations Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, chap. 32, pars. 170, 171, 172) which confer on a church organization, organized under the act, the authority to hold property and to act through its trustees. Power is vested in the trustees to manage and dispose of the real and personal property of the church. Defendants claim the various sections should be considered in connection with the deed, and, when so considered, it is apparent that the grantors never intended the church should use the premises except for what defendants call ‘strictly’ church purposes. By such construction they seek the means to apply the rules announced in various cases where lands have been granted or devised ‘exclusively’ or ‘strictly’ for some particular purpose, as illustrated by Union Missionary Baptist Church v. Fyke, 179 Okl. 102, 64 P.2d 1203, and other cases.

There is no material difference between the provisions of the statute in force at the time of the execution of the deed in 1876 and those in force at the present time. It is not necessary to mention specifically the provisions of each section for on the point under consideration they are substantially the same. The substance of the various sections is that a church organized under the act may receive by gift, devise or...