Bristol Baptist Church v. Connecticut Baptist Convention

• Decision Date: 04 April 1923
• Citation: 98 Conn. 677,120 A. 497
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BRISTOL BAPTIST CHURCH v. CONNECTICUT BAPTIST CONVENTION ET AL.

120 A. 497

98 Conn. 677

BRISTOL BAPTIST CHURCH v. CONNECTICUT BAPTIST CONVENTION ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 4, 1923

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; William M. Maltbie Judge.

Suit by the Bristol Baptist Church against the Connecticut Baptist Convention, Ellen F. B. Judson, and others. Judgment for plaintiff on demurrer, and defendant Judson appeals. Error as to form of judgment, the same set aside, and superior court directed to render judgment in accordance with opinion.

Suit to quiet and determine the title to real estate and to determine whether the plaintiff can sell the same, brought to and tried by the superior court in Hartford county, upon the demurrer to the complaint of Ellen F. B. Judson. The court overruled the demurrer, and the demurrant having refused to answer over, and the other defendants having admitted the allegations of the second count to be true, adjudged that the plaintiff is authorized to convey these premises to a purchaser in fee and to either hold and invest the proceeds of the sale as trust funds, or to use the funds in the purchase of a site for a house of public worship for the plaintiff or in the erection of a house of public worship upon such site, and from this judgment and the overruling of her demurrer Ellen F. B. Judson appealed.

Error as to form of judgment.

William F. Henney, of Hartford, for appellant.

Noble E. Pierce, of Hartford, for appellees.

WHEELER, C.J. (after stating the facts as above).

The complaint sets up these facts: On May 26, 1879, Asahel Brockett conveyed to the Baptist society and the Baptist church connected with the society and located in Bristol certain premises by a deed which is made a part of the complaint, and which recites a conveyance to the Baptist society of certain land " for the purpose of a site for a meetinghouse and parsonage and horse sheds for the use of said society and church," and in the habendum it is provided:

" That when a house of worship is erected on said land stated services shall be held in said house and the doctrine preached and taught as now held and taught by the Baptist denomination of Connecticut. And it is hereby agreed and expressly understood by the grantor and the grantee that in case said church and society shall at any time embrace, hold or practice, teach or preach doctrine contrary to the doctrine now held and the practices and usages of the Baptist denomination of Connecticut as now held and practiced, this deed shall be void and of none effect, power or virtue as a conveyance to said Baptist society, and thereupon the said Convention may enter by its duly authorized agent and take possession of the land hereinbefore described," etc.

During 1879 the church and society built a meetinghouse and horse sheds on this land and have since held stated services in this house and have not embraced, held, practiced, taught, or preached doctrine contrary to that held by the Baptist denomination. On the ____ day of ____ the Bristol Baptist Church was duly incorporated under the laws of Connecticut.

Asahel Brockett is deceased, and his sole heirs are the defendants. The church has bought another site for its church edifice and has authorized its trustees to sell the land with the improvements thereon, deeded to the society for its and the society's use. In 1879 the members of the society lived in the section where this land is, and the church was convenient for them for the use of religious services. At the present time the larger part of the members live in a different part of the city. Since this church was built another street has been opened on the west side of this property, and this street upon which the church fronts is becoming a business street, and near to the church are located public garages which are operated during services. A trolley line has been built on this street, which has become a state highway for traffic between Hartford and New Britain and Litchfield county and Waterbury. All of this results in noise and dust and diminishes the attendance at church and makes the church less attractive. The new site will better serve the members of the church, and the members believe it will greatly increase its efficiency and membership. And by reason of the change in the circumstances surrounding the church a continuance of the church in this location would fail to secure the objects manifestly intended by the grantor in this deed.

The plaintiffs claim by way of equitable relief:

(1) A judgment quieting the title to these premises and determining the right of the church to sell the same, and, if sold, whether it would revert to the heirs of Asahel Brockett or the Connecticut Baptist Convention.

(2) Determining whether the church can sell subject only to the restriction that it shall not be occupied for the purpose of teaching a doctrine contrary to that of the Baptist denomination of Connecticut.

(3) An order for the sale and the investment of the proceeds in the new site, or in such manner as the court may deem proper to secure the objects for which the trust was created.

The voluntary gift of land by Asahel Brockett is to the Baptist society of Bristol for the use of the society and the Baptist church connected with the society, for the purpose of a site for a meetinghouse and parsonage and horse sheds. The habendum provides that stated services shall be held in the meetinghouse when erected, and the doctrine preached and taught as now held and taught by the Baptist denomination of Connecticut. The gift is to a religious society and for a religious use. It is a gift to a public charity and favored in the law. When the society received this gift, it had charge of the business of this organization, while the church had charge of its spiritual function. The society was an unincorporated body, held the title to its property, and administered its secular affairs. Of the relative function of the church and the society at this time in carrying on the religious work of the organization we may take judicial notice. Upon the strictest test of a trust the society accepted and held this land in trust for the church and itself for the purposes specified in the grant. It held the legal estate, while the beneficial interest vested in the church and in itself.

Up to this point the trial court is in harmony with our view. It then holds that the subsequent incorporation of the church and the taking over of the land and buildings, the title to which was held by the society, merged the legal title of the society with the beneficial interest of the church, and so destroyed the trust which had been created by this deed. Undoubtedly this holding resulted from the court's application of the principle that no person can be trustee and cestui que trust at the same time, and when the church upon its incorporation took over the land and buildings of the society, it took over the legal title of the society and stood in its place as trustee and as cestui que trust by virtue of the grant.

The holding fails to consider that accepted principle of equity which preserves the legal and equitable estates separate " where the rights or interests of the parties require it," or, as we say in Donalds v. Plumb, 8 Conn. 453, " to preserve any beneficial interest of the party, to promote the purposes of justice or to effect the intent of the donor." Equity will not permit a valid trust to be destroyed. It will not force a merger upon the doner of a trust contrary to his intent and interest. This very question was determined in Mason v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co., 78 Conn. 81, 61 A. 57, 3 Ann.Cas. 586, where we said:

" The testator has attempted in unmistakable language to create a trust for the life of the plaintiff. * * * A declaration that its purpose has now been accomplished and its existence as an active one terminated would not only arbitrarily destroy a valid trust, but also defeat the manifest and clearly expressed intent of the testator, and create a merger of estates contrary to that intent--a result which equity does not countenance."

See Boardman v. Larrabee, 51 Conn. 39, 44; Perry on Trusts (6th Ed.) § 347; note 2 A.L.R. 579.

Upon due application, or if occasion arises for the need of a trustee to take the place of this society, the court will make such appointment. The trust cannot fail for lack of a trustee. Losey v. Stanley, 147 N.Y. 568, 42 N.E. 8; Perry on Trusts (6th Ed.) § § 722, 731.

The preservation of this trust is of supreme interest to this plaintiff, since by reason of this relationship equity may in a proper case decree a sale of the land granted either under general equitable powers or under the statute (chapter 264, Public Acts 1921),^[1] which reiterates the equitable remedy and is substantially coextensive with it.

The intention of the grantor was to continue this trust until breached in the manner specifically named in the deed. The grantor never contemplated the destruction of the trust by a merger of the legal and equitable interests. To strip this public charity of its right to apply to equity for a sale of this property either under general equity power or under the power of this statute might work a serious injustice to it. It is universally true that equity never permits a merger under circumstances such as exist in this case.

The statutory remedy is general, and not special, as in the statute before the court in Bridgeport Public Library v Burroughs, 85 Conn. 315, 82 A. 582. That was an attempted exercise of judicial power in a specific case, and for that reason declared by us to be beyond the legislative power. The general remedy of the statute under which the instant action is brought is not open to that objection. Applied to this case, the...