Brown v. Lutheran Church

• Decision Date: 01 September 1854
• Citation: 23 Pa. 495
• Parties: Brown versus Lutheran Church.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

23 Pa. 495

Brown versus Lutheran Church.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Union county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Casey and Pollock were for plaintiffs in error.—It was contended that from the written title exhibited, it was evident that the original purchase was made by and for the use of both congregations and paid for jointly. But that, in addition to such evidence, the plaintiffs below had the conveyance of a legal title ratified by the members of the Lutheran congregation.

It was observed that impossibility of making partition was no legal objection to proceedings in partition; that for the sake of peace and the promotion of justice, the premises may be valued and the right afforded to take them at a fair valuation, paying the other party a fair proportion of it.

It was further observed that this was not the case of a gift of land and a dedication to a particular use, but was a purchase, and that the trust expressed in the deed was to restrain the power of the trustees rather than control the uses to which it should be applied. The statutes of 13 Henry VIII., Chapter I., Roberts's Dig. 218, subjects to compulsory partition any manors, lands,

tenements and hereditaments, within the realm. The statute 32 Henry VIII., Chapter XXXII., Roberts's Dig. 226, uses the same terms. The Act of 11th April, 1799, Sec. 1, Purd. 628, speaks of "lands and tenements." The Act of 7th April, 1807, Ibid. 629, refers to "lands, tenements, or hereditaments." Miller on Partition, page 36, 37, 45, et seq., was referred to.

Miller and Linn, for defendants in error.—It was contended that if the contract of May, 1819, was a ratification of the deed of the trustees, still that it conveyed a use or privilege and not a fee to the members of the congregation, and not to the congregation. In the narr. the undivided half of the church and land was claimed, whilst members of the Reformed congregation had not contributed one-fourth as much as members of the Lutheran congregation.

The case of Kirk v. King, 3 Barr 436, was cited to the point that "the employers of a certain school" being unincorporated, were incapable of taking a fee which remained in the grantor. Also cited 2 W. & Ser. 81-87. The case of Coleman v. Coleman, 7 Harris 100, was referred to on the subject of partition. A donation to a church cannot be diverted from the use the donor intended. If a congregation withdraws from a union with another, they can take no property of the congregation with them: 6 Barr 201, App v. Lutheran Congregation.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by WOODWARD, J.

The first error assigned is, that the Court erred in deciding that the plaintiffs had not such an interest or title in the premises as would sustain partition.

If the plaintiffs' title rested solely on the deed of 24th November, 1815, it could not be sustained, for the grantors in that deed were trustees under the deed of 30th August, 1802, to hold the premises in "trust to and for the use of building or erecting a school-house and a German Lutheran church on the same, and a burying ground," and although they might assign the trust by force of the terms used in the conveyance to them, they could not create a new use, or convey the estate for purposes inconsistent with those for which they held it. When, therefore, they granted to the members of the Presbyterian or Reformed congregation equal rights and privileges in said premises with the Lutheran congregation, they exceeded their authority, and attempted a diversion of the trust to objects not contemplated in the deed which created it.

But it was competent for the cestuis que trust to ratify and confirm the act of the trustees, and this we think they did on the 15th May, 1819, by the "Articles of Association." The parties to these articles were the members of the two congregations, and though not incorporated, they were competent to contract as religious societies. The consideration was in their mutual promises, and the compact gave to the members of each congregation expressly an "equal right and interest in the church and land belonging to the same." The details which are regulated by the articles indicate an intention to form an abiding union between the congregations — to build the church at their joint expense — and to enjoy the premises as tenants in common. Similar articles were held in Shortz v. Unangst, 3 W. & Ser. 54, to be within the recording Acts as title to land, and we have no difficulty in...