Brundage v. Deardorf

• Decision Date: 12 May 1893
• Docket Number: 1,051.
• Parties: BRUNDAGE et al. v. DEARDORF et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

55 F. 839

BRUNDAGE et al. v. DEARDORF et al.

No. 1,051.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division.

May 12, 1893

Young &amp Young and Doyle, Scott & Lewis, for complainants.

Gunckle & Rowe, J. A. McMahon, and Bowersox & Starr, for respondents.

TAFT Circuit Judge.

The complainants claim to be trustees lawfully elected by a quarterly conference of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ to hold the title to the property of said church located in Hicksville township, in Defiance county, Ohio, for the use of the local unincorporated society known as the 'Fairview Church.' The complainants are all residents and citizens of Indiana. The defendants are residents and citizens of Ohio, in possession of Fairview church, and claim to be the lawfully-elected trustees thereof, except J. W Lilly, who is acting as, and claims to be, the lawfully-elected pastor of the church.

The Church of the United Brethren in Christ belongs to what is known as the 'Associated Class of Churches,' and is governed, subject to the provisions and requirements of a constitution, by official boards, quarterly conferences annual conferences, and a general conference, which are subordinate to each other, in ascending progression, in the order named. Under the constitution of the church, all right and title to its properly in meeting houses, real estate, etc., obtained by purchase or otherwise, for the use of the church, is recognized to be the property of the church; and under its rules the title to the property intended for the use of the members of the local society is required to be held by the trustees, not less than three in number, and by their successors in office. These trustees are elected by the quarterly conference in which the local society belongs, and hold their office during the pleasure of such quarterly conference. The Church of the United Brethren in Christ, down to the year 1889, numbered about 200,000 communicants, and had 3,000 local church societies. At that time a difference arose, resulting in schism, and the establishment of two general conferences. The schism extended down to the annual and quarterly conferences, and to the official boards, so that the controversy has appeared in many of the local societies. The complainants belong to what is known as the 'Conservative Party,' and they claim to be the representatives of the true and original organization. The defendants, who are in possession of the church, are the trustees in subordination to that party in the general conference, where the schism occurred, which is known as the 'Liberal Party' in the church.

This bill is filed to obtain a declaration from the court that the trustees appointed under Conservative auspices are, for the purposes of succession to property rights, the representatives of the true church, and that the defendants are the representatives of the seceding portion of the church, which no longer is entitled to claim the benefit of the original organization. The schism arose over the adoption of a new constitution and new confession of faith. The Conservative party maintains that the so-called adoption of the new constitution and confession of faith was, on the part of the members of the conference who carried it out, in bad faith, and in open and avowed violation of the constitutional limitations imposed on that general conference, and that thereby the members thus unlawfully acting seceded, and withdrew from the organization of the church, which is entitled to hold its property and use and enjoy the same; that by the continued possession of this usurping and seceding party the trust to which the property was originally devoted is perverted; and that the complainants, as representing the cestuis que trustent, may apply to a court of equity to prevent the continued perversion of the trust, and to restore the trust property to the users to which it was originally devoted.

The land upon which stands Fairview church, which is the subject-matter of this controversy, and which is alleged to be of the value of more than $2,000, was conveyed in 1874, in consideration of $74, to Amo Furlow, John B. Johnson, and Benjamin F. Willits, trustees of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ. The bill avers that at the time the property was received by the said trustees the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, including the local society located at Hicksville, was identified and characterized among the evangelical denominations of the United States by its adherence to a fundamental constitution adopted in 1841, and to a confession of faith as it stood at the adoption of said constitution, and the members of said church, including those of the local society, were then expected to, and did, believe in the doctrines contained in said confession of faith. The averments of the bill are that the new constitution and the new confession of faith are in material respects departures from the old constitution and the old confession of faith, and that the use of property by an organization under the new constitution and the new confession of faith is a perversion of the trust to which it was originally devoted. The circumstances of the adoption of the new constitution and the new confession of faith are fully set out in the bill, and they will be considered later.

The first contention in support of the demurrer is that a court of equity has not jurisdiction to consider the bill, because its averments show that the complainants have a plain and adequate remedy at law, in ejectment. I do not think that this contention can be sustained. It is quite true that the complainants aver that they have a legal title to the property in controversy, but it appears from the bill that they hold it in trust for the use of the members of the local society whom they represent. It is also apparent that the controversy is with another set of trustees, who claim legal title for the purpose of maintaining the property for different uses under the same deed of trust. In other words, the question of title is to be determined by the character of the trust to which the property in perversion of the lawful trust. The property is, in a sense, brought into a court of equity, for the court to decide what use shall be made of it, and, by its equitable power of injunction, to enforce the proper use. The fact that in doing so it also has to determine the legal title will not oust the possession by the church trustees, and of the use by the pastor and congregation, makes it clear that a mere action in ejectment would be quite inadequate as a remedy to secure the complainant trustees, and those whom they represent, the same peculiar possession and use for them. The writ of injunction is well adapted to prevent an unlawful intrusion in the pulpit by the pastor, and an unlawful use by the congregation, against all of whom it would be obviously impracticable to institute proceedings in ejectment. In the enforcement of a trust, where the circumstances are such that the remedy is not as complete at law as in equity, a trustee may appeal to a court of equity to assist him. See Harrison v. Rowan, 4 Wash.C.C. 202. There are, perhaps, other grounds upon which the jurisdiction here could rest, but the one stated is sufficient. Cases of this kind have frequently been considered by courts of equity, as in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679. It is true that the action there was by one of the cestuis que trustent, and not by one of the trustees, in whom was the legal title; but I think that the jurisdiction was asserted because of the character of the controversy, involving, as it did, the disposition and use of trust property. In Pennsylvania, in a number of cases, the inadequacy of a legal remedy, and the necessity for an equitable remedy, in cases of exactly this character, have been frequently recognized. See Kerr v. Trego, 47 Pa.St. 292; Ferraria v. Vasconcelles, 23 Ill. 456; Gibson v. Armstrong, 7 B.Mon. 481; Trustees v. Hoessli, 13 Wis. 348.

We now come to the merits of the controversy, as stated in the bill. The constitution of 1841, then adopted by a general conference of the society, and which remained in force at least until 1889, is as follows:

'We, the members of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, in the name of God, do, for the perfection of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, as well as to produce and secure a uniform mode of action in faith and practice, also to define the powers and business of a quarterly, annual, and general conferences, as recognized by this church, ordain the following articles of constitution:

'Article 1. Section 1. All ecclesiastical power herein granted, to make or repeal any rule of discipline, is vested in a general conference, which shall consist of elders elected by the members in every conference district throughout the society: provided, however, such elders have stood in that capacity three years in the conference district to which they belong. Sec. 2. General conference is to be held every four years; the bishops to be considered members and presiding officers. Sec. 3. Each annual conference shall place before the society names of the elders eligible for membership in the general conference.

'Article 2. Section 1. The general conference shall define the boundaries of the annual conferences. Sec. 2. The general conference shall at every session elect bishops from among the elders throughout the church, who have stood six years in that capacity. Sec. 3. The business of each annual conference shall be done strictly according to discipline; and any annual conference acting contrary thereto shall, by impeachment, be tried by the general conference. Sec. 4. No rule or ordinance shall at any time be passed

...