Charles Beatty and John Ritchie, Appellants v. Daniel Kurtz and Others, Trustees of the German Lutheran Church of Georgetown, Appellees

Decision Date01 January 1829
Citation7 L.Ed. 521,27 U.S. 566,2 Pet. 566
PartiesCHARLES A. BEATTY AND JOHN T. RITCHIE, APPELLANTS v. DANIEL KURTZ AND OTHERS, TRUSTEES OF THE GERMAN LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GEORGETOWN, APPELLEES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

APPEAL from the circuit court of the county of Washington.

The appellees filed their bill in the circuit court against Charles A. Beatty and John T. Ritchie, which states, in substance, that the late colonel Charles Beatty and George Frazier Hawkins, in the year 1769, laid out on lands belonging to them, and adjoining the town of Georgetown, a certain town known by the name of 'Beatty and Hawkins's addition to Georgetown;' the lots whereof were laid down and distinguished on a plot, and disposed of by lottery. That Beatty in laying out the said addition, distinguished and set apart a certain lot or portion of ground in the said addition, for the sole use and benefit of the German Lutheran church; declaring the same to be their absolute right and property, to be held by them for religious purposes, and the use of said congregation, and caused the same to be so entered and designated in the plot of said addition, as now appears by the plot and papers on record in the clerk's office for Washington, to which they beg leave to refer: which plot and papers were recorded under authority of the act of Maryland 1796, ch. 54; which lot is described in the said plot of said addition, as the German Lutheran church lot, and also in the general plot of the town of Georgetown and its additions, deposited in the office of the clerk of the corporation of Georgetown. That soon after the lots in the said addition were laid off and disposed of as aforesaid, the said lot was taken possession of by the said German Lutherans, and was enclosed, and a church erected thereon; and hath been kept and held by them ever since, during a period, as they believe, of upwards of fifty years, and hath been used by them as a burying-ground for the members of the said church, with the avowed intention of building thereon another church or place of worship, the building first erected being decayed, whenever their funds would enable them to do so. That during all this period, neither their possession nor title hath ever been questioned, and the lot has been exempted from taxation at their request, by the corporation of Georgetown, as being church property. That Charles Beatty died about sixteen years ago, and without having made any conveyance of the said lot, and that Charles A. Beatty is his heir at law. They therefore pray that he may be made defendant, and be compelled to convey the title to the complainants, in trust for the German Lutheran church.

They further state that the defendant John T. Ritchie, without any pretence of title, disputes the title of complainants and their right of possession, and has undertaken to enter on part of the lot, and to remove tomb stones, &c. and they fear that he means to dispossess them: wherefore they pray subpoena, &c. and that they may be quieted in their possession of said lot, and that the defendant, Ritchie, may be enjoined from disturbing their possession; and for general relief.

The answer of the defendants in the court below, admits that Charles Beatty deceased, did designate a lot in his addition to Georgetown, by inscribing on the plot thereof these words, 'for the Lutheran church;' that they always understood and believed that he meant by that inscription to manifest an intention to appropriate that lot to the use of the Lutherans, provided they would build on it, within a reasonable time, a house of public worship, which would conduce to diffuse piety, to enhance the value of his property, and to adorn his addition to Georgetown. But they deny that this inscription was ever meant, or could be interpreted to be a contract with the Lutheran church, to convey to that body the property in question. That the writing itself could not operate as a conveyance, and there was no consideration to sustain it as a contract. They deny that Charles Beatty ever declared the lot in question to be the absolute right and property of the Lutherans; or did, in any manner, by means thereof, hold out inducements to them or the public to purchase tickets in the pretended lottery mentioned in the bill, or to purchase and improve lots in that part of the town. They aver that no church had ever been built on it, and that its occupation by graves and a school house, was a use of it by no means beneficial to defendants, or him under whom they claimed.

The answer denies the possession averred in the bill; and also that there ever was an organized congregation of German Lutherans in Georgetown.

It avers also, that the lot in question has remained unenclosed for at least three fourths of the time since it became a part of Georgetown; and that the enclosures which occasionally surrounded it, were not erected by the complainants nor those whom they pretend to represent. The respondents admit that the lot was used as a burying ground; but aver that it was thus used by Beatty's permission, and not exclusively by the Lutherans, but the public generally. But they further say, that if the Lutherans had enjoyed the possession alleged in the complainants' bill, they might and should have enforced the rights thereby acquired at law, and ought not to have come into equity for a remedy. Finally, confessing that they had resumed possession of the property, they deny the authority of the complainants to act in behalf of the pretended German Lutheran church, and pray the same benefit of these defences as if they had been urged by plea to the bill.

The plaintiffs amended their bill, by stating, the German Lutheran church, mentioned in their bill, was composed of the members of the German Lutheran church in Georgetown, duly organized as such; 'that the lot was set apart by C. Beatty,' from and out of that 'part of the said land, composing said addition,' of which he, the said Beatty, was seised. 'The said Beatty, by the said designation, declaration, and setting apart, holding out to the public, and to the German Lutherans particularly, inducements as well to purchase tickets in a lottery, by which the said lots were disposed of, as to purchase and improve that part of the town in other ways. And thereby meaning to transfer to the said German Lutherans, as soon as they should organize themselves into a congregation or church, all his right to said lot in fee, to be used for the religious purpose of such congregation or church, and thereby declaring that intention. That they organized themselves into a congregation or church, and erected a church, or house of worship on the said lot.' That the complainants, and the congregation for whom they act, have called upon C. A. Beatty, and required a conveyance according to the promise and declared intent of the said Charles Beatty, deceased: that upon organizing the church or congregation aforesaid, certain officers, called a committee, were appointed to take charge of the concerns of the church; which appointments were, from time to time, made and renewed, and that complainants were appointed in 1824, and have continued to hold such appointment ever since.

To those amendments, the defendants answered, and denied all the allegations in the amended bill.

It was in evidence, that soon after this lot was thus set apart for the Lutherans, it was, with Colonel Beatty's permission, taken possession of by certain persons of that sect in Georgetown, who had a log house erected on it, which was called a church, and used as such frequently, and also as a school house by the German Lutherans. That in the year 1796, a German minister came from Philadelphia and was employed by them, and preached in this house for three months, being employed and paid by the German Lutherans of Georgetown; and about the year 1799, the congregation of German Lutherans, of which Travers, the witness in this cause, was one, employed a German minister, who officiated in said house for about nine months. Though divine service was frequently administered in that building, there was, at no other periods than those just mentioned, a stationed preacher who ministered to a congregation in regular attendance there, except a Mr Brooke, who was an Episcopal clergyman, and who, Dr Balch testifies, had possession of that building as a church in 1779. In the same, or the following year, a steeple was erected on the said house, in which a bell was hung, at the expense and by the direction of the German Lutherans of Georgetown. This building some years afterwards went to decay, and no church has been since rebuilt on the lot; though efforts have been since made for that purpose, and as late as 1823 a considerable subscription was raised, but not sufficient for the object.

During the whole period from 1769 to the bringing of this suit, the lot in question was generally under enclosures, put up at the expense of the Lutherans of Georgetown, and under the care and custody of a committee appointed by them. It has been continually so enclosed for more than twenty years, before the entry and claim set up by the defendants in this suit. The said lot has been also used by the Germans as a burying ground from the year 1769 till a short time before the bringing this suit, and has been called and known as the Dutch burying ground, and one of the witnesses, Styles, acted as sexton, under the orders of the committee of the congregation. It does not appear that the German Lutherans in Georgetown, ever were incorporated by law as a religious society.

It also appeared from the evidence, that from the year 1769, till within a month or two before the bringing this suit, no claim to the possession or property in the lot now in dispute, was ever set up by Col. Charles Beatty, or by either of the defendants; but on the contrary, Col. Charles Beatty, up to the time of his death, always declared it to be the property of the German Lutherans of Georgetown; his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 cases
  • Rank v. Krug
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • April 13, 1950
    ... ... Rank, Northern California Fisheries and others ...         Kellas, Lamberson & ... 386, 393, 1 L.Ed. 648; Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819, 4 Wheat ... 288, 14 L.Ed. 942; Beatty v. Kurtz, 1829, 2 Pet. 566, 7 L.Ed. 521. The ... of the then Commissioner of Reclamation, John C. Page, before a House Appropriations Committee ... ...
  • Delaware Land & Development Company, a Corporation of State v. First And Central Presbyterian Church of Wilmington, Delaware, Inc., a Corporation of State
    • United States
    • Court of Chancery of Delaware
    • January 22, 1929
    ... ... conveyed to its trustees, overseers and elders and their ... successors, ... of his estate was devised to his son, John Ferris, ... also in fee simple ... German ... Evan. Dutch Church , 13 N.J.Eq. 77; Mills ... included the words "& all others, the congregation and ... members of the said ... 202, 30 So. 526, 55 L. R. A. 211; Beatty v ... Kurtz , 27 U.S. 566, 2 Peters 566, 582, 7 ... procured a deed from Charles S. Richards, who was then ... Secretary of ... 345, 4 ... Harr. 345 ; O'Daniel v. Baker's ... Union , 9 Del. 488, 4 Houst. 488; ... ...
  • Gibbs v. Buck
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1939
    ... ... Gibbs, of Tallahassee, Fla., for appellants ...   [Argument of Counsel from pages 66-68 ... Finkelstein, of New York City, for appellees ...            Mr. Justice REED ... complainants on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, members of the Society, too ... 288, 14 L.Ed. 942. 23 Beatty and Ritchie v. Kurtz, 2 Pet. 566, 7 L.Ed. 521 ... ...
  • National Bank of Greece v. Savarika
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1933
    ... ... between the National Bank of Greece and others and ... Constantine Savarika and others. From ... appellants ... The ... former decrees as ... of this nature is put into the hands of trustees, and one of ... the very reasons why it is d ... Beatty ... & Ritchie v. Kurtz (U. S.), 7 L.Ed. 521; ... 134; Dye v. Beaver ... Creek Church, 48 S.C. 444; Martinson v ... Jacobson, 205 ... Howie, of Jackson, for appellees ... The ... appellants now seek to ... 381; City of New ... Orleans v. Hardie (German Protestant Home for the Aged and ... Infirm v ... (Mass.) 142, 63 Am. Dec. 725; In re John's ... Will, 30 Ore. 494, 47 P. 341, 50 P. 226, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Protection of the Environment, Cultural Resources, and Quality of Life in Hawaii State Court
    • United States
    • Hawaii State Bar Association Hawai’i Bar Journal No. 24-05, May 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...652 P.2d 1130, 1133 (1982).11. Quechan Indian Tribe v. United States, 535 F. Supp. 2d 1072, 1123 (S.D. Cal. 2008).12. Beatty v. Kurtz, 27 U.S. 566, 584-585 (1829).13. Marsland v. Pang, 5 Haw. App. 463, 701 P.2d 175 (1985); see also Kauai County Code § 8-24.1(d).14. Sylva v. Wailuku Sugar Co......
  • A River Used to Run Through It: Protecting the Public Right to a Sustainable Water System
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review No. 34-1, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...nuisance law despite the rise of public trust doctrine). 84. For an example of public nuisance’s real property roots, see Beatty v. Kurtz, 27 U.S. 566, 584 (1829) (“This is not the case of a mere private trespass; but a public nuisance . . . .”). Beatty was included in a late-nineteenth cen......

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