Crawford v. Nies

• Decision Date: 21 June 1916
• Citation: 113 N.E. 408,224 Mass. 474
• Parties: CRAWFORD et al. v. NIES et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

224 Mass. 474

113 N.E. 408

CRAWFORD et al.

v.NIES et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 21, 1916.

Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Suit by George A. Crawford and others, trustees, etc., against Leopold A. Nies, in which defendants, after a decision and order for a final decree, were permitted to file a cross-bill which, after answer and issue joined, was recommitted to the master and reserved by single justice on the pleadings, the master's report, and the exceptions thereto, with leave to refer to the printed record in the original case. Cross-bill dismissed.

Alvah G. Sleleper, of Boston, for Crawford and others.

John L. Bates, Harvey N. Shepard, and John E. Macy, all of Boston, for respondents.

BRALEY, J.

The defendants after the decision and order for a final decree in Crawford v. Nies, 220 Mass. 61, 107 N. E. 382, were permitted to file a cross-bill. The original plaintiffs having answered and issue having been joined the case was recommitted to the master, and under the reservation of the single justice is before us upon the pleadings, the master's report, and the exceptions thereto, with leave to refer ‘to the printed record in the original case, such final decree or decrees to be ordered on the entire case as to justice and equity shall appertain.’ We shall for convenience in designation refer to the complainants in the cross-bill as the plaintiffs, and to the respondents, who alone excepted, as the defendants. But their first exception having been waived, and the remaining exceptions, that the records of the society admitted in evidence were not properly identified and were offered for the purpose of varying the terms of a written instrument, and that the records ‘had no bearing on the matters in issue,’ being without merit or immaterial, the question for decision is, whether upon the record now presented the order for the decree, ‘that the trustees appointed by the court decree of 1913 are entitled to the proceeds of the sale of the Bromfield real estate and are to hold them in accordance with the trusts of the Jackson deed of 1806,’ should be reversed or modified. McKarren v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 194 Mass. 179, 80 N. E. 477,10 Ann. Cas. 961;First Baptist Church of Sharon v. Harper, 191 Mass. 196, 77 N. E. 778;Crawford v. Nies, 220 Mass. 61, 67, 107 N. E. 382.

The specific prayers in substance ask, that the proceeds of the sale of the trust property shalll be held by the plaintiffs and their successors for the support of a church building or place of worship for the use of the members of the ‘Methodist Religious Society of Boston,’ subject to the rules and discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States, the trustees forever to permit such ministers and preachers as may be duly authorized by the authorities of said church to preach therein, and for the general uses and purposes of the society under and in accordance with the discipline; that the trustees, heretofore appointed by decree of this court be discharged, and the plaintiffs and their successors, elected according to the discipline of the ‘Religious Society of Boston’ as the discipline may from time to time provide, should be the trustees who at all times are to be subject to the control of and accountable only to the church authorities, with a general prayer for such other and further relief as the court deems appropriate. While the master states there was no evidence that any society was ever known as the ‘Methodist Religious Society,’ except as such inference might be drawn from the fact that when the trustees were incorporated by St. 1809, c. 70, they were designated under the name of ‘Trustees of the Methodist Religious Society in Boston,’ the second as well as the first report leaves no doubt that the local body of worshippers from the beginning were in affiliation with the general organization known as the Methodist Episcopal Church, and intended to conform to its discipline. It having become expedient to provide a house of worship land was purchased and a church building erected, partially paid for by moneys raised by donations. The title was held by nine trustees named in the indenture between William Hall Jackson and Amos Binney, among whom were Binney and himself, dated March 24, 1806, and duly recorded. By the terms of the instrument the trustees and their successors in office held the property-

‘forever in trust, that they shall erect and build or cause to be erected and built thereon a house or place of worship for the use of members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. of America according to the rules and discipline which from time to time may be agreed upon and adopted by the ministers and preachers of the said church at their general conferences in the United States of America, and in further trust and confidence that they shall at all times forever hereafter permit such ministers and preachers belonging to the said church as shall from time to time be duly authorized by the general conference of the ministers and preachers of the said Methodist Episcopal Church or by the yearly conferences authorized by the said general conferences and none others to preach and expound God's Holy Word therein, and in further trust and confidence that as often as any one or more of the trustees hereinbefore named shall die or cease to be a member or members of said church, according to the rules and discipline as aforesaid, then and in such case it shall be the duty of the stationed minister or preacher authorized as aforesaid who shall have the pastoral charge of the members of the said church to call a meeting of the remaining trustees as soon as conveniently may be, and when so met the said minister or preacher shall proceed to nominate one or more persons to fill the place or places of him or them whose office have been vacated as aforesaid, provided the person or persons so nominated shall have been one year a member or members of the said church immediately preceding such nomination and at least 21 years of age, and the trustees so assembled shall proceed to elect and by a majority of votes shall appoint the person or persons so nominated to fill such vacancy or vacancies in order to keep up the number of nine trustees forever, and in case of an equal number of votes for and against the said nomination the stationed minister or preacher shall have the casting vote. Provided, nevertheless, that if the said trustees or any of them or their successors have advanced or shall advance any sums of money or are or shall be responsible for any sums of money on account of the said premises, and they, the said trustees, or their successors be obliged to pay the said sum or sums of money by selling the pews in the said house when completed for that purpose, subjecting the purchasers, however, to the rules and discipline of the said Methodist Episcopal Church as aforesaid, or by a mortgage on the said premises, or by selling the said premises after notice given to the pastor or preacher who shall have the oversight or charge of the congregation attending divine service on the said premises, if the money due be not paid to the said trustees or their successors within one year after such notice given, and if such sale shall take place the said trustees or their successors, after paying the debt and all other expenses which may be due, from the money arising from such sale shall deposit the remainder of the money arising from such sale in the hands of the stewards belonging to or attending divine service on the said premises, which surplus of the produce of such sale so deposited in the hands of the said stewards shall be at the disposal of the next yearly conference authorized as aforesaid which said yearly conference shall dispose of the said surplus money according to the best of their judgment for the use of the said society.’

The instrument being free from ambiguity it cannot be varied or controlled by extrinsic evidence. A valid charitable trust was created, under which the legal title vested in the trustees for the use and benefit ‘of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America,’ who might choose to attend worship in the church erected and maintained on the land. Austin v. Shaw, 10 Allen, 552;Chase v. Dickey, 212 Mass. 555, 99 N. E. 410;Ripley v. Brown, 218 Mass. 33, 105 N. E. 637;Crawford v. Nies, 220 Mass. 61, 64, 107 N. E. 382. The mode of filling vacancies as they occurred after the trustees by vote had increased their number to 15, which included seven of the original trustees, and their incorporation by St. 1809, c. 70, as well as under the amendatory act of 1828, c. 144, reducing their number to nine, and providing that the pewholders should nominate ‘suitable persons, being members of said society, and inhabitants of said Boston’ to fill vacancies, ‘and from such nominations the remaining trustees shall proceed to elect by a majority of votes a person to supply such vacancy,’ was not uniform. The master finds that some times St. 1809, c. 70, was complied with while at other times the trustees were nominated by the pewholders until St. 1828, c. 144, after which nominations were made only by the pewholders, although upon appointment they performed all the duties appertaining to their office as required by the discipline. He also found that in the sale and conveyance of portions of the property they acted as if they were not an incorporated board, but had been chosen in the manner prescribed by the discipline:

‘And it is apparent from the records of the trustees and of the quarterly conferences, that the trustees and the governing officials and boards representing the society considered that the trustees were in charge administering the property in accordance with the discipline as from time to time in force until 1891.’

But the society itself as a voluntary religious association, whatever its name, never...