Crawford v. Nies
| Decision Date | 31 December 1914 |
| Citation | 220 Mass. 61,107 N.E. 382 |
| Parties | CRAWFORD v. NIES et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Alvah
G Sleeper, of Boston, for complainant.
Harvey N. Shepard and Bates, Nay & Abbott, all of Boston, for respondents.
This is a suit in equity, by four out of nine persons appointed trustees by decree of the Supreme Judicial Court of Suffolk County, and also by one of the trustees in behalf of himself and other members of the Methodist Religious Society in Boston, more commonly known as the Bromfield Street Church against the Methodist Episcopal bishop for this district, and the remaining five of the nine persons appointed such trustees who are averred to hold certain trust funds unlawfully, to determine what persons as trustees have the right to the possession of these funds. The case was reserved by a single justice of this court for our determination. The history of the trust is this: In 1806 real estate on Bromfield street in Boston was conveyed by William H. Jackson to Amos Binney and eight other persons and their successors, to hold '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 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 * * * and a future trust and confidence that they shall at all time forever hereafter permit such ministers and preachers belonging to the said church as shall from time to time be duly authorized * * * and none others to preach * * * therein * * * in further trust and confidence that as often as any one or more of the trustees * * * shall die or cease to be a member * * * of said church * * * then * * * it shall be the duty of the stationed minister or preacher authorized as aforesaid who shall have the pastoral charge of the members * * * 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' a person or persons to fill the vacancy or vacancies, who shall be voted for by the remaining trustees so that the number shall be kept at nine. A church edifice was erected upon the lot and the ecclesiastical body which worshiped there had a large membership and was prosperous for a long time. In recent years the neighborhood has ceased to be residential and the membership has become small. In 1890 a petition was brought in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County setting forth that the original trustees under the Jackson deed had died and no successors had been appointed in accordance with the terms of that deed, and referring to St. 1808, c. 70, and St. 1829, c. 144, and praying for the appointment of such trustees. The prayer of the petition was granted and trustees appointed. St. 1892, c. 103, authorized nine persons, who were the trustees named in the court decree, to sell the church and land free from the trusts in the deed of William H. Jackson to Amos Binney and others dated March 24, 1806, and 'the net proceeds of sale to be held and disposed of by said trustees for the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America according to the rules and discipline which from time to time may have been or may be agreed upon and adopted at the general conference of said church in the United States of America and the final application of said proceeds, in accordance with said rules and discipline, to be a full discharge of the said trustees, the trusts of said deed being thereupon terminated.' Upon a petition presented in 1913, the court again appointed trustees under the Jackson deed, those appointed in 1892 all having died or resigned, and the real estate was sold for $400,000 in February, 1913, deeds being executed both by the trustees appointed by the court and by the same persons as trustees of the Bromfield Street Church elected under the ecclesiastical polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The plaintiffs are four of these trustees. It was provided expressly in this decree that the trustees so appointed were 'to hold, manage or convey said estate upon the trusts and for the purposes set forth in said deed' from Jackson to Binney and 'as authorized in chapter 103 of the act of the year 1892.'
The defendants have argued that the bill is multifarious. But it is not so objectional in this particular that the matter requires consideration now after the defendants have proceeded without objection to a general hearing upon the merits before a master, whose report covers the case at large. See Bauer v. International Waste Co., 201 Mass. 197, 87 N.E. 637. All the trustees, including those elected by the church and those appointed by the court, have been joined so that in this respect the proper parties are before the court.
It appears from the allegations of the bill and the admissions of the answer that, although the sale of the Bromfield Street real estate was conducted by the persons who were appointed trustees by the court decree of 1913, it was assumed by a majority of them that they received the proceeds in their capacity as trustees elected by the church as an ecclesiastical organization, and that hence the persons elected each year as trustees by that organization are entitled to the custody of the fund and are to manage it, not according to the trusts of the Jackson deed of 1806. It does not distinctly appear from the record upon what terms and trusts, if any, these church trustees claim to hold and manage the fund. It is stated in their brief, however, that:
This is all that is said about that subject in the brief for the defendants. This hardly goes to the root of the matter. The master makes no specific findings upon this branch of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial