Curtis v. First Church in Charlestown

• Decision Date: 04 January 1934
• Parties: CURTIS v. FIRST CHURCH IN CHARLESTOWN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

285 Mass. 73

188 N.E. 631

CURTIS

v.FIRST CHURCH IN CHARLESTOWN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Jan. 4, 1934.

Appeal from Probate Court, Suffolk County; A. E. Dolan, Judge.

Petition for instructions by Charles P. Curtis, administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Mary D. Balfour, against the First Church in Charlestown. From the decree, defendant appeals.

Reversed with directions.

R. C. Curtis, of Boston, stated the case.

R. C. Curtis, of Boston stated the case.

F. F. Miller, of Boston, for Abbot Academy.

E. V. Grabill, of Boston, for First Church in Charlestown.

RUGG, Chief Justice.

This is a petition for instructions brought by the administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Mary D. Balfour, late of Boston. The testatrix died and her will was duly allowed in 1904. The residue of her estate was given to trustees upon trusts which have recently terminated. In the events which have come to pass, the remainder is to be divided among four institutions. The controversy relates to the institution entitled to receive one of these shares. One of these institutions was variously described in the residuary clause as ‘The First Church in Charlestown,’ ‘The First Parish Church in Charlestown,’ ‘the said First Parish Church inCharlestown,’ ‘said First Parish Church in Charlestown’ and ‘said First Parish Church.’ By an earlier clause of the will (being paragraph 4) gifts were made to ‘the First Parish Church in Harvard Square, Charlestown,’ of the testatrix' ‘pew in said church’ and of two sums of money, one to be divided equally between the Sunday School and a missionary society ‘connected with said church.’

The particular clause of the will as to which instructions are required is in paragraph 15 and is of the tenor following: ‘Of all sums herein given from the Trust Fund to said First Parish Church, the income only thereof is to be used for paying its pastor's salary and for ringing the chime of bells on said church, in such proportions as its church officers may determine, and in case said church shall be discontinued or cease to maintain public worship as a separate and distinct organization, then said sums shall vest in and be paid to the Abbots Academy at Andover, Massachusetts.’

The issue is whether upon the record this share in the residue is payable to The First Church in Charlestown or to Abbot Academy of Andover.

The case was heard on documentary evidence and oral testimony, all reported so far as material to the issues here raised. Cook v. Howe, 280 Mass. 325, 327, 182 N. E. 581. The trial judge entered a final decree instructing the petitioner to pay the share to Abbot Academy of Andover. He made no findings of material facts. The First Church in Charlestown appealed from the final decree.

The entry of the decree imported the finding of all materialfacts permissible on the evidence conducing to that conclusion. The appeal brings before us for decision questions of fact as well as of law presented on the record. It is the duty of this court to decide the case upon its own judgment, but findings based on oral testimony will not be reversed, unless plainly wrong. Lindsey v. Bird, 193 Mass. 200, 79 N. E. 263;Callan v. Callan, 280 Mass. 37, 39, 181 N. E. 736.

There appears to be not much dispute concerning the basic facts. It is alleged in the bill and admitted by the answer of the appellant and not contradicted by evidence in substance as follows: At the time of the execution of the will and of the death of the testatrix, there was in existence holding services and diligently engaged in religious activities in Harvard Square, in that part of Boston called Charlestown, a voluntary unincorporated religious association variously and commonly known as the First Church, the First Church of Christ, the First Parish Church in Charlestown, the First Parish Church in Harvard Square, and the First Church in Charlestown, which was affiliated with the First Parish in the Town of Charlestown, a corporation incorporated by an Act passed on March 5, 1803 (St. 1802, c. 107, vol. 3, Massachusetts Special Laws, page 156). All religious activities were carried on by said voluntary religious association; but in a dual form of organization then commonly used in Congregational churches, the title to the ‘temporalities' used by the voluntary religious association in such religious activities was in the corporate body. The deed of the pew mentioned in paragraph 4 of the will was from the First Parish in Charlestown in the year 1853. By St. 1913, c. 84, the voluntary religious association became incorporated under the name of the First Church in Charlestown, and the Winthrop Church, a religious corporation, was absorbed in said corporation and conveyed all its property to said corporation. Since then the First Church in Charlestown, which was the Church in which the testatrix was active, has carried on its religious services and activities in an edifice formerly owned by the said Winthrop Church. That edifice, although on a different street, is in the same general locality as was the edifice in which the said First Church in Charlestown formerly worshipped and carried on its work. In accordance with a final decree dated March 18, 1927, entered in a suit in equity, entitled First Parish in the Town of Charlestown vs. Attorney General and others, the corporation, First Parish in the Town of Charlestown, conveyed to the Congregational Church Union all the said ‘temporalities' which previously it had held for the purposes of the church activities of the First Church in Charlestown, the said Congregational Union to hold the same in trust in substance for the same purposes relative to the ‘religious services and related religious or otherwise charitable activities of the First Church in Charlestown’ as the corporation; the First Parish in the Town of Charlestown, previously had held them, or upon further trusts in the event of changed circumstances. Since that date the said ‘temporalities' conveyed have been thus administered, and the said, First Church in Charlestown has continued its activities as before but in the new location.

The voluntary association or organization will hereafter be termed the church and the corporation established by St. 1802, c. 107, the parish. The parish held the title to the edifice in Harvard Square, Charlestown, in which the church held its services. The parish conducted the business of the dual organization. It paid the salary of the minister and paid for ringing the chimes. Baker v. Fales, 16 Mass. 488;Stebbins v. Jennings, 10 Pick. 172. The testatrix was a member both of the church and of the parish, was active in both, and was deeply interested in the spiritual side of their work.

The church (the present appellant) was incorporated by St. 1913, c. 84, entitled ‘An Act to unite the Winthrop Church with the First Parish in the Town of Charlestown and the Church affiliated therewith and for other purposes.’ By section 1 of this act the church, being the voluntary religious association theretofore connected with the parish, was made a corporation under the name of the First Church in Charlestown, with all the rights and powers theretofore enjoyed by the pre-existing church. All the church members became members of the new corporation. By section 2, all property and property rights held or owned by the church or by its deacons was vested in the new corporation. By section 3, the new corporation was authorized to hold property to a specified amount and to convey all its property to the Congregational Church Union of Boston and Vicinity upon stated trusts. By section 4, the parish, that is to say, the corporation established by St. 1802, c. 107, was authorized to convey its property to the new corporation and its members to become members of the new corporation. By section 5, the Winthrop Church, a religious corporation, was authorized to convey all its property to the new corporation. Other sections of St. 1913, c. 84, have no relevancy to the present controversy.

The...