Davis v. Central Congregational Society of Jamaica Plain

• Decision Date: 10 September 1880
• Citation: 129 Mass. 367
• Parties: Esther G. Davis v. Central Congregational Society of Jamaica Plain
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

129 Mass. 367

Esther G. Davis v. Central Congregational Society of Jamaica Plain

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

September 10, 1880

[Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, by falling over a wall on the defendant's premises. Trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J who directed a verdict for the defendant, and reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows:

On October 15, 1873, the defendant, a duly incorporated religious society, was the owner of a lot of land, with a meeting-house thereon, bounded northeasterly by Seaverns Avenue, and southeasterly by Elm Street, both public streets in Boston. A circular driveway or path, about eighteen feet wide, ran from near the corner of said street and avenue to the front doors of the meeting-house, and round to the street. This path was covered with concrete, and was smooth and level, and was the only means provided for access to and from Elm Street and the front doors of the meeting-house. The society maintained religious worship according to the usages of Congregational societies and churches. The church worshipping in the meeting-house was a voluntary association, united together by a covenant and articles of belief, and was a distinct body from the society, and had no control of the premises. Joseph B. Clark was the settled pastor over the society and church, but was not a member of the society. The care and control of the premises were intrusted to a prudential committee of five, chosen by the society. The pastor and deacons of the church had the right to grant the use of the meeting-house for religious meetings and services not inconsistent with the rights and purposes of the society.

The plaintiff, in order to show that she was invited to attend a meeting held at the meeting-house, offered evidence tending to prove that a meeting of the Suffolk South Conference of Churches was held on the afternoon and evening of October 15, 1873, in the defendant's meeting-house; that this conference was a voluntary association of thirty or thirty-four Congregational churches in Boston and vicinity, including the church worshipping with the defendant society, and the church in Brighton, of which the plaintiff was a member; that this conference was a distinct organization from the several churches composing it, having its clerk, or scribe, and other officers; that, by the usages of this association, its meetings were held once in six months with the different churches composing it, each church taking its turn, the place of the next meeting being determined at the conference last held; that the meeting of the conference to be held in October 1873 should, by said usages, have been held with one of the other churches, and was actually appointed to be held at some other church, and not with the church worshipping with the defendant, but, the church at which the meeting was to be held being unable to have the conference, Joseph B. Clark, without consultation with the prudential committee or other officers of the defendant society, or with the deacons of the church, and without any consent on the part of the defendant, except such as may be inferred from the facts herein stated, gave permission to the scribe or other proper officers of the conference to hold the conference meeting at the defendant's meeting-house during the afternoon and evening of October 15, 1873, and the scribe, acting upon this permission, sent notices of the meeting to the several churches; that, in accordance with the usages of the conference, the notice contained a request that each church should choose two delegates to attend the meeting, and also contained a general invitation for the other members of the said several churches to attend; that this notice was given from the pulpit of the church in Brighton, of which the plaintiff was a member, and in like manner in the defendant's meeting-house on the Sunday next before the meeting.

Evidence was also offered tending to prove that it was the custom for members other than delegates to attend such meetings; that the delegates and officers of the conference when assembled had charge of the meeting, voted, and transacted such business and conducted such services as came before the meeting; and that the plaintiff was not a delegate to the meeting. There was evidence tending to show that some of the members of the defendant's prudential committee, and some or all of the deacons, were present when the notice of the meeting was given in the defendant's meeting-house, and that no action was ever taken by the defendant society or its officers as to objecting or consenting to the meeting being held according to said notice.

The plaintiff testified that on October 15, 1873, in pursuance of the invitation or notice aforesaid, and the custom aforesaid she went from her house in Brighton to attend the meeting; that she had no business with the defendant society or its officers, and was not a delegate; that she attended for her own benefit and as a visitor, and that she had been in the habit of attending conference meetings with which her church was connected for forty years; that she was never before at the defendant's meeting-house, and in going had to inquire the way there; that at about three o'clock that afternoon she entered the circular path at the corner of said avenue and street, and passed...