Dittemore v. Dickey

• Decision Date: 23 May 1924
• Citation: 144 N.E. 57,249 Mass. 95
• Parties: DITTEMORE v. DICKEY et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

249 Mass. 95

144 N.E. 57

DITTEMORE

v.DICKEY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 23, 1924.

Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Suit by John V. Dittemore against Adam H. Dickey and others, to compel defendants to recognize him as director of a church. Case reserved. Decree dismissing bill ordered entered.W. G. Thompson, of Boston, and F. C. Demond, of Concord, N. H., for plaintiff.

W. A. Dane and J. L. Bates, both of Boston, (C. P. Smith and R. E. Buffum, both of Boston, of counsal), for defendants.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a suit in equity Boston, of counsel), for defendants. resolution purporting to remove him from ‘the Christian Science board of directors, the board of directors of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston,’ and seeks injunctive relief to compel the several defendants to recognize him as such director.

[1][2][3] 1. The present case was brought at about the same time as Eustace v. Dickey, reported in 240 Mass. 55, 132 N. E. 852. Both cases were referred to the same master. The evidence received in one was to be considered in the other so far as pertinent. A report was made by the master in Eustace v. Dickey, which dealt with the issues there involved, before the hearings in the case at bar were concluded. The master in making his report in Eustace v. Dickey decided that in one aspect it was necessary for him to determine whether the present plaintiff was a director or whether he had been removed. A motion that he be directed to conclude the hearing of evidence in the present case before filing the report in the other case was denied by the court. Accordingly the master proceeded to make findings of fact on that issue, which were adverse to the contentions of the present defendants. Those findings were not material to the decision of that case and hence became of no final force and effect. 240 Mass. 55, at page 88, 132 N. E. 852. After that decision was rendered by this court, the defendants moved that the rule to the master be discharged and a new master appointed. In substance, the grounds alleged in that motion were that the master had prejudged this case because of his decision in the other case, and was biased and could not give the defendants that impartial hearing to which they are entitled. Affidavits and counter affidavits were filed. The motion was denied after hearing and consideration, and the defendants appealed. The discharge of one master after hearings have begun and the appointment of another is unsual. It ought not to be done except for compelling reasons. The master in the case at bar was exceptionally equipped by long experience in high judicial position. It is the right of every citizen, secured by constitutional mandate, to be tried by judges as ‘free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.’ No one ought ever to be appointed master in an equity suit whose character is not unblemished and above reproach. His mind ought always to be open to the truth and susceptible to every right influence flowing from the evidence. Hall v. Thayer, 105 Mass. 219, 221,7 Am. Rep. 513;Harrington v. Boston Elevated Railway, 229 Mass. 421, 432, 118 N. E. 880, 2 A. L. R. 1057;Commonwealth Tobacco Co. v. Alliance Ins. Co., 238 Mass. 514, 516, 131 N. E. 213. The affidavits fail to indicate any want of competency in the master to hear fairly and decide impartially all issues. His decision in the other case falls far short of disqualification. Until a comparatively recent rule of this court, is was the common practice for one to sit as a member of the full court in review of his decisions rendered as a single justice, and instances are not infrequent where such justice has expressed the judgment of the full court and of himself in reversing his previous decision. See, for example, Gorham v. Moor, 197 Mass. 522, 526, 84 N. E. 436;Crocker v. Justices of the Superior Court, 208 Mass. 162, 180, 94 N. E. 369,21 Ann. Cas. 1061. Moreover, the decision of such a motion by a single justice will not be reversed on appeal, except in most extraordinary circumstances. Cunningham v. Worcester Five Cents Savings Bank, 223 Mass. 361, 363, 111 N. E. 898. This motion was overruled rightly.

[4] 2. This case presents another aspect of internal dissensions in the sect known as Christian Scientists, some of which were before us in Eustace v. Dickey, 240 Mass. 55, 132 N. E. 852. The main question for decision on the present record is whether the plaintiff has been removed as a member of the Christian Science Board of Directors That involves the determination of a preliminary question as to what persons compose that Board of Directors. It is contended that there are two such boards, one created by deed and the other by the manual or by-laws of the church. To understand and decide this preliminary question requires a detailed statement of some of the facts. The case was first referred to a master to hear the parties and their evidence, to find the facts and report the same. There is no report of the evidence. The facts as found by the master therefore must be accepted as true, since they are not mutually inconsistent or contradictory.

Mrs. Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, was the leader in the organization of an incorporated church, whose charter was obtained in June, 1879. Its name was the Church of Christ, Scientist, and she became its pastor. This continued until December, 1889, when the members in annual meeting, duly called, adopted resolutions declaring that its existing by-laws and regulations, except only such as fixed the name of the church, were null and void, that ‘the corporation be and is declared dissolved,’ and directing the clerk to take the necessary steps to give the resolution legal effect. Another clause in the resolution was that:

‘The members of this church hereby declare that this action is taken in order to realize more perfectly the purpose of its institution as an organization, namely, growth in spiritual life and the spread of the ‘Glad Tidings,’ and that they will continue as a voluntary association of Christians * * * in the exercise of all the ministrations and activities heretofore performed by them as the Church of Christ, Scientist.'

The members continued to meet and hold services as contemplated in this resolution for a period of more than 2 1/2 years, until August, 1892. The old church organization had directors whose members varied from time to time. The ‘voluntary association of Christians' thus described in the resolutions had directors appointed by Mrs. Eddy during this interval, vacancies among them being filled by her without consulting the members, though it does not appear what their precise duties were. Since May, 1892, Mrs. Eddy had been plainning a reorganization of her church, being this voluntary association retaining the name of the original corporate organization. Another incorporation was first proposed, under the same name, to be effected in the first instance by 12 selected by her out of the larger membership of the voluntary association. At her direction these 12 signed ‘Articles of Organization’ for the purpose of becoming incorporated, and written notices of meeting to be held on August 29, 1892, were sent out. The signers met accordingly, but no proceedings for organization were had pursuant to the notice, because one of the signers appeared bearing a message from Mrs. Eddy to the assembled signers to the effect that she had changed her plan and was not going to have the church incorporated, that she had had prepared a trust deed which he read to the meeting, and that she desired the 4 grantees therein named, who also were present, for ‘directors of her church.’ A president and secretary of the meeting of signers were chosen. The signers voted without dissent to ‘accept’ the four persons named as directors. Although there was testimony to the effect that a record was kept of this meeting, it cannot now be found and this meeting appears to have received no further mention or notice. Under date of September 1, 1892, Mrs. Eddy executed the deed of trust which had been read to the meeting of August 29, 1892, conveying land in Boston to 4 persons therein named, ‘as trustees as hereinafter provided and to their legitimate successors in office forever,’ upon express trusts specified in 11 numbered articles. The first of these was in these words:

‘Said grantees shall be known as the ‘Christian Science Board of Directors,’ and shall constitute a perpetual body or corporation under and in accordance with section 1, chapter 39, of the Public Statutes of Massachusetts. Whenever a vacancy occurs in said board the remaining members shall within 30 days fill the same by election; but no one shall be eligible to that office who is not in the opinion of the remaining members of the board a firm and consistent believer in the doctrines of Christian Science as taught in a book entitled ‘Science and Health,’ by Mary Baker G. Eddy, beginning with the seventy-first edition thereof.'

Further trusts were to build a church on the land conveyed, ‘to elect a pastor, reader or speaker to fill the pulpit who shall be a genuine Christian Scientist,’ to maintain public worship in the church in accordance with the doctrines of Christian Science and not otherwise, the congregation worshipping in the church to be styled ‘the First Church of Christ, Scientist.’ Other trusts were ancillary and subsidiary. The deed contained no provision for the removal of trustees or directors. The habendum was ‘to said grantees and their successors in office to the uses and trusts above described forever.’ The 4 persons named as grantees, and their successors, exercised the functions and powers assigned by the deed until 1903. At a meeting held on September 23, 1892, 11 persons, includingthe 4 grantees in the deed of September 1, 1892, organized ‘the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass.’ The records of...