Draper v. Minor
| Decision Date | 31 October 1865 |
| Citation | 36 Mo. 290 |
| Parties | EDWIN DRAPER et al., Defendants in Error, Ex parte petition. v. SAMUEL O. MINOR et al., Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Louisiana Court of Common Pleas.
S. S. Allen, for plaintiffs in error.
I. The church, by means of its preacher in charge and Quarterly Conference, had full and ample power to fill vacancies in its board of trustees. (See “Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church,” p. 254.)
II. Over the church, as such, the temporal courts of this country most clearly have no jurisdiction, except to protect them and to protect the civil rights of others, and to preserve the public peace, none of which were necessary in this case. (See Baptist Church in Hartford v. Withnell, 3 Paige. ch. 301; Sawyer v. Cipperly, 7 Paige, 281; Ang. on Corp. § 58, note 1, 29; Stebbins v. Jennings, 10 Pick. 172; Gable v. Miller, id. 10 Pick. 627.)
III. There were no vacancies in the board when the court below acted, said vacancies having been duly filled by the preacher and Conference long before the court acted. (See “Minutes of the Conference.”)
Dyer & Campbell, for defendants in error.
The petitioners filed an ex parte petition in the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas, at the July term of said court, 1863, setting forth that on the 11th day of June, 1853, Edward G. McQuie and wife, by their deed of that date, conveyed to petitioners, to-wit: Edwin Draper, John S. Markley, John W. Allen, Samuel O. Minor, John Schurmur, Jos. Charleville, Ivey Zumalt, David Watson, and Thomas T. Stokes, certain real estate in the city of Louisiana, in Pike county, Missouri, describing the land fully. That the deed to said tract of land was made for and in consideration of the sum of five hundred dollars, paid by them to said McQuie, and that said conveyance was made to them as trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, for the station of Louisiana, in said county, and to their successors lawfully appointed forever. The petition then sets out the improvements made on the land, and the purposes for which they were made. The petition then goes on to state that in 1859, David Watson, one of the grantees in said deed, departed this life without having conveyed the legal title vested in him to his successor; and that in 1861, Thomas T. Stokes ceased to be a member of said church by withdrawing from the same, and that he has also left the State of Missouri, without having conveyed his interest or legal title to a successor. The petition then closes by asking to have successors appointed in place of Watson and Stokes, and that the legal title of Watson and Stokes be decreed in their successors thus appointed, &c.
Upon this petition the court appointed Charles Hunter to fill the place of David Watson, and Robert S. Strauther to fill the place of Thomas T. Stokes.
And afterwards, but during the same term of the court, Samuel O. Minor, John W. Allen, Ivey Zumalt, William A. Gun, and Samuel S. Allen, filed a petition asking the court to vacate the order appointing Hunter and Strauther, and set out the following facts, among others. why the order ought to be vacated. They admit the death of Watson, and that a vacancy was thereby created; but they say that on the 21st day of January, 1861, and after the death of said Watson, the Rev. William H. Newland, who was the preacher in charge of said church at Louisiana station, at a Quarterly Conference then being held in said city, did nominate one of the last mentioned petitioners, William A. Gun. to fill the vacancy, in said board created by the death of Watson, subject to the confirmation or rejection of said Quarterly Conference, according to the rules, laws, and discipline of the said Methodist Church South, in such cases made and provided; and that thereupon the Quarterly Conference confirmed the nomination of said Gun, and that said Gun accepted said appointment, and became a member of said board of trustees; and that no vacancy exists on account of the death of said Watson.
And with regard to the vacancy occasioned by the withdrawal from the church and removal from the State of said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beck v. Haas
...the words administrator, guardian, agent, trustee, and sheriff being merely descriptio personae. Powell v. Morrison, 35 Mo. 244; Draper v. Minor, 36 Mo. 290; v. Wills, 38 Mo. 201; Cook's Ex'r v. Holmes, 29 Mo. 61; Nicholay v. Futsche, 40 Mo. 67; Calloway v. Johnson, 51 Mo. 33; Agr. Works v.......
-
Farmers And Merchants Bank of Jamesport v. Robinson
... ... H ... Longfellow and others, are not the real parties in interest ... and, hence, can not maintain this action. Draper v ... Minor, 36 Mo. 290; Douthitt v. Stinson, 63 Mo ... 278; Lilly v. Menke, 126 Mo. 190; Wilson v. Polk ... County, 112 Mo. 126; Bliss on Code ... ...
-
Dudley v. Clark
...that the grantees in said deed furnished the purchase price for the land, the grantees took a title in fee simple to said lands. Draper v. Minor, 36 Mo. 290. Independent of the that plaintiffs' ancestors paid for the land with their own funds and were never repaid by the church, the title t......
-
Keith & Perry Coal Co. v. Bingham
...made in consideration of money paid by its said trustees; they (and not the corporation) are therefore the grantees in such deed. Draper v. Minor, 36 Mo. 290. True, the trustees are not designated by their names, but there appears in the record the names of the trustees in the deed from Hou......