Dudley v. Clark
| Citation | 164 S.W. 608,255 Mo. 570 |
| Parties | WILLIAM R. DUDLEY et al., Appellants, v. S. MARGARETHA R. CLARK |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1914 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court -- Hon. James D. Barnett, Judge.
Affirmed.
Robertson & Robertson for appellant.
(1) Under and by virtue of the terms of the deed from Barnett to plaintiff's ancestors, and from the fact 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 fact that plaintiffs' ancestors paid for the land with their own funds and were never repaid by the church, the title to the lands, upon the death of the trustees named in the deed passed to the plaintiffs as heirs of the said trustees. Ewing v. Shannahan, 113 Mo. 188; Hook v Dyer, 47 Mo. 214; Newman v. Newman, 152 Mo 409; Underhill on Trusts and Trustees, 383; Hill on Trustees (Am. Notes), 442; Schenck v. Schenck, 16 N.J.Eq 174; Perry on Trusts (5 Ed.), sec. 341. (2) Under the terms of the deed from Barnett to Pearson, Dudley and Ward, the property was devoted to religious worship for the Davis Fork Baptist Church. That means, as a matter of course, so long as that church organization should use the property for that purpose and so long as the property should be used for church purposes. During the time that the property was used for church purposes it was sequestered or appropriated to public, pious and charitable use and under the terms of section 1886, the Statute of Limitations would have no operation. Strother v. Barrow, 246 Mo. 241. "It is well settled that a subsisting recognized and acknowledged trust, as between the trustee and cestui que trust is not within the operation of the Statute of Limitations." Wood on Limitations (3 Ed.), sec. 200. The common source of title in this case is Thomas Barnett. He conveyed the land to certain persons, to be used for a church house. This voluntary society or church congregation used this property with the consent of the grantees. It is fundamental that as between the trustee and the beneficiary, the Statute of Limitations does not apply. Perry on Trusts, secs. 863-864; Wood on Limitations (3 Ed.), sec. 203; Buren v. Buren, 79 Mo. 538. The use of the property by the congregation was not adverse to the grantees or their heirs, but was held by and with their consent and for the purposes named in the deed, and it was in no sense an adverse holding. The church organization or congregation not being incorporated had no legal entity. It could not sue or be sued and of course it could not gain rights which it could assert against the owners of the property by limitation or otherwise. Riffe v. Proctor, 99 Mo.App. 607.
Fauntleroy, Cullen & Hay and Barclay & Orthwein.
The testimony in this case shows that A. F. Dudley died in 1875, that Pearson died in 1880, and that Ward went to California prior to 1880 and ceased to be a trustee in October, 1880, and died in 1883. It is therefore clear that their heirs are barred by limitation. Other trustees were appointed and they had the actual possession of the property, claimed it as their own, and the congregation also claimed it, and for thirty years the rights of these plaintiffs were openly defied. These plaintiffs never acted as trustees, never claimed to act as trustees, and the relation of trustee and beneficiary never existed between them and the congregation, and even now they do not sue as trustees. The title to the land in controversy in this case was claimed by the succeeding trustees and by the congregation for more than thirty years, and in such case adverse possession confers title. Baptist Church v. Harper, 77 N.E. 778; Church v. Schoolcraft, 65 N.Y. 145; University v. Church, 65 A. 398; Perry v. Coal Co., 138 F. 769; 2 Devlin on Real Estate, p. 1414; Phelan v. Brady, 119 N.Y. 587, 8 L.R.A. 211; Randolph v. Meeks, Mart. & Y. 58; Macon v. Sheppard, 2 Humph. 335; School District v. Taylor, 19 Kan. 287; Everts v. Rose Grove, 77 Iowa 37, 14 Am. St. 264.
Plaintiffs (as heirs of a group of church trustees, as presently appears) sue in the Audrain Circuit Court in two counts, one in ejectment and one under former section 650 to quiet title -- the property in dispute being lot one of block eighteen in the town of Mexico in Audrain county. There were two defendants, one was dismissed and the answer of the other, S. Margaretha R. Clark, is first a general denial, then she pleads her own title and follows that by a plea of the thirty-year Statute of Limitation, and title by limitation under the "general laws" of Missouri, averring, among other things, that "she and those under whom she claims have been in the open, notorious, exclusive, actual and adverse possession of said land for forty years." The prayer of her answer was that the court "adjudge and decree that she has the title to said land and that the defendants (sic) have no interest in said land, and are not entitled to the possession thereof." (N. B.: Evidently "defendants" is a misprint for plaintiffs.)
The reply put at issue new matter.
On a trial to the court without a jury "all the issues" were found in favor of defendants (the clerk failing to note that one of the defendants had been dismissed) and the following judgment was rendered on that finding:
"It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that plaintiffs take nothing by their writ, and that defendants go hence without day, and have and recover of and from the plaintiffs, as well as George Pearson, surety on cost bond, the costs herein laid out and expended, and that execution issue therefor."
It will be observed that though such finding would have supported a decree of title as prayed in defendant's answer and in the second count of plaintiffs' petition, yet the court stopped at the bare general finding and entered no affirmative decree ascertaining and determining the estate or interest of the respective parties to the suit in the real estate as is contemplated by Section 650, Revised Statutes 1899. That is, it ignored the requirements of that section. [Armor v. Frey, 226 Mo. 646, 663 et seq.] Respondent filed no motion for a new trial. Resting content with that judgment, she took no appeal and in her brief here her counsel contend that the second count of the petition was practically abandoned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in turn in their brief in reply do not take issue on that contention but, as we grasp it, present questions here, as they did below, in such a way as to lend color to that view of it. Hence, without deciding the particular point of abandonment, we think on the premises stated that the appeal may be well ruled as if the second count of the petition fell out of the case, and that the count on ejectment stood alone to be reckoned with. Accordingly, for appellate purposes, the cause may proceed as if that were so.
Defendant asked no instructions. Plaintiffs asked two which were refused. If the facts entitled plaintiffs to recover then these instructions should have been given. Otherwise, otherwise. In that view of it the instructions need no further attention and will not be reproduced.
Attending to the facts, the case is this: Many years ago in the first half of the last century the members of that great denomination in the United States looking to Roger Williams as its mentor and founder were much agitated by theological dogmas relating to the doctrines of election and predestination, some taking such an ultra-conservative view of those questions as precluded the wisdom of Sunday schools, missions, etc. They were known as Primitive Baptists. In some way they got the name of "Hardshells" which (given at the outset facetiously to indicate lack of expansiveness) has become, as not infrequently happens, an allowable historical name. That agitation caused a schism in the Baptist family in Audrain county as elsewhere. At some time before 1853 the Hardshell or Primitive Baptists, as distinguished from the main body, to-wit, the Missionary Baptists, organized a society known as the Davis Fork Regular Baptist Church and, in the name of certain trustees, to-wit, Pearson, Ward and Poage, took title from one Harrison and wife Rebecca to lot eight, in block sixteen, in the town of Mexico -- the habendum of that conveyance reading: "To have and to hold the above designated lot of land for the uses and benefits of the said Davis Fork Church and meeting house so long as the church continues to hold the doctrine of election and predestination, and the said James and Rebecca Harrison do forever warrant and forever defend the right and title to the aforesaid lot of ground to the aforesaid trustees or their successors in office for the use and benefit of the said Davis Fork Church against the lawful claim or claims of all and every person whatsoever."
In 1873, preparatory to a sale, and the acquisition of a new situs and building another meeting house, the grantor in the foregoing deed made a quitclaim of the lot to the same trustees in which the above conditions were referred to and the grantor formally by apt narration released the grantees as trustees from them for an expressed nominal money consideration. Whether trustee Poage died, was removed or what became of him we do not know, but on a certain day in March, 1873, trustees Pearson and Ward, on behalf of the church, and one Dudley (who also executes as a trustee of the Davis Fork Baptist Church) made a deed with general clauses of warranty to one Evans of part of lot eight, in block sixteen, in the town of Mexico. It is not clear what form of deed was made to the other part of the lot, but evidently it was sold and conveyed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial