Dunn v. Ellisor

• Decision Date: 12 May 1932
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 622.
• Citation: 225 Ala. 15,141 So. 700
• Parties: DUNN ET AL. v. ELLISOR.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

141 So. 700

225 Ala. 15

DUNN ET AL. v. ELLISOR.

4 Div. 622.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 12, 1932

Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; Emmett S. Thigpen Judge.

Suit by J. O. Ellisor, individually and as a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, of Andalusia, and a district steward of the district in which Andalusia is located, against J. G Dunn and others, as trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, of Andalusia, for injunction to restrain respondents from borrowing money and securing its repayment by mortgage upon property conveyed as a district parsonage without first obtaining consent and authority of the district stewards. From a decree for complainant, respondents appeal.

Affirmed.

E. O Baldwin and Robt. S. Reid, both of Andalusia, for appellants.

A. R. Powell, of Andalusia, for appellee.

FOSTER J.

The deed here under consideration conveyed a dwelling house and lot in Andalusia, Ala., to persons named as "Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church, South, Andalusia, Alabama, and their successors in office and assigns to be held in trust and used as a district parsonage for Andalusia District," of that church organization.

The Andalusia district is alleged to have disbanded, and the local church is in what is designated as the Troy district under the same denominational control.

There is a power shown to exist in the "doctrine and discipline" of the church to mortgage the district parsonage in order to borrow money "by the consent and authority of the District Conference or two-thirds of the district stewards." The Andalusia district now has no such conference nor stewards. But, if the property is held for the benefit of the local church, the authority and consent of the quarterly conference of the church there located is all that is required by the discipline. The trustees named in the deed were trustees of the local church and not of the district. They claim, therefore, that the property is now in fact and in equity local church property, and may be mortgaged as such by authority of the church discipline.

We will take judicial knowledge of the well-known plan of church government of that denomination, though not the provisions of the "doctrines and discipline," which are a detail of such plan. Malone v. Lacroix, 144 Ala. 648, 41 So. 724; Blount v. 16th St. Baptist Church, 206 Ala. 423, 90 So. 602. Under it, local churches are united into districts under the leadership of a minister of that faith called the presiding elder, who is furnished a home situated in it during the term of his service, and such home is called the district parsonage.

The trial court held that the property here in question is a district parsonage, and that a proper interpretation of the deed is that it was intended (as shown by its terms and concurring conditions) to be held and used as a district parsonage, under the rules and regulations prescribed by the discipline of the denomination; therefore that it is property which under such discipline may be mortgaged only by authority of the district conference and district stewards, and that such authority is not shown.

The effect of the decree is that the title to the property is held by the trustees of the local church, and that under the discipline of the church it can be mortgaged by the trustees of such church, who are made trustees of this property provided two-thirds of the district stewards consent, and by authority of the district conference of such district in which the parsonage is situated, though not the Andalusia district, as constituted when the deed was executed. That interpretation would be clearly correct if the trust clause in the deed had merely provided for its use as a district parsonage, without naming the district. We know of no reason...