Edwards v. RECTOR, CHURCH WARDENS, ETC., OF TRINITY CHURCH

• Decision Date: 03 June 1935
• Docket Number: No. 427.,427.
• Parties: EDWARDS et al. v. RECTOR, CHURCH WARDENS AND VESTRYMEN OF TRINITY CHURCH IN CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

77 F.2d 884 (1935)

EDWARDS et al. v. RECTOR, CHURCH WARDENS AND VESTRYMEN OF TRINITY CHURCH IN CITY OF NEW YORK et al.

No. 427.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 3, 1935.

Ransom H. Gillett, of Albany, N. Y., for appellants.

Sprague, Seymour & Sprague, of New York City (Chase Mellen, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.

Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

The judgment below was entered on a dismissal of the appellants' second amended complaint. Section 277, Civil Practice Act, N. Y.; rule 107, Rules of Civil Practice, N. Y. Two questions are presented on this appeal: (1) Was the dismissal of the original complaint on the merits res adjudicata as to the questions on this appeal; and (2) is the suit barred by the statute of limitations?

The view we take of the case makes it necessary to consider the second question only.

The appellants lay claim to valuable property in downtown New York City, borough of Manhattan, and their claim of title is based upon allegations of descendance from one who had title and who had never alienated it — Thomas Hall — their common ancestor, who had received a grant of the property in question from the Director General of the Dutch West India Company in 1642. The appellee denies title in appellants and affirmatively pleads the statute of limitations. It is alleged that the property was conveyed to appellees by virtue of a grant from Queen Anne in 1705, and appellees have had undisputed possession thereof since at least 1777. Appellants argue that the statute of limitations is not an available defense on the claim that any occupation of the property which appellees may have had is and was illegal, because unauthorized by appellees' charter, and that in consequence such occupation as appellees had in no way affected the title of appellants.

The pleadings and affidavits sufficiently show that the appellants and their ancestors have allowed a greater period than that named in the statute of limitations to go by without making any effort whatever to recover possession of the land which they say was granted to their ancestor Hall.

Appellees' charter is said to limit its right to acquire property to an amount not exceeding that which would have a rental or income value of £500, and, it is claimed, because the rental value exceeded that sum, it could not retain title. Appellants rely on In re McGraw's Estate, 111 N. Y. 66, 19 N. E. 233, 2 L. R. A. 387, where certain bequests were made by the testatrix to Cornell University. By statute (Laws N. Y. 1865, c. 585, § 5), the university was not permitted to hold property in excess of a value of $3,000,000. At the time of the bequest, the university already had property up to the limit. The court held that this bequest was void because the corporation had no power to take it. The university had there argued that the heirs had no right to question its power to hold property; that holding property in excess of the amount permitted by statute was a question solely for the cognizance of the state, and until the state took action, the corporation had a right to continue to hold the property bequeathed it. This argument was rejected by the court upon the ground that any devise to a corporation which the state forbids it to accept is void, and the land descends to the heirs. The court reviewed the many cases which held that a restriction imposed by charter on the amount of property a corporation might take could not be taken advantage of collaterally but only in a direct proceeding by the state. See Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S. 174, 2 S. Ct. 336, 27 L. Ed. 401; Smith v. Sheelley, 12 Wall. 358, 20 L. Ed. 430; Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. 633. In the Bogardus Case, supra, it was held that the fact that a corporation holds property in excess of the amount permitted by statute was no concern of individuals. This case and the McGraw Case are in no way inconsistent. In the McGraw Case, the corporation already held, at the time of the devise, property in an amount equal to that which it was permitted to hold by statute. But in the Bogardus Case, and now in the instant case, the corporation had by no means reached the permitted limit of its holdings. As was...