First Christian Church v. Brownell

• Decision Date: 03 January 1955
• Parties: FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH v. Clifford A. BROWNELL and others (two cases). FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH v. B. M. C. DURFEE TRUST COMPANY, trustee, and others (two cases). FIRST CHRISTIAN UNION SOCIETY OF FALL RIVER v. Martha A. FEILHAUER and others.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 603

123 N.E.2d 603

332 Mass. 143

FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH v. Clifford A. BROWNELL and others (two cases).

FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH v. B. M. C. DURFEE TRUST COMPANY, trustee, and others (two cases).

FIRST CHRISTIAN UNION SOCIETY OF FALL RIVER v. Martha A. FEILHAUER and others.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

Argued Oct. 26, 1954.

Decided Jan. 3, 1955.

James D. St. Clair, Boston, for Massachusetts Congregational Conference and Missionary Soc.

Milton A. Westgate, Fall River, for B. M. C. Durfee Trust Co., trustee.

Israel Brayton, Fall River, for Home for Aged People in Fall River, submitted a brief.

No argument nor brief for petitioner.

Harrison F. Lyman, Jr., Boston, for Clifford A. Brownell et al.

Barton I. Goldberg, Fall River, for Martha A. Feilhauer.

Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, WILKINS, SPALDING and WILLIAMS, JJ.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

These are five suits in equity to obtain orders for the distribution or for the application cy pres of certain funds held in trust by the respective petitioners for charitable purposes. The suits, which for convenience are referred to by the letters A, B, C, D, and E, were heard in the Probate Court. The petitioner in A, B, C, and D is First Christian Church in Fall River, a religious society organized in 1829. The petitioner in E is First Christian Union Society of Fall River, an organizaton which held in trust a meeting house and certain funds and property for the church. In all of the suits the Attorney General and Massachusetts Congregational Conference and Missionary Society, a corporation hereinafter called the Conference, are joined as respondents. Also joined in the different suits are the heirs of persons by whom the funds in question were donated and the legal representatives and trustees of the estates of such persons. In C and D a beneficiary under the donor's will, while not originally joined as a respondent, appeared and answered. The controversy over the disposition of the different funds arises because of a vote of the church on April 21, 1941, to 'disband.' At a general church meeting held on that date it was voted to close the church as of June 29, 1941, and to authorize a committee to dispose of all property of the church and to turn it over to the Conference. The Conference, whose name at the time of hearing had been changed to Massachusetts Congregational Christian Conference, is composed of the members of different Congregational and Christian churches in the Commonwealth. It has trustees who manage different funds possessed by the Conference and who from such funds grant financial relief to churches which are in need of assistance.

In all of the suits the Attorney General submitted his rights to the determination of the court. See G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 12, §§ 3, 8.

In suit A which concerns a fund known as the 'F. C. Brownell Fund' the judge found that Fenner C. Brownell, who with his wife Avis H. Brownell were donors of the fund, did not have a general charitable intent and that the doctrine of cy pres did not apply. He decreed that the fund was held for the benefit of the respondents Clifford A. Brownell and Bertha B. Belt, the sole heirs at law of Fenner C. Brownell and Avis H. Brownell.

In suit B the judge made similar findings regarding a so called 'Avis H. Brownell Fund' and decreed that it was held upon a resulting trust for the respondents Clifford A. Brownell and Bertha B. Belt who were the sole heirs at law of the donor Avis H. Brownell.

In suit C the fund was known as the 'Lizzie Hudson Simmons Fund.' The judge found that it was the intent of the testatrix Angenette B. S. Stone, under whose will the fund was received by the church, that if the church could not use the fund, it should go under the residuary clause of the will to Home for the Aged People of Fall River. He ruled that the doctrine of cy pres did not apply and ordered the fund transferred to the respondent B. M. C. Durfee Trust Company, trustee under the residuary clause, to be distributed by the trustee to Home for the Aged People of Fall River.

In suit D the judge in considering a fund known as the 'Kate Ashley Woodman Fund,' also established under the will of said Angenette B. S. Stone, ruled that cy pres should be applied to a part of the fund but not to the remaining part. As to the part to which cy pres did not apply he ordered it paid to B. M. C. Durfee Trust Company to be distributed in the same manner as the fund in suit C. The balance of the fund was ordered paid to the same trust company to be used for charitable work in the parish of North Christian Church in Fall River.

In suit E it appeared that the petitioner First Christian Union Society of Fall River held a fund received under the will of John D. Thayer in 1946. The judge found that the testator had no general charitable intent and that cy pres did not apply. He ordered the fund paid to the respondent Martha A. Feilhauer, who was the residuary legatee under the will of the sole heir of the testator.

We do not pause to consider whether the findings and rulings which we have briefly outlined are supported by the reported evidence, because we think that these suits, all of which come to this court on appeals by the Conference, are not properly before us. In suits A and B claims of appeal from the respective final decrees were filed by the Conference in the Probate Court. On motions of the respondents Brownell and Belt they were ordered 'stricken from the record' on the ground that the Conference had no standing to appeal and was not a 'person aggrieved' under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 215, § 9. The Conference then filed claims of appeal from the decrees allowing these motions. The same respondents later filed motions in this court to dismiss these appeals.

The Conference appealed from the respective final decrees in the other suits. No motions to dismiss these appeals have been filed either in the Probate Court or in this court.

The right to appeal from an order or decree of the Probate Court is purely statutory. It is provided by G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 215, § 9, that 'A person aggrieved by an...