First M. E. Church of Burlington v. Sweny

Citation52 N.W. 546,85 Iowa 627
PartiesFIRST M. E. CHURCH OF BURLINGTON v. SWENY.
Decision Date26 May 1892
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from district court, Des Moines county; CHARLES H. PHELPS, Judge.

Plaintiff, a corporation organized “for charitable, religious, and missionary purposes,” and whose objects, as declared in its articles, are “the maintenance of a Methodist Episcopal Church in Burlington, Iowa, and the propagation of the gospel according to the doctrine and discipline of said church,” brings this action to recover money received and held by the defendant as treasurer of a society known as the “Church Furnishing Society.” Plaintiff alleges that said society was organized by defendant as a subordinate organization; that defendant was elected treasurer thereof, and as such received $650, which she kept at interest; that Mrs. Sarah J. Simpson was by plaintiff's authority duly elected to said office of treasurer, defendant's term having expired; that Mrs. Simpson made demand upon defendant for an accounting, and for said money and accumulated interest; and that defendant refused to account for or pay over the same, or any part thereof, wherefore plaintiff demands judgment for $750, with interest and costs. Defendant, answering, admits the organization of the Church Furnishing Society; that she was elected treasurer thereof; and that $632.02 came into her hands as such treasurer, which she still retains. She denies that said society was in any manner subordinate to or under the control of the plaintiff, denies that she was elected treasurer by authority of the plaintiff, or is in any manner responsible or accountable to the plaintiff for the money in her hands; and that plaintiff has no claim thereon. She alleges that said society was an independent and voluntary organization; the object of which was “to raise money for the furnishing of a church to be erected on the corner of Fifth and Division streets, in the city of Burlington, Iowa;” that about the year 1885 the project of building a church on that corner was abandoned, and said society stopped further work; that, prior to the commencement of this suit, numerous parties who contributed to the fund in her hands had served written notice that they claimed a portion of the money in her hands, which they had contributed, and notified her not to pay the same to the plaintiff or any person without their consent. Upon these issues the cause was submitted to the court, and judgment entered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals, assigning as errors the admission of certain testimony and the rendering of judgment for the defendant.Power & Huston, for appellant.

La Monte Cowles and A. H. Stutsman, for appellee.

GIVEN, J.

1. The following facts appear without controversy, and will be sufficient to a correct understanding of the questions presented: On and before February 27, 1884, the members and friends of the plaintiff church contemplated the erection of a new church building; and, as the church then owned ground on the corner of Fifth and Division streets, it was assumed and expected by many of the congregation that the new building would be erected thereon. On February 27, 1884, in pursuance of an announcement made from the pulpit, the ladies of the church held a meeting, and organized the Church Furnishing Society, composed almost exclusively of lady members of the church, of which society the defendant was elected treasurer. The purpose of the society, as declared in its constitution and by-laws, was “to procure funds for the furnishing of the new church on its completion.” The place of meeting was fixed to be at the First M. E. Church, and the pastor and people of that church co-operated with the society in its work. During the year following its organization the society held stated meetings at the church, and gave entertainments there and elsewhere to raise money for the purpose expressed, which meetings and entertainments were previously announced from the plaintiff's pulpit. The amount in question was accumulated by the payment of stated dues by the members of the society, by admission fees to the entertainments, and voluntary contributions. It appears that it was within the power of the quarterly conference to decide upon the location of the new church, and that the first action taken by the conference was after the organization, to wit, March 31, 1884, at which meeting a resolution as follows was offered: “Resolved, that the trustees and building committee be authorized and directed to build a new M. E. church on the southwest corner of Fifth and Division streets, on the lots now owned by the church.” Final action was not had upon this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT