Holton v. Elliott

• Decision Date: 11 May 1927
• Docket Number: 466.
• Citation: 138 S.E. 3,193 N.C. 708
• Parties: HOLTON et al. v. ELLIOTT.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

138 S.E. 3

193 N.C. 708

HOLTON et al. v. ELLIOTT.

No. 466.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 11, 1927

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Finley, Judge.

Controversy without action between J. T. Holton and others, trustees of Rural Trinity Methodist Church South, plaintiffs, and D. E Elliott, defendant. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Equity courts have jurisdiction to order alienation of property devised for charitable use.

Controversy without action on facts agreed. On October 17, 1914, Mrs Harriet T. Neisler made her will, one item of which is as follows:

"And my Martin farm I will to be kept in the hands of the trustees of Trinity Church, which are T. M. Carr, J. W. Carr, and others, and their successors in office, for a home for the minister who serves this church and to keep our lot in the cemetery in nice condition all the time."

In May, 1920, the will was duly probated, filed, and recorded in the office of the clerk of the superior court. The farm consists of 76.31 acres situated in Long Creek township, about 7 miles from Charlotte, 68.50 acres being on the east side and 7.81 acres on the west side of Beattie's Ford road. Upon said farm there is no house or building fit or suitable for use as a home for the minister serving Trinity Church; the only improvement upon said farm is a small tenant house, which is in a bad state of repair, and is hardly habitable in its present condition. The barn, crib, and other outhouses have so fallen into decay as to be unfit for any use for which they were originally intended; on account of the condition and disrepair of said premises, it is impossible to secure a tenant to cultivate said farm, and the income therefrom, being less than $100, is not sufficient to pay a reasonable charge for the oversight and care of said premises. As the property now stands, it is of no practical purpose and use as a home or parsonage for the minister of Trinity Church, but, on the contrary, is rather a burden than a benefit to Trinity Church; the trustees have no funds with which to build a home or parsonage for the minister serving said church.

The plaintiffs, who are the present trustees of Trinity Church, pursuant to authority given them by the Quarterly Conference, entered into a contract with the defendant in February, 1921, by the terms of which he was to purchase the property at the price of $7,530. Of this sum not exceeding $5,600 is to be invested in the purchase of a parsonage or home for the minister serving the church, and the remainder to be invested in approved securities, the income from which shall be expended annually in the preservation of the cemetery lot and the upkeep of the parsonage.

Before the commencement of the action, the plaintiffs tendered to the defendant a deed in due form, and the defendant refused to accept the deed and pay the purchase price, for the alleged reason that the plaintiffs cannot a title in fee.

Upon the agreed facts, his honor adjudged that the plaintiffs are entitled to the specific performance of the contract. The defendant excepted and appealed.

Stancill & Davis, of Charlotte, for appellant.

Pharr, Bell & Pharr, of Charlotte, for appellees.

ADAMS J.

In devising the Martin farm to the...