Malone v. La Croix

• Decision Date: 30 May 1905
• Citation: 144 Ala. 648,41 So. 724,143 Ala. 657
• Parties: MALONE ET AL. v. LA CROIX.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

41 So. 724

143 Ala. 657, 144 Ala. 648

MALONE ET AL. v. LA CROIX.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 30, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; D. W. Speake, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by George Malone and others, trustees, against Ida La Croix. From a judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

This was a statutory action of ejectment, brought by George Malone, Ernest Hine, R. H. Richardson, T. J. Turrentine, J J. Turrentine, H. M. Lewis, T. M. Hobbs, W. T. McDonald, and Theo Westmoreland, as trustees of the Athens Station of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, against Ida R. La Croix. As part of their testimony, plaintiffs offered in evidence the proceedings before the register in chancery of Limestone county, appointing them trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South under the deed set out in the opinion, which proceedings were not allowed in evidence by the court. The opinion sufficiently sets out the evidence and rulings of the court on which it is based. The plaintiffs took a nonsuit with bill of exceptions, on the ruling of the lower court excluding evidence of their appointment as trustees.

W. R Walker and T. C. McClellan, for appellants.

W. T Sanders and R. W. Walker, for appellee.

ANDERSON J.

In the year 1883 John M. Lane and Fletcher Lane and their wives, of the county of Limestone, executed a deed to the lot in question to Samuel De Woody and others, as trustees of the "Methodist Church situated in Athens, * * * unto the said parties of the second part, trustees as aforesaid, and to their successors in office, in trust for the use and purposes hereinafter mentioned and declared; * * * that they shall erect a building thereon, or cause to be erected a house of worship, for the use of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, according to the rules and discipline which from time to time may be agreed upon; * * * and in further trust and confidence that they shall at all times forever hereafter permit such members and preachers of the said Methodist Episcopal Church to preach and expound God's Holy Word therein." The deed further provided that the property should be held by the parties of the second part, "and to their successors in office chosen and appointed according to the statute of the state of Alabama." The register in chancery, under section 4193, Code 1896, is clothed with the authority to appoint trustees in case of a vacancy, and the deed required the successors to be appointed under the statute. The plaintiff introduced proceedings had before the register, showing the appointment of plaintiffs, and reciting that they had been named by the proper authority as trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South previous to said appointment. We think that, under the terms of the deed and the statute, the trustees appointed by the register succeeded to the legal title; but, inasmuch as they are designated as trustees for the Methodist Episcopal Church South, it might be contended that they cannot be the lawful successors to persons who were designated in the deed as trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of America. This apparent variance relates only to the cestuis que trust, and which we think but one and the same.

We think the courts of the land can and will take judicial notice of the division of perhaps the largest and most powerful Protestant Church in the United States, of the territory over which jurisdiction was to be and has been exercised by the subdivisions, respectively, and of the articles of separation, with reference to a territorial division of the common property. Not only is this a fact of historical notoriety, but the title to property one held before the separation has often been passed upon by the high courts of the country, and in reference to the rights and ownership of the respective wings of the church thereto. "The separation of the Methodist Episcopal Churches, the one north and the other south of a common boundary line, has been the subject of much discussion, in which the whole community more or less felt an interest, and was an event that connected itself with, and formed a part of the history of the country, of which no well-informed man could be ignorant, and from its notoriety, courts would take judicial notice of it without proof." Humphrey v. Burnside, 4 Bush (Ky.) 215; Hart v. Bodley, Hardin (Ky.) 98; Creighton v. Bilbo, 1 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 138. In passing upon the title to church property and in upholding the right of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South to sue for the church property conveyed to the church before the division under a deed similar to the one before us, the court, in Humphrey's Case, supra, said: "The difference in name makes no difference in character or authority." This same court in the case of Humphrey v. Burnside, 4 Bush, 226, said: "The original Methodist Episcopal Church has been authoritatively divided into two Methodist Episcopal Churches, the one north and the other south of a common boundary line, which, according to the plan of separation, limits the extent and jurisdiction of each; that each, within its own limits, is the lawful successor and representative of the original church possessing all its jurisdiction and...