McRoberts v. Moudy
| Decision Date | 26 October 1885 |
| Citation | 19 Mo.App. 26 |
| Parties | S. E. MCROBERTS ET AL., TRUSTEES, ETC., Respondents, v. JOHN MOUDY ET AL., TRUSTEES, ETC., Appellants. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from Bates Circuit Court, HON. JAMES B. GANTT, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Statement of case.
This is an action of replevin for the recovery of certain property alleged to belong to a church, known as " The First Baptist church of Crescent Hill," in Bates county. The action was instituted in a justice's court, and removed at the instance of defendants, to the circuit court on writ of certiorari. The material facts are that about the year 1878, a deed was made to certain trustees and their successors for a lot on which to build a church for the Baptist denomination at Crescent Hill. Money was subscribed by various parties for the purpose of erecting the church building and furnishing it for worship. The congregation worshiping in it numbered, as shown by the books, about one hundred and eight. Unhappily for the unity and harmony of the congregation, about 1880, a new town, named Adrian, sprang up on the line of the railroad, distant two and one-half miles from Crescent Hill. A Baptist church was organized at Adrian and as many of the members of the Crescent Hill church had moved to Adrian, and others went there to transact business they began the agitation of removing the former church to and becoming identified with the latter church. After one or more efforts, it resulted, that, at a church meeting held in 1881, a majority of those present voted to donate and convey the church property at Crescent Hill to the church at Adrian, and directed the trustees of the church to convey accordingly; which they attempted to accomplish by executing a deed conveying the lot to the trustees of the Adrian church. They also succeeded in persuading the original grantor of the lot to the Crescent Hill church to make a quit-claim deed to the Adrian church. This congregational meeting also voted to disorganize and disband the Crescent Hill church.
After this action, the minority, claiming to be the Crescent Hill church, proceeded to elect new trustees, and continued to worship in the old church, maintaining a minister and a prosperous Sunday school. The defendants, claiming to be trustees of the Adrian church, and representing another religious body worshiping there, removed from the old church to the new, the property in controversy. The plaintiffs, as trustees, instituted this action to recover said property.
The circuit court found the issues for the plaintiffs, and rendered judgment accordingly. The defendants prosecute this appeal.
PARKINSON & ABERNATHY, for the appellants.
I. This church organization at Crescent Hill, prior to December 3, 1881, was a religious association of persons holding to the faith and system of church government peculiar to the Baptist church; and organized and conducted, as the proof shows it was, constituted a Baptist church. Its action December 3 was with notice, and was duly had in strict compliance with the law and usage governing the Baptist church under which it could control and dispose of its property. Hamblett v. Bennett, 6 Allen 140; Redemption Church v. Grace Church, 68 N.Y. 570; Wood's Field on Law of Corporations, sect. 203.
II. The action of the majority on December 3 was in accordance with Baptist law and custom in the disposition of church property; and the subsequent action of the minority is contrary to such law and usage. And in determining questions of property, the courts will look only to the action of the church, and if found to be in accordance with its laws and customs, and not in contravention of its original purpose and design, nor of " the law of the land," that action will be regarded by the courts as final and conclusive. State ex rel., etc., v. Farris, 45 Mo. 483; North St. Louis Christian Church v. McGowan, 62 Mo. 279; Gibson v. Armstrong, 7 B. Monroe 281; McGinnis v. Watson, 41 Pa.St. Rep. 9.
III. The church membership, acting under its forms and with the sanction of their " association," is the governing power in Baptist church control, and it exercises that power on the democratic principle, that the " majority shall rule." The vote taken on December 3, was a direction to their trustees to conveyithe church building, and the execution of the deed in pursuance of such direction, vested the property in the trustees of the Adrian church. There is no property or right of property, or right of possession in the minority at Crescent Hill, and none in the plaintiffs as the trustees of that minority; and no such right of action as has been invoked exists in favor of either the minority or their trustees. Roshi's App., 69 Pa.St. Rep. 462; Brown v. Monroe, 80 Ky. 443.
IV. The evidence of Baptist law and usage, and the relations between churches in regular standing with the " Butler Association," and the disciplinary powers of the association over irregular action, as introduced, is competent, and the subsequent action had by the association, set forth in the motion for a new trial, is relevant and sufficient to authorize a new trial. Roshi's Appeal, supra; Bird v. St. Mark's Church, 4 Am. and Eng. Corp. cases 120.
JOHN T. SMITH, for the respondents.
I. Trustees of a religious society, in the absence of an express or clearly implied trust, hold the property for the use of the particular society of which they are trustees, and not for any church in general, or for the benefit of any peculiar doctrines, or practice in religious matters. 6 Cent. Law Journal, 97; Calkens v. Cheney, S.Ct. Ills. Then the title to the church lot, involved in this case, was held in trust, not for the Baptists as a denomination, but as a congregation at Crescent Hill, and when there ceased to be such a congregation the property would revert to the original donor.
II. Can the majority of a religious congregation, without an order of court or some enabling statute, by vote of a majority, convey the property and close up the existence of the congregation? It can do none of these things. As to the first proposition see Madison Avenue Church v. The Baptist Church, 46 N.Y. 131; Ib., 73 N.Y. 82. As to the latter proposition see Wheaton v. Gates, 18 N.Y. 39; Venable v. Coffman, 2 W.Va. 310.
III. The subscribers to the building fund of said church were bound, legally, by their contract to pay said subscriptions; and the trustees were equally bound to execute their trust in good faith. Baker et al. v. Thales, 9 Pickering 488.
IV. The case in 45 Mo. 183, and other authorities cited to support appellant's theory that a majority of the members could convey the church property in controversy, do not apply to the case at bar, nor do they, indeed, touch any points raised in the case. The general doctrine in this country, is that the decisions of ecclesiastical courts are binding on the law courts, only when done in fairness and good faith. In this case the proceedings were not of this character, for at the regular meeting the proposition to convey the church was lost; but they waited until they got a majority at the meeting and then voted the church away and disbanded the congregation on December 3. The law will not countenance such unfair conduct on the part of those leaving the church at Crescent Hill.
I.
This cause is argued here much as if the question to be determined involved the title to the lot and church building. If this were the issue it would be enough to say that, under the constitution creating this court, we have no jurisdiction to determine a controversy involving the title to real estate. But it appears that the deeds conveying this property to the Adrian church only purport to convey the lot on which the old church stands, which, if effectual, would of course convey the church building as an appurtenant. But this controversy is as to the right of custody and possession of certain property contained and used in the old church, and regarded by the parties as mere personalty. As such it did not pass under the deeds.
II. It is also a misapprehension of the law to assume, as the defendants did in taking a quit-claim deed from the original grantor, that if the Crescent Hill church was dissolved and disbanded by the action of the majority, the lot and church reverted to the grantor. The doctrine of reversion applies only to the instance of a donation for a charity, and not to that of a vendor or grantor of land in fee for a valuable consideration paid. In the latter case there can never be a reverter of the estate to the vendor or his heirs, though the use to which it was granted should wholly fail. Gibson v. Armstrong, 7 B. Mon. 489, 490. The deed conveying the lot to the old church trustees expresses solely a money consideration.
III. It is inferable from this record, and the subscription paper read in evidence by plaintiffs, that the purpose and design in the erection and furnishing of the Crescent Hill church was to have a church at this particular locality, for the use and benefit of the Baptists worshiping at that place, and for other religious denominations when not in use by the Baptists. This in fact the subscription paper declared. The money...
To continue reading
Request your trial