Merryman v. Price
| Decision Date | 30 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 1069A181,No. 2,1069A181,2 |
| Citation | 22 Ind.Dec. 62,259 N.E.2d 883,147 Ind.App. 295 |
| Parties | K. K. MERRYMAN, A. Glen O'Dell, C. David Hancock, R. H. Mueller, as Officials of the Evangelical United Brethren Church--Indiana Conference South, Appellants, v. James H. PRICE, Robert R. Simonson, Cornwell Treager, the Trustees of theEvangelical United Brethren Church of Mt. Lebanon, Appellees, |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
William O. Schreckengast, Kitley, Schreckengast & Davis, Beech Grove, John McFadden, Rockville, for appellants.
George N. Craig, Craig & Craig, Brazil, Warren Buchanan, Rockville, for appellees.
This is a quiet title action brought by the Appellees-Plaintiffs, James H. Price, Robert R. Simonson, Cornwell Treager, the Trustees of the Evangelical United Brethern Church of Mt. Lebanon, against the Appellants-Defendants, K. K. Merryman, A. Glen O'Dell, C. David Hancock, R. H. Mueller as Officials of the Evangelical United Brethren Church--Indiana Conference, South. The Complaint alleged:
'1. That the plaintiffs are the holders of the legal title for and on behalf of the members of the Evangelical United Brethren Church of Mt. Lebanon, located in Van Buren Township, Clay County, Indiana, and hold the legal title to the following described real estate in the County of Clay, State of Indiana for and on behalf of the members of the Evangelical United Brethren Church of Mt. Lebanon.
2. That the plaintiffs are the holders of the legal title to the hereinafter described real estate for the use of said members for church purposes. Said real estate is described as follows:
One half acre of land situated in the South East corner of section seventeen (17) township thirteen (13) Range six (6) west.
3. That said real estate is now being used for church purposes and has been since the year 1891.
4. That the defendants, and each of them, are claiming an interest in said land and is attempting to assert and claim title to the same; and which said interest so claimed by defendants is adverse to plaintiffs' claim and title of said real estate.
5. That the claim of the defendants is unfounded and without right and is a cloud upon plaintiffs' title to said real estate.'
The Appellants filed Answer in five legal paragraphs. The first legal paragraph was in denial under Rule 1--3 of the Rules of our Supreme Court. Paragraph II of said Answer stated:
complaint.
2. Defendants further say that Plaintiffs hold this legal title subject to all the terms and conditions of the Discipline of the Evangelical United Brethren Denomination, which Discipline, among other things, contains certain provisions and restrictions concerning the use of and the conveyance of said real estate, which Discipline is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked 'Exhibit A' for identification.'
Paragraph III of Defendants' Answer stated:
Paragraph IV of said Answer sets up the defense of the statute of limitations by asserting the Plaintiffs' cause of action accrued more than fifteen years before suit was filed and summons issued. Paragraph V of answer asserts the defense of laches.
The Appellees filed Reply to Paragraphs II through V of Appellants' Answer as follows:
II.
'1. That they deny the allegation contained in numerical paragraph 1.
2. That the plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in numerical paragraph 2.
III.
1. That the plaintiffs deny the defendants allegations contained in numberical paragraph 1.
IV.
The plaintiffs, for reply to numerical paragraph 1 of the defendants' Fourth Paragraph of Answer, allege and say:
1. That the plaintiffs cause of action did not accrue until it learned of the defendants' proclivity and intention to sequester and confiscate the property of various church communities and that the plaintiffs only received notice of the defendants' intention less than two years prior to the filing of this action.
V.
The plaintiffs, for reply to Paragraph Five of Defendants' Answer, deny the allegations contained in numerical paragraph 1.'
This case was tried by the court without a jury. The trial court made Special Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as follows:
'1. That the plaintiffs are the holders of the legal title to the real estate described herein. The same being:
One half acre of land situated in the South East corner of section seventeen (17) township thirteen (13) range six (6) west
2. That the plaintiffs are the holders of the legal title to the above described real estate for the use of church purposes.
3. That said real estate is now being used for church purposes and has been since the year 1891.
4. That in the year 1891, on the 24th day of December Franklin Casteel and
Martha A. Casteel conveyed the above described real estate by Warranty Deed to P. J. Poff, B. F. Cornwell and Franklin Casteel, Trustees of Mt. Lebanon U.S. Church of Indiana.
5. The Deed provides that if said land ever ceases to be used for said church purposes, the same to revert to its original owners, or their heirs.
6. That in the year 1891 the defendant, Evangelical United Brethren Church was not in existence.
7. That the Evangelical United Brethren Church was not formed until November 16, 1946.
8. The Court further finds that there is no interpretation, explanation or designation of what denomination Mt. Lebanon U.B. Church was in 1891.
9. That the plaintiffs herein are the duly elected Trustees of the Mt. Lebanon Church.
10. That the defendants, and each of them, are claiming an interest in said land and is attempting to assert and claim title to the same and which said interest so claimed by the defendants, is adverse to plaintiffs' claim and title to said real estate.
11. That the plaintiffs herein learned of the defendants' claim to this real estate on or about the 22nd day of May, 1967, when the defendants herein filed suit against the Trustees of the Ebenezer Church, located some two and one-half miles distant and that thereafter, these Trustee plaintiffs, filed this action in the Clay Circuit Court on June 30, 1967.
12. That at the time the cliam of defendants was made to the property herein, the plaintiffs were in possession of the same.
And as conclusions of law upon the facts, the Court states:
1. That the law is with the plaintiffs.
2. That the claim of the defendants is unfounded and without right and is a cloud upon plaintiffs' title to said real estate.
3. That the claim of the plaintiffs, herein has not been barred by either the Statute of Limitations or by Laches.
4. That the title to said real estate described in plaintiffs' complaint should be quieted in the plaintiffs herein.
5. That the defendants herein have no right, title, claim, interest in and to the real estate described in plaintiffs' Complaint.
The same being:
One-half acre of land situated in the South East Corner of section seventeen (17) township thirteen (13) Range six (6) west.
6. That the plaintiffs herein have their recovery of costs laid out and expended.'
Judgment was entered for the Appellees quieting title to said real estate in the Appellees.
The Appellants filed Motion for a New Trial together with Memorandum under Rule 1--14B of the Rules of our Supreme Court, which Motion was overruled. The overruling of said Motion for a New Trial is the sole assignment of error here.
We will consider the grounds stated in the Appellants' Motion for a New Trial which are preserved and argued in their Briefs. Those contentions are:
'1. The decision of the Court is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
2. The decision of the Court is contrary to law.
3. The decision of the Court is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law.
4. That the Court erred in its conclusion of law number one (1).
5. That the Court erred in its conclusion of law number two (2).
6. That the Court erred in its conclusion of law number three (3).
7. That the Court erred in its conclusion of law number four (4).
8. That the Court erred in its conclusion of law number five (5).
9. That the Court erred in its conclusion of law number six (6).
10. That the Court erred in overruling the defendants' motion for finding at the close of plaintiffs' evidence in chief.'
In addition the Appellants argue two errors at law in their Motion for a New Trial which occurred at the trial and are concerned with the admission of certain evidence.
The evidence disclosed that the real estate in question was conveyed by a deed dated December 24, 1891, and that the pertinent language of such deed is as follows:
'THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH, That Franklin Casteel and Martha A. Casteel, his wife, of Clay County in the State of Indiana, CONVEY AND WARRANT to P. J. Poff, B. F. Cornwell and Franklin Casteel, Trustees of Mt. Lebanon U.B. Church of Clay County in the State of Indiana for the sum of One Dollar, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the following Real Estate in Clay County in the State of Indiana, to-wit:
One half acre of land situated in the South East corner of section seventeen (17) township thirteen (13) range six (6) west.
The same to be used for church purposes and if said land ever ceases to be used for said church purposes, the same to revert to its original owners, or their heirs.'
Evidence was introduced that the church building on the property in question was constructed in or about the year 1887 and the Appellees, James H. Price, Robert R. Simonson and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bishop and Diocese of Colorado v. Mote, 83SC104
...been stated that determination of a church's polity "will almost inevitably involve ecclesiastical considerations." Merryman v. Price, 147 Ind.App. 295, 259 N.E.2d 883, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 852 [92 S.Ct. 89, 30 L.Ed.2d 92].... The present case furnishes an example of such entanglement of ......
-
Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc. v. OPC, Inc.
...Church v. St. Louis Crossing Indep. Methodist Church, 150 Ind.App. 574, 276 N.E.2d 916 (1971), trans. not sought; Price v. Merryman, 147 Ind.App. 295, 259 N.E.2d 883 (1970), trans. denied; Presbytery of Indianapolis v. First United Presbyterian Church, 143 Ind.App. 72, 238 N.E.2d 479 (1968)......
-
Carnes v. Smith
...of E. V. B. Church v. Kruger, 17 Ohio Misc. 8, 243 N.E.2d 781 (1968). Thus convinced, we decline to be persuaded by Merryman v. Price, 147 Ind.App. 295, 259 N.E.2d 883 cert. denied, 404 U.S. 852, 92 S.Ct. 89, 30 L.Ed.2d 92 (1970), urged by the Noah's Ark Church. In that case the Indiana cou......
-
Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc. v. OPC, Inc.
...Church v. St. Louis Crossing Indep. Methodist Church, 150 Ind. App. 574, 276 N.E.2d 916 (1971), trans. not sought; Price v. Merryman, 147 Ind. App. 295, 259 N.E.2d 883 (1970), trans. denied; Presbytery of Indianapolis v. First United Presbyterian Church, 143 Ind. App. 72, 238 N.E.2d 479 (19......