Presbyterian Church of Osceola v. Harken

• Decision Date: 29 June 1916
• Docket Number: No. 30627.,30627.
• Citation: 158 N.W. 692,177 Iowa 195
• Parties: PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF OSCEOLA, CLARKE COUNTY, ET AL. v. HARKEN ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

177 Iowa 195

158 N.W. 692

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF OSCEOLA, CLARKE COUNTY, ET AL.

v.HARKEN ET AL.

No. 30627.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 29, 1916.

Appeal from District Court, Clarke County; H. K. Evans, Judge.

Suit in equity to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs in the use and enjoyment of a certain strip of land and to require defendants to remove certain obstructions placed thereon. Defendants challenged plaintiffs' right to sue, denied their title or right to enjoy the strip, pleaded abandonment and nonuser thereof and estoppel, and the statute of limitations. Thereafter the parties named as trustees in the caption filed a petition of intervention for and on their own behalf, and also on behalf of all the members of the Presbyterian Church of Osceola, who it was alleged were so numerous that it was impractical to bring them all into court, in which they asked for practically the same relief as plaintiffs prayed in their original petition. Defendants filed a motion to strike this petition, which it seems was never ruled on. On the issues joined between plaintiffs and defendants the case was tried to the court, resulting in a decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.Lloyd Thurston and O. M. Slaymaker, both of Osceola, for appellants.

Temple & Temple of Osceola, for appellees.

DEEMER, J.

Prior to May 9, 1893, one Anna Pritchett was the owner of the east half of the southeast quarter of what was known as block 15 in the original town of Osceola. This tract was approximately 214 feet long north and south and 107 feet wide. It was bounded on the east and south by city streets and upon the north there was an alley 20 feet in width which ran through to another cross alley running north and south near the center of the block. On the date named she conveyed to Jason Roberts, B. F. Garretson, and W. H. Ridgway 80 feet off of the north side of her tract, the deed containing the following reservation:

“The said Anna Pritchett reserving the right on ten feet of the west part of said described lot for a driveway and is to build and maintain a gate at the northwest corner of said lot and at the north end of said driveway.”

She retained the title to the remainder of the tract until October 1, 1913, when she sold the same to E. G. Banta, W. N. Temple, J. F. McAuley, Elon Graves, J. F. Kierulff, and Ernest Swan, as trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Osceola, and in the same deed she made the following transfer:

“And I hereby quitclaim, transfer, set over, and relinquish unto the trustees herein all my right and interest in and to a certain right of way or easement over the west ten (10) feet of the north eighty (80) feet off of the north side of the east half of lot six (6) in block fifteen (15) in the original town of Osceola, Iowa, for a driveway; the intention being to transfer unto said grantees all my rights and privileges in and to said easement.”

The original grantees of the north 80 feet of the property conveyed the same to the Osceola Sanitarium Company, and in their deed made this statement:

“One Anna Pritchett having a right of way or easement on ten feet of the west part of said lot for a driveway, who has to build and maintain a gate at the northwest corner of said lot at the north end of said driveway.”

On May 24, 1897, the sanitarium company conveyed the 80-foot strip by warranty deed to one Roberts, the deed containing this recital:

“Except an easement of a driveway over the west ten feet of said premises reserved to Mrs. Pritchett.”

On February 20, 1902, Roberts conveyed the said strip to one Martin, the deed reciting that:

“One Anna Pritchett having the right of way or easement on ten feet of the west part of said lot for a driveway, she to build and maintain a gate at the northwest corner of said lot at the north end of said driveway.”

On November 19, 1902, Martin conveyed the strip to one Sells, and his deed contained the following:

“One Anna Pritchett having a right of way or easement on ten feet of the west part of said lot for a driveway, she to build and maintain a gate at the northwest corner of said lot at the north end of said driveway.”

Sells conveyed the strip to one Morton January 24, 1910, this deed containing the following:

“Subject to a right of way or easement of Anna Pritchett over the west ten feet of the said lot just above described for a driveway; also the right of the said Anna Pritchett to maintain a gate at the northwest corner of said lot, being at the north end of said ten-foot strip.”

Thereafter, and on November 26, 1910, Morton conveyed the property to defendant W. D. Harkin, the conveyance containing the following:

“Subject to a right of way or easement of Anna Pritchett over the west ten (10) feet of said lot just above described for a driveway; also the right of the said Anna Pritchett to maintain a gate at the northwest corner of said lot, being at the north end of said ten-foot strip.”

The remainder of the property was purchased by the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Osceola for church purposes. When they purchased there was a house upon it, which was moved over to within a few inches of the north line, which was intended for use as a parsonage, and at the time this suit was commenced, or when it was reached for trial, an excavation was being made on the south end of the property preliminary to the erection of a large church thereon. It was proposing to use the 10-foot strip in the other lot as a driveway to haul supplies for the parsonage and material for the construction of the church, when defendants objected, and, it is claimed, obstructed the said strip. This action is to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs in the use of the 10-foot strip as a driveway to the parsonage and for material with which to erect the church.

[1][2] I. It is conceded that the Presbyterian Church is a voluntary religious association which has never been incorporated under the laws of this state, and defendants insist that, as such, it has no legal entity, and no right to sue or be sued. The society might easily have been incorporated under sections 1642 and 1652 of the Code, but it never did so, and under the law it is well settled that it has no legal existence and can neither sue nor be sued. Nightingale v. Barney, 4 G. Greene, 106;Pipe v. Bateman, 1 Iowa, 369;Steamboat Co. v. Wilson, 11 Iowa, 479;Westbrook v. Griffin, 132 Iowa, 185, 109 N. W. 608;St. Paul Typothetae v. St. Paul Bookbinders' Union, 94 Minn. 351, 102 N. W. 725, 3 Ann. Cas. 695. In the case last cited it is said:

“But, whatever may be the law applicable to such associations generally, there is one respect in which the authorities are agreed, and that is that at common law they are not, whether organized for business or other purposes, entitled to recognition in the courts in their association name. It is well settled that, in the absence of a statute otherwise providing, to be entitled to conduct judicial proceedings in court, a party litigant must be either a natural or artificial person. The rule is correctly stated in 22 Ency. Pl. & Prac. 230, where, in speaking of unincorporated societies, such as those here involved, it is said that such societies cannot maintain an action in their association name, but must sue in the name of the individuals composing them, however numerous they may be. Such societies, in the absence of statutes recognizing them, have no legal entity distinct from that of their members. The rule is followed by an unbroken line of authorities, though a different rule has been applied in many of the courts in actions purely of an equitable nature. On the question generally, see Niblack on Societies, 183; Richardson v. Smith, 21 Fla. 336; Mexican Mill Co. v. Yellow Jack Mining Co., 4 Nev. 40, 97 Am. Dec. 510; Detroit Schuetzen Bund v. Detroit Agitations Verein, 44 Mich. 313, 6 N. W. 675, 38 Am. Rep. 270;Danbury Cornet Band v. Bean, 54 N. H. 524;Mayer v. Journeyman Stone Cutters, 47 N. J. Eq. 519, 20 Atl. 492;Nightingale v. Barney, 4 G. Greene, 106; Barbour v. Albany Lodge, 73 Ga. 474; Steamboat Pembinaw v. Wilson, 11 Iowa, 479.”

In Westbrook's Case, supra, we said:

“The entire effect of the petition is that they are suing for an unincorporated society, and we have held that a suit of such character cannot be maintained. Pipe et al. v. Bateman, 1 Iowa, 369;Drake v. Board of Trustees, 11 Iowa, 54. As we understand the record, neither Hendrix nor H. H. Westbrook are named as parties to this suit, and the question arises whether the plaintiff may maintain this action for them against their copartners. We think not. Code, § 3459, provides that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except ‘that a party with whom or in whose name a contract is made for the benefit of another may sue in his own name.’ As we have already said, the plaintiffs cannot maintain an action for the unincorporated association, nor can they maintain an action for the two parties named because of their connection with the Muscatine & Louisa Company; hence they are not within the exception made by the statute, and appear as parties plaintiff having no possible interest in the action.”

But section 3459 of the Code expressly provides that an action may be prosecuted in the name of a “trustee (or trustees) of an express trust, * * * without joining with him the party for whose benefit the action is prosecuted.” Here the action was prosecuted in the name of the Presbyterian Church of Osceola, by its trustees, naming them, and it clearly appears from the petition, which was substantiated by the proofs, that these named trustees were trustees of an express trust created by deed, and we are of opinion that the action will lie. These trustees held the legal title and the right to the use and enjoyment of the property for the benefit of the said Presbyterian Church, and it makes no difference, in so far as the question now before us is...