Pringle v. Dorsey
| Decision Date | 15 August 1872 |
| Citation | 3 S.C. 502 |
| Parties | PRINGLE v. DORSEY. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
P being seized in fee of a lot in Columbia, endorsed upon his title deed the following words and figures: " Received from P., in trust for the congregation of Christ Church Columbia, November 18th, 1850." This endorsement was signed by " C., for the vestry of Christ Church Columbia," and the deed was delivered to him by P Christ Church, Columbia, was an unincorporated religious association. They erected a church edifice upon the lot, and worshipped in it as a congregation until 1865, when it was destroyed by fire. The association was then broken up, and the congregation ceased to exist: Held , that when the congregation ceased to exist, the trust resulted to P., and that he could sell and make good title to the lot.
When a voluntary trust, for a specific charitable purpose, fails for a want of a cestui que trust , the trust, whether created by deed or devise, results to the donor.
The doctrine of cy pres , as applied in England, to charitable trusts, has never been recognized as law in this State.
BEFORE MELTON, J., AT CHAMBERS, COLUMBIA, NOV., 1871.
Action by James M. Pringle, plaintiff, against Edward R. Dorsey, Francis H. Gordon, Thomas S. Davant, and Thomas H. Clarkson, defendants, for specific performance.
The case is fully stated in the carefully prepared brief of appellants' counsel, which is as follows:
I. The complaint states: 1. That the plaintiff is the owner of the lot on which Christ Church stood, in Columbia, as described. 2. That the defendants, on 1st September, 1871, agreed, in writing, to purchase the same for $2,400, from plaintiff, and paid $200 on the contract, balance to be paid 4th October 1871, plaintiff agreeing at that day to give good and sufficient titles. 3. That plaintiff on that day tendered titles, which defendants refused. 4. The plaintiff prays a specific performance.
II. Joint answer of the defendants, Dorsey, Gordon and Durant, states: 1. They admit all of the facts of the complaint. 2. They admit the tender of title by plaintiff, but allege that, upon the title deed of the executors of Latta, (from whom plaintiff bought,) the defendants found these words endorsed thereon, in the handwriting of the plaintiff himself: " Received from the Rev. J. M. Pringle, in trust for the congregation of Christ Church, Columbia, November 18th, 1858," signed " Thomas B. Clarkson, for Vestry of Christ Church, Columbia," which deed, so endorsed, was delivered by plaintiff to said Thomas B. Clarkson. 3. That Christ Church was never incorporated, but the congregation, acting upon the delivery of the deed to Thomas B. Clarkson, for their use, erected upon the lot a large and valuable church edifice, in which they worshipped until 1865, (when it was destroyed by fire,) and the plaintiff stood by and consented to the erection of the building upon the lot. 4. That, under the circumstances, defendants are advised that the trust still attaches to the property within the hands of plaintiff, or in the hands of Clarkson, the trustee, and they cannot safely pay, the endorsement being on the title deed; in no event could they claim as purchasers without notice, should their title be called in question. 5. They suggest to the Court that Thomas B. Clarkson should be made a party. 6. They submit themselves to the judgment of the Court, and are willing to comply and accept title if a good marketable title can be made.
III. Upon motion before Judge Melton, Thomas B. Clarkson was ordered to be made a party; and it was further ordered that the plaintiff have leave to reply to the new matter set up in defendant's answer.
IV. The answer of Thomas B. Clarkson, (upon his being made a party,) states: 1. That he was a member of the congregation on 18th November, 1858, and one of the vestry. That the property was purchased by plaintiff from the executors of Latta, in whole or in part, with his own money, and he took conveyance in his own name. 2. That at the time, plaintiff was pastor of the church. 3. That no legal title could be made to the church-it was never incorporated. That on the 18th November, 1858, plaintiff delivered to the defendant the title of Latta to him, with the words, in plaintiff's own handwriting, endorsed, " received from the Rev. J. M. Pringle, in trust for the congregation of Christ Church, Columbia," which this defendant signed " Thomas B. Clarkson, for Vestry of Christ Church, Columbia, November 18, 1858." 4. This defendant does not know whether plaintiff intended the purchase money to be refunded to him before he executed legal titles, should the church become incorporated, but the congregation did erect, with plaintiff's consent and approval, on the lot, a valuable house of worship, which they occupied until it was destroyed in 1865, and the plaintiff continued as pastor. 5. That in 1865, after the destruction of the church, plaintiff applied to the defendant for the endorsed deed, which this defendant surrendered, and it has not since been in his possession. 6. That after the destruction of the church, J. T. Sims obtained a decree against the vestry, and to save them from personal liability, the bricks upon the lot were surrendered by plaintiff to the vestry to pay the said debt, plaintiff holding the lot to be his individual property, and not liable for any debt contracted by the vestry in behalf of the congregation of Christ Church. 7. The defendant had no other interest in the property.
V. Reply of plaintiff to the answer of Dorsey, Gordon and Durant, by direction of the Court: 1. Plaintiff admits the delivery of the original title deed to Clarkson, and the endorsement of the words thereon. 2. He did purchase the lot for the use of the congregation of Christ Church with his own funds almost entirely, and some funds contributed by friends. 3. He proposed to convey to Christ Church, when it should have a legal existence, and there being no incorporation, he delivered the original deed to Clarkson; and to show his good faith in the transaction, he endorsed the words on the deed; and Clarkson, representing what was intended to become the legal government of the church, signed his name to the endorsement, stating the purpose for which the deed was delivered. 4. He admits the erection of the church, and its destruction in 1865. 5. He avers that the church never existed as a corporate body, and never could hold real estate. 6. That the congregation has passed away, and does not exist as an association of individuals, acting without charter. 7. That the object of the plaintiff has failed. 8. That there are no debts against the body of which Clarkson was chairman. 9. That the property claimed by plaintiff has never passed from him; that his intention to convey was never carried out, and there being no person or persons who can compel a deed by virtue of the endorsement, the plaintiff claims that the title still is in him, and is a good and sufficient title.
VI. Upon motion, it was ordered that plaintiff have leave to reply to the new matter stated in the answer of the defendant, Clarkson.
VII. The reply of plaintiff to the answer of Thomas B. Clarkson: 1. Admits the allegations of 1st, 2d, 3d and 4th paragraphs of defendant's answer. 2. In the 5th paragraph plaintiff says that it was his intention to convey the said lot when the church should be incorporated, and that it should be used for the worship of God. 3. That he approved the building of the church. 4. He admits that when the purposes for which the church was built had failed, he demanded and received the title deed from Clarkson. 5. He admits that, a decree having been obtained against the vestry in their personal capacity, he cheerfully surrendered the bricks on the lot, as an easy mode of saving the members of the vestry from personal liability.
The finding of the Court, upon the facts, was as follows:
VIII. This case came on to be heard at Chambers, by consent of all the parties. 1. The hearing was had on the complaint, and the answers of the three first named defendants. The plaintiff replied to the answer and obtained leave to make Thomas B. Clarkson a party defendant, who came in and answered, setting up new matter, to which the plaintiff was permitted to reply. 2. It appears from the pleadings in the case, that James M. Pringle, the plaintiff, with funds of his own, purchased and paid for the land agreed to be purchased by the three first named defendants, against whom the complaint for specific performance has been filed. 3. It appears further, that James M. Pringle, when he purchased the land in question, took a deed in fee, and, subsequently, delivered the said deed to Thomas B. Clarkson, the defendant last named in the complaint, and in his own hand writing endorsed on the said deed the declaration of trust, which was signed by the said Thomas B. Clarkson. 4. That it was the intention of the plaintiff to make a title of the property to the congregation of Christ Church at such time as the congregation should, by incorporation, be enabled to hold real estate. 5. That the said congregation never was incorporated, and no title ever executed to the land in question. 6. That the congregation did erect a church edifice on the lot, but this building has been destroyed, and what remains of it, to wit, the bricks, have been delivered up and sold to pay the debts of the congregation, so that now the lot is in the condition it was before the building was put there. 7. That the congregation of Christ Church no longer exists.
The finding upon the law was as follows:
IX. There is nothing in the purpose of the plaintiff, as declared by him at the time he delivered the...
To continue reading
Request your trial