Society of Helpers of Holy Souls v. Ernest Law

• Decision Date: 15 May 1916
• Parties: SOCIETY OF THE HELPERS OF THE HOLY SOULS v. ERNEST LAW et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

186 S.W. 718

267 Mo. 667

SOCIETY OF THE HELPERS OF THE HOLY SOULS v. ERNEST LAW et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 15, 1916

Editorial Note:

This Pagination of this case accurately reflects the pagination of the original published, though it may appears out of sequence.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. George C Hitchcock, Judge.

Affirmed.

James L. Minnis, Goodbar & Tittmann, Claude Hardwicke and Busby & Withers for appellants.

(1) The court erred in finding or holding that the plaintiff corporation was organized, incorporated and existed for benevolent and charitable purposes, and not for religious purposes. It is a religious corporation. Sec. 8, art. 2, Const. 1875; Sec. 3432, R. S. 1909 (Sec. 1394, R. S. 1899); Proctor v. Board of Trustees, 225 Mo. 56; Klix v. St. Stanislaus Parish, 137 Mo.App. 355; In re St Louis Institute of Christian Science, 27 Mo.App. 633; Catholic Church v. Tobbein, 82 Mo. 423; Lilly v Tobbein, 103 Mo. 477; State ex rel. v. Board, 175 Mo. 56; Kenrick v. Cole, Exr., 61 Mo. 577; Boyce v. Christian, 69 Mo. 492; Schmucker's Estate v. Reel, 61 Mo. 601; Atty.-Gen. v. St. Cross Hospital, 17 Beavan's Reports (Eng. Chancery), 465; Pack v. Shanklin, 27 S. E. (W. Va.) 393; St. Peter's Roman Catholic Congregation v. Germain, 104 Ill. 440. (2) The court erred in divesting the legal title to the real estate out of the heirs of the deceased and vesting it in the plaintiff. The attempted devise to the plaintiff, a religious corporation, was void, and did not and could not vest in the plaintiff. Secs. 7, 8, art. 2, Constitution 1875; Proctor v. Board of Trustees, 225 Mo. 56; In re McGraw, 111 N.Y. 66, 2 L. R. A. 387; Decamp v. Dobbins, 31 N.J.Eq. 690; Trustees v. Hilken, 84 Md. 170; Kennett v. Kidd, 87 Kan. 652, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 544; U. S. v. Utah, 15 P. 473; Hansher v. Hansher, 8 L. R. A. 558; 3 Ency. of Ev., p. 635. (3) The heirs of Mrs. Bailey may contest the right of plaintiff to take the devise. They do not attack the corporate existence of plaintiff, or ask a forfeiture of its charter, but simply contend that as the plaintiff was legally incapable of taking and holding the property, the attempted devise was void, never took effect, and the property descended to the heirs. Proctor v. Board of Trustees, 225 Mo. 56; 2 Underhill on Wills, sec. 841.

J. L. Hornsby for respondent.

(1) Defendant's charge that plaintiff is a religious corporation, constitutes an attack on the validity of plaintiff's incorporation, for the reason that in this State no religious corporation can be created except for the purpose only of holding the title to such real estate as may be prescribed by law for church edifices, parsonages and cemeteries. Constitution 1875, art. 2, sec. 8. And if plaintiff's corporate organization was an attempt to create a religious corporation, it not being for any of purposes provided in the Constitution, the incorporation was void, and plaintiff has no corporate existence. Atty.-Genl. v. Lorman, 59 Mich. 157; Thompson on Corporations, sec. 171; Note to People v. Water Co., 33 Am. St. 178. The validity of plaintiff's incorporation cannot be questioned by defendants, but only by the State in direct proceedings. St. Louis v. Shields, 62 Mo. 252; Catholic Church v. Tobbein, 82 Mo. 418-424; Church Soc. v. Branch, 120 Mo. 243. (2) Plaintiff is not a religious corporation. The character of a corporation is to be determined by the objects of its creation and its purposes as expressed in its charter. State ex rel. v. Westminster College, 175 Mo. 53-58; Sherer v. Mendenhall, 23 Minn. 93; Oregon Ry. Co. v. Oregonian Ry. Co., 130 U.S. 1; Atty.-Genl. v. Lorman, 59 Mich. 157; Hamsher v. Hamsher, 8 L. R. A. 556. The primary objects of a corporation control its character. State ex rel. v. Westminster, 175 Mo. 52; Colonization Society v. Hennessy, 11 Mo.App. 555; In re Institute of Christian Science, 27 Mo.App. 638. A corporation cannot, by its articles of association, obtain greater powers than the Constitution or statutes permit. If a lawful purpose is specified, but the articles also assume for the corporation the existence of a power which it is not permitted to exercise, then this additional and unauthorized assumption may be treated as surplusage and the corporation treated as entitled to exercise the lawful powers only. Oregon Ry. Co. v. Oregonian Ry. Co., 130 U.S. 1; Hamsher v. Hamsher, 8 L. R. A. 558; Eastern P. R. Co. v. Vaughn, 14 N.Y. 546; Beckett v. Uniontown Assn., 88 Pa. St. 211; 1 Thompson, Corporations (2 Ed.), p. 182; Lighting Co. v. Massey, 56 S.W. 35. The fact that the persons constituting plaintiff corporation are members of a religious order in the church does not constitute a corporation which they organize a religious corporation. Colonization Society v. Hennessy, 11 Mo.App. 555; State ex rel. v. Westminster College, 175 Mo. 53; Franta v. Bohemian Union, 164 Mo. 304.

BOND, J. Graves, J., dissents in separate opinion; Blair, J., not sitting.

OPINION

In Banc.

I.

BOND J.

-- Seven out of seventeen members of a religious order in the Roman Catholic Church, residing in St. Louis, were incorporated under the statutes providing for the formation of benevolent, religious, scientific, fraternal, beneficial and educational corporations by a decree of the circuit court of that city on the nineteenth of October, 1905.

Mrs. Anna Hamilton Bailey, who died the twenty-first of September, 1910 (without any descendants), devised, among a large number of other charities, a lot of ground fifty feet wide on Randolph street to "The Order of the Little Helpers." Plaintiff took possession of this lot and brought the present action against the next of kin of the said testatrix, stating in the petition that the term "Little Helpers" was the name by which the plaintiff was known in St. Louis, and praying a decree vesting title to the lot in the plaintiff corporation.

The answer of defendant, as far as material, averred that plaintiff was organized as a religious corporation in violation of the Constitution of Missouri, article 2, section 8, to-wit:

"Religious corporation may be established for one purpose only. That no religious corporation can be established in this State, except such as may be created under a general law for the purpose only of holding the title to such real estate as may be prescribed by law for church edifices, parsonages and cemeteries."

That plaintiff could not take the real estate devised, and also that the terms of the devise were too uncertain to give it effect, and prayed the court to adjudge defendant as next of kin to be entitled to the property.

The case was submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts (subject to objections as to materiality and relevancy of the evidence), which disclosed in substance that the plaintiff corporation was known in St. Louis as "The Little Helpers;" the terms and devises of Mrs. Bailey's will and that she meant and intended by clause 7 thereof to give to the plaintiff corporation the lot described in the petition and that plaintiff was in possession of it. The remaining clauses of the agreed statement were introduced by defendants (plaintiffs objecting to their materiality) and disclosed the kinship of the defendants to Mrs. Bailey; the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as to purgatory; that the reason for the adoption by its founders of the name: "The Society of the Helpers of the Holy Souls in Purgatory," was that said Society performed good works, offered prayers to shorten the suffering of the souls in purgatory "and hasten their entrance into heaven." That the Society was organized in France about 1854, and has branches extending throughout the civilized world, including the one established in St. Louis in 1903; that their "main object is, by spiritual and corporeal works of mercy" done for no remuneration whatever and for religious charity, to relieve and deliver the souls in purgatory; that all of the seventeen members are engaged in works of charity, especially in nursing the sick poor in their own homes and by such visits alleviating bodily misery and giving spiritual assistance and aid; that the sisters organize meetings for the working class and poor children who then receive familiar instruction, and young women employed during the week in business hours, find protection, amusements and friendly assistance at the convent and have the benefit of a free circulating library. That on July 21, 1905, certain members of said society (the Society of the Helpers of the Holy Souls in Purgatory) filed in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis a petition, constitution and articles of agreement for a pro forma decree of incorporation under the provisions of article 11, chapter 12, of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1899, and thereafter on October 19, 1905, a decree was entered purporting to incorporate the plaintiff by the name of "The Society of the Helpers of the Holy Souls."

The agreed statement of facts then recites that a pamphlet attached, entitled "Helpers of the Holy Souls in Purgatory," was published by plaintiff and contained true statements of the objects and duties of that society and that the same are also disclosed in an article by Mrs. Morrison, which also correctly gives information, data and statistics of that society in St. Louis. The constitution and articles of agreement of the plaintiff, the decrees of incorporation, were read in evidence, article 3 of which is as follows, to-wit:

"Article (3): The purpose and object of said corporation shall be to maintain the establishment now under our charge in said city of St. Louis, known as 'The Society of the Helpers of the Holy Souls,' and also others that we may hereafter establish in said city or in the State of...