State v. Warren

• Decision Date: 04 March 1868
• Citation: State v. Warren, 28 Md. 338 (Md. 1868)
• Parties: THE STATE OF MARYLAND, use of the TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT GREENSBOROUGH, v. CHARLES WARREN, WILLIAM SAPP and ELI SAULSBURY, surviving obligors of P. TAYLOR.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

28 Md. 338

THE STATE OF MARYLAND, use of the TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT GREENSBOROUGH, v. CHARLES WARREN, WILLIAM SAPP and ELI SAULSBURY, surviving obligors of P. TAYLOR.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 4, 1868

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County.

Mary E A. Reed, of Caroline county, bequeathed a moiety of the residue of her estate, left after payment of debts, costs of administration and certain specific and pecuniary legacies to "the Methodist Episcopal Church at Greensborough." Shortly after her death, letters testamentary were granted by the Orphans' Court of Caroline county to the executor, Charles Warren, of Delaware who with the other defendants, citizens of the same State and Parran Taylor, of Caroline county, Maryland, who died previously to the institution of this action, gave bond to the State in the penalty of $20,000, for the faithful discharge of his duty as executor. This action upon his bond as such executor, was instituted in the Circuit Court for Caroline county, to recover the amount of this bequest. By this Court it was sent for trial to the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's county, and Judge ROBINSON being incapacitated to try said case by reason of his having been counsel for the defendants, the same was tried before GEORGE VICKERS, as Special Judge selected by the parties. For more than twenty years prior to the death of Mary E. A. Reed there was an organized body of Christians known as the Methodist Episcopal Church of Greensborough, worshiping at a meeting house in said villiage built specially for that object, the title to which was vested in certain persons in trust for said purpose; at the death of the said Mary E. A. Reed, this organization was not incorporated, but since her death and before suing out the writ in this action, it became incorporated under the Act of 1802, ch. 111; afterwards the Legislature of Maryland by the Act of 1856, ch. 307, gave leave to carry into effect the bequest to "the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Greensborough." Subsequently the executor filed his petition in the Orphans' Court of Caroline county, submitting the whole question of distribution to its determination; thereupon the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Greensborough, and Sam'l Dickson and wife, in behalf of the wife as next of kin to the testatrix, filed their respective petitions in said Court claiming this fund, and praying the passage of an order directing the executor to pay according to their several pretensions; on consideration of these several petitions, the Court adjudged the Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Greensborough to be entitled, and ordered the executor to pay accordingly; he did not comply with said order, and thereupon this action was instituted.

The declaration set forth the bond of the defendant, Charles Warren, as executor of Mary E. A. Reed, and alleged as a breach thereof, that the testatrix by her last will and testament bequeathed to the Methodist Episcopal Church at Greensborough, a moiety of the residue of her personal estate, left after payment of certain specific and pecuniary legacies, and that there came into the hands of the executor assets sufficient to pay all her debts, expenses of administration and other expenses, and to pay and deliver over to the pecuniary and specific legatees, the various pecuniary and specific legacies contained in said will, and leaving a large residue, and that the executor had not paid to the aforesaid trustees, the aforesaid moiety. To this declaration, the defendants pleaded "that at the time of the death of the said Mary E. A. Reed, the said plaintiffs were not an incorporated religious institution, under the laws of this State."

To this plea the plaintiffs replied:

1st. That the plaintiffs, since the death of the said Mary E. A. Reed, and before the impetration of the original writ, was an incorporated religious institution.

2d. That the Methodist Episcopal Church of Greens-borough, for more than twenty years before the death of the said Mary E. A. Reed, was an existing and organized denomination of Christians, worshipping at a meeting house in the town of Greensborough, built specially for the purpose of worship, and that since the death of the said Mary, the said church has been incorporated under the Act of 1802, ch. 111; and that by the Act of 1856, ch. 307, the Legislature of Maryland gave its leave to the legatee to take the legacy, and that the income of said church is less than $2,000 per annum including this legacy.

To this first and second replication the defendants demurred.

The plaintiffs then filed a third replication, setting out certain proceedings had in the Orphans' Court of Caroline county, upon the petition of the executor, submitting the question of distribution to its determination, and the petitions of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Greensborough, and Samuel Dickson and wife, in behalf of the wife as next of kin to the testatrix, claiming the fund in which the Court ordered the executor to pay to the trustees, &c., a moiety of the residue of the personal estate of his testatrix, which he had not paid, &c.

To this third replication the defendants demurred, and assigned the following causes of demurrer, viz:

1st. That this third replication is bad in substance, because it is a departure and variance from the declaration in this cause.

2d. That the said replication does not entitle the plaintiffs in this action to recover.

3d. That this replication is no bar to the defence in this cause.

4th. That said replication is no answer to the pleas of the defendants.

The plaintiffs joined in this demurrer; and the Court sustained these demurrers of the defendants to the plaintiffs' replications to the defendants' plea, and gave judgment for the defendants.

The plaintiffs appealed to this Court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, GRASON, MILLER and ALVEY, J.

John B. Brown, for the appellants:

The Court below decided upon demurrer, that the original plea of the defendants was bad, and also that the original declaration of the plaintiffs, was erroneous, and insufficient in law to enable them to maintain their action against the defendants. In consequence of this ruling of the Court and by its leave, the plaintiffs filed an amended declaration, in which the breach of the bond is assigned to be the nonpayment of a moiety of the residue of the estate of Mary E. A. Reed, to the beneficial plaintiffs, to which they were entitled by her bequest. To this declaration the defendants pleaded, that at the time of the making of the will, and the death of the testatrix, the beneficial plaintiffs were not an incorporated religious institution. This is virtually a plea confessing the facts set out in the declaration, and avoiding their legal effect by some other matter. To this plea the plaintiffs demurred, stating as cause of demurrer, that incorporation when the will was made, and when the death of the testatrix occurred, was not necessary to enable the parties for whose use the suit was instituted, to take the bequest. This demurrer the Court rightly ruled good, and by not disturbing the amended declaration, in effect pronounced the facts stated therein if true, as constituting a prima facie good case for the plaintiffs. The defendants immediately filed an amended plea, which differed from that just held defective, only by the omission of the allegation that at the date of the will the beneficial plaintiffs were not incorporated. To this amended plea the plaintiffs put in three replications: The first asserts that since the death of the testatrix and before the suit brought, the beneficial plaintiffs were incorporated. Of course this replication impliedly admits non-corporation at the time of the death, and virtually takes the ground that incorporation subsequent to the death and before suit brought is sufficient to gratify the law. The second replication asserts three distinct facts: First, that the Methodist Episcopal Church at Greensborough, for more than twenty years before the death of the testatrix, was an organized body of Christians, worshipping in a church built especially for that purpose; second, that since the death of Mary E. A. Reed, the congregation worshipping there became incorporated under the Act of 1802, ch. 111; the third, that since the adoption of said plan of incorporation, the Legislature gave its leave to take the legacy. The third replication sets out more fully the several matters alleged in the original declaration; the order of the Orphans' Court in its very words, and the allegation that the executor had not complied with said order. To these three replications the defendants demurred for reasons assigned. The Court ruled the demurrers good, and by not noticing the amended plea and declaration, virtually held them to be sufficient.

Was the amended plea a good defence? Was incorporation by the beneficial plaintiffs at the time of the testatrix's death necessary to enable them to take? If so, was it not equally necessary at the date of the will, unless it appears that the testatrix was aware of that fact, and used language showing that she contemplated a future act of incorporation? It would seem so. But was incorporation necessary, either at the date of the will or at the time of the testatrix's death? We hold it was not. There might well be parties capable in law of taking this bequest without incorporation. If there were persons holding the legal title to the church building and lot in trust, that it be used for a place of worship and burial for a Methodist Episcopal Congregation, we claim that such persons would be capable in law of taking the bequest by the leave of the...