Taylor v. NEAL

• Decision Date: 12 July 1927
• Citation: 157 N.E. 646,260 Mass. 427
• Parties: TAYLOR v. NEAL at al. (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

260 Mass. 427

157 N.E. 646

TAYLOR

v.NEAL at al. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

July 12, 1927.

Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Separate suits by William H. Taylor and Nellie G. Taylor against James A. Neal and others. From decrees sustaining demurrers and dismissing bill, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

W. Fairchild and D. Edwards, both of New York City, and C. A. Barnes, of Boston, for appellants.

W. A. Dane, F. H. Chase, and R. E. Buffum, all of Boston, for appellees.

PIERCE, J.

These two suits in equity are brought respectively by William H. Taylor and by his wife, Nellie G. Taylor, both of New York, against the Christian Science Board of Directors as a board and as individuals; John V. Dittemore, a former director of the Mother Church, against whom the bills were dismissed without prejudice February 20, 1926; the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, hereinafter referred to as the Mother Church, a body corporate authorized to receive and to hold real estate and personal property for religious, educational and charitable purposes; Clifford P. Smith, a former first reader of the Mother Church; First Church of Christ, Scientist, of New York City, hereinafter called the Branch Church, and its trustees, who filed neither appearance nor answer. Except as to pertinent changes in point of detail, and to avoid unnecessary duplication, the bills of complaint, which are in all respects similar, will be treated as one, and reference will be made only to the bill of William H. Taylor. It is stipulated that the decision in one suit will be accepted as the decision in the other.

The bill in each case covers two hundred and thirty-one printed pages and is not susceptible of concise statement. Excluding statements that are clearly evidentiary and arguments thereon, in substance the bill is as follows: The plaintiff is a member of the Mother Church. The defendants Neal, Nerritt, Rathvon, Knott and Adams comprise the Christian Science Board of Directors, trustees under a deed of trust dated September 1, 1892, and an amendatory deed of March 3, 1903, both executed by Mary Baker Eddy, the discoverer and founder of Christian Science. The scope of the powers conferred upon, and duties required of, the directors is determined and limited by the Church Manual, which ‘is universally recognized and accepted * * * as the governing body of laws and precepts for all Christian Scientists.’ ‘Subject to the limitation, that a candidate to fill a vacancy occurring in the Christian Science Board of Directors must be first approved by the pastor emeritus Mary Baker Eddy, the said Board of Directors are a self-perpetuating continuing body’; and although as now constituted none of its members received such approval, ‘the said board claims and exercises the right and privilege of self-perpetuation and is and has been a continuing body during all the times the acts complained of herein were committed, that is, from and during the year 1908 to the present time.’

In the year 1886, Mary Baker Eddy sent one Augusta E. Stetson-taught by her and upon whom Mrs. Eddy conferred the degree of Doctor of Christian Science in 1884-to New York City ‘to establish the Christianity of Christian Science,’ and placed her in charge of the work there. Mrs. Stetson assembled seven or eight of Mrs. Eddy's students, and organized the Branch Church herein alluded to. She occupied the pulpit at the first Sunday service in November, 1886, became a charter member upon its incorporation in 1888, and, in 1890, Mrs. Eddy caused her to be ordained its pastor, which office she continued to hold for ten years; thereafter, until July 20, 1902, she held the position of first reader therein. She was one of the original board of trustees, serving in that capacity continuously until her resignation in 1909. During the period between 1886 and 1909, Mrs. Stetson conducted classes in Christian Science mind-healing, and her students constituted the main body of the membership of the Branch Church, among whom was the plaintiff who received from her the degree of C. S. The bill recites the intimate relations between Mrs. Eddy and Mrs. Stetson, describes the building of the Branch Church in New York City, the laying of the cornerstone, and its dedicatory exercises on November 29, 1903. All the money used in the purchase of the land and construction of the church was contributed by Mrs. Stetson and her students, and the structure was denominated by Mrs. Eddy herself as ‘Mrs. Stetson's Church.’ These matters are stated ‘to show the unusual and unique relationship of love, confidence and trust, in which Mrs. Stetson was held by her leader, Mary Baker Eddy.’

About the year 1908, open expression was given to feelings of envy and jealousy which had been aroused in the minds of certain officials in the church and members in the field, with the result that there were promulgated false reports and statements to the effect that should Mrs. Eddy relinquish her place as head or leader of the Mother Church, Mrs. Stetson would attempt to usurp her prerogatives. To controvert this undercurrent of misrepresentation, Mrs. Stetson repeatedly declared, both orally and through the press, that Mary Baker Eddy ‘would forever remain leader and the spiritual and actual head of the Church of Christ, Scientist.’ As stated in article XXXV, section 1, of the Church Manual, the manual ‘is adapted to the Mother Church only,’ and ‘shall not be revised without the written consent of its author.’ In substance, the bill alleges that the manifest purpose of Mrs. Eddy was that the organization, government and discipline of the branch churches should be and remain separate and distinct from that of the Mother Church; that the Mother Church as a church organization should cease to function ‘If the pastor emeritus * * * should relinquish her place as the head or leader of the Mother Church’ and, correlatively, that the board of directors should gradually discontinue and cease to function; that each branch church should ‘continue its present form of government in consonance with the Mother Church Manual’; and that the active work of Christian Science should proceed independently through the branch churches. This purpose, the plaintiff avers, is plainly indicated by article 1, section 5, requiring Mrs. Eddy's personal approval of a candidate to fill a vacancy in the board of directors, and the positive statement in article XXXV, section 3, that ‘no new tenet or by-law shall be adopted, nor any tenet or by-law amended or annulled, without the written consent of Mary Baker Eddy’; but that, despite these provisions of the by-laws, the members of the board have frustrated Mrs. Eddy's intention by electing members who have not been so approved, and that the board of directors is without existence in law or equity, according to the manual.

Prior to, and during the year 1909, the then directors, acting conjointly with others in authority and in violation of the manual, believing that the demise of Mrs. Eddy was imminent, conceived a scheme whereby they might secure to and perpetuate among themselves the succession over and control of not only the Mother Church but also the branch churches.

As early as 1907, Mrs. Eddy realized that, notwithstanding her instructions, the directors were blinded to the spiritual by their determination to control the material organization, and recognized that Mrs. Stetson and some of her students had the spiritual concept which she herself had taught, as evidenced by her letters to Mrs. Stetson and also an open letter published in the Christian Science Sentinel of January 16, 1909. At this time the largest and most influential of the branch churches was that built up by Mrs. Stetson. In furtherance of their alleged wrongful scheme, the directors, in co-operation with others, instituted a campaign for the purpose of discrediting Mrs. Stetson, and thus open the way to their own aggrandizement. These attacks were directed not against the character of Mrs. Stetson but solely against Mrs. Stetson's teaching and practice of Christian Science. It is further alleged that the then directors, the defendant Smith and others, procured the co-operation of the then first reader of the Branch Church to institute groundless proceedings against Mrs. Stetson which, in the form of a complaint, were entertained by the directors of the Mother Church, contrary to and in violation of the manual, and afterward dismissed by them with the statement that ‘the entire matter is now left with the branch church of which you are a member.’ Coincidently they sent a letter to the then first reader of the Branch Church, upon whom the by-laws conferred power to enforce discipline, directing attention to the complaint; and they obtained from him the assurance that ‘if any charges are preferred they will receive due and prompt attention.’ At no time were any charges preferred against Mrs. Stetson before the duly constituted authorities of the Branch Church.

On September 24, 1909, the directors called a ‘conference’ of the trustees of the Branch Church, excluding Mrs. Stetson but including the plaintiff, at which it was admitted that the charges against her had been dismissed. On the very next day ‘findings and orders' against Mrs. Stetson were ‘officially and formally promulgated,’ accusing her, as a member and trustee of the Branch Church, of seven distinct disciplinary offenses, revoking her license to teach and removing her card as a teacher and practitioner from the Christian Science Journal, all of which was in contravention of the Church Manual. At no time was ‘admonition’ given to Mrs. Stetson. Immediately after the so-called ‘conference’ at Boston, preparations were made by the trustees of the Branch Church, exclusive of Mrs. Stetson, to investigate fully conditions in the Branch Church, conducted by a ‘committee of inquiry’ composed of eight members of the...