Terrett and Others v. Taylor and Others

Decision Date17 February 1815
Citation9 Cranch 43,3 L.Ed. 650,13 U.S. 43
PartiesTERRETT AND OTHERS v. TAYLOR AND OTHERS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Absent. JOHNSON, J. and TODD, J.

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia,

sitting in the county of Alexandria.

Taylor and others, 'members of the vestry of the Protestant Episcopal church, commonly called the Episcopal church of Alexandria in the parish of Fairfax, in the county of Alexandria and district of Columbia, on behalf of themselves and others, members of the said church, and of the congregation belonging to the said church,' filed their bill in chancery against Terrett and others, who were overseers of of the poor for the county of Fairfax, in the state of Virginia, and against George Deneale and John Muncaster, wardens of the said church, and against James Wren.

The bill charges that on the 27th of May, 1770, the vestry of the said parish and church, to whom the Complainants, together with the Defendants, George Deneale and John Muncaster, are the legal and regular successors in the said vestry, purchased of a certain Daniel Jennings a tract of land then situate in the county of Fairfax and state of Virginia, but now in the county of Alexandria in the district of Columbia, containing 516 acres, which the said Jennings and his wife, by deed of bargain and sale on the 18th of September, 1770, by the direction of the then vestry, conveyed to a certain Townsend Dade, since deceased, and the said James Wren, both then of the county of Fairfax, and the church wardens of the said parish and church for the time being, and to their successors in office, for the use and benefit of the said church in the said parish. That in the year 1784 the legislature of Virginia passed an act, entitled 'an act for incorporating the Protestant Episcopal church;' by the third section of which, power is given to the ministers and vestry of the Protestant Episcopal church to demise, alien, improve and lease any lands belonging to the church. That the act of 1786, entitled 'an act to repeal the act for incorporating the Protestant Episcopal church, and for other purposes,' declares that the act of 1784 shall be repealed, but saves to all religious societies the property to them respectively belonging, and authorizes them to appoint, from time to time, according to the rules of their sect, trustees who shall be capable of managing and applying such property to the religious use of such societies. That under this last law the Complainants conceive they have the power of requiring the church wardens of their church, who are the trustees appointed by the vestry, under the direction of the vestry comtemplated by the last mentioned act, to sell or otherwise dispose of the said land, and to apply the proceeds of the same to the religious use of the society or congregation belonging to the said church, in such manner as the vestry for the time being shall direct. That the Complainants have been, according to the rules and regulations of the said society, appointed, by the congregation, vestrymen and trustees of the said church, and have appointed the Defendants, Deneale and Muncaster, church wardens of the said church. That some of the present congregation of the church were originally members of the church when the church was built and when the land was purchased, and contributed to the purchase thereof. That some of them reside in the county of Fairfax and state of Virginia, but have pews in the church, and contribute to the support of the minister. That the lands are wasting by tresspasses, &c. That the Complainants, as well as the congregation, wish to sell the lands and apply the proceeds to the use of the church; but are opposed in their wishes by the Defendants, Terrett and others, who are overseers of the poor for the county of Fairfax, and who claim the land under the act of Virginia of the 12th of January, 1802, authorizing the sale of certain glebe lands in Virginia, which act was not passed until after the district of Columbia was separated from the state of Virginia: in consequence of which claim they are unable to sell the lands, &c. wherefore they pray that the Defendants, Terrett and others, the overseers of the poor, may be perpetually enjoined from claiming the land, that their title may be quieted and that the Defendants, Deneale, Muncaster and Wren, may be decreed to sell and convey the land, &c.

The bill was regularly taken for confessed against all the Defendants. The Court below decreed a sale, &c. according to the prayer of the bill.

The Defendants, Terrett and others, the overseers of the poor, sued out their writ of error.

The cause was argued at last term by JONES, for the Plaintiffs in error, and by E. I. LEE and SWANN, for the Defendants in error.

The opinion of the Court is so full that it is deemed unnecessary to report the arguments of counsel.

February 17th. Absent. JOHNSON, J. and TODD, J.

STORY, J. delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

The Defendants not having answered to the bill in the Court below, it has been taken pro confesso, and the cause is therefore to be decided upon the title and equity apparent on the face of the bill.

If the Plaintiffs have shown a sufficient title to the trust property in the present bill, we have no difficulty in holding that they are entitled to the equitable relief prayed for. It will be but the case of the cestuis que trust enforcing against their trustees the rights of ownership under circumstances in which the objects of the trust would be otherwise defeated. And in our judgment it would make no difference whether the Episcopal church were a voluntary society, on clothed with corporate powers; for in equity, as to objects which the laws cannot but recognize as useful and meritorious, the same reason would exist for relief in the one case as in the other. Other considerations arising in this case, material to the title on which relief must be founded, render an enquity into the character and powers of the Episcopal church, indispensable.

At a very early period the religious establishment of England seems to have been adopted in the colony of Virginia; and, of course, the common law upon that subject, so far as it was applicable to the circumstances of that colony. The local division into parishes for ecclesiastical purposes can be very early traced; and the subsequent laws enacted for religious purposes evidently pre-suppose the existence of the Episcopal church with its general rights and authorities growing out of the common law. What those rights and authorities are, need not be minutely stated. It is sufficient that, among other things, the church was capable of receiving endowments of land, and that the minister of the parish was, during his incumbency, seized of the freehold of its inheritable property, as emphatically persona ecclesiae, and capable, as a sole corporation, of transmitting that inheritance to his successors. The church wardens, also, were a corporate body clothed with authority and guardianship over the repairs of the church and its personal property; and the other temporal concerns of the parish were submitted to a vestry composed of persons selected for that purpose. In order more effectually to cherish and support religious institutions, and to define the authorities and rights of the Episcopal officers, the legislature, from time to time, enacted laws on this subject. By the statutes of 1661, ch. 1, 2, 3, 10, and 1667, ch. 3, provision was made for the erection and repairs of churches and chapels of ease; for the laying out of glebes and church lands, and the building of a dwelling house for the minister; for the making of assessments and taxes for these and other parochial purposes; for the appointment of church wardens to keep the church in repair, and to provide books, ornaments, &c. and, lastly, for the election of a vestry of twelve persons by the parishioners, whose duty it was, by these and subsequent statutes, among other things, to make and proportion levies and assessments, and to purchase glebes and erect dwelling houses for the ministers in each respective parish. See statute 1696, ch. 11 1727, ch. 6—and 1748, ch. 28-2, Tucker's Blackst. Com. Appx. note M.

By the operation of these statutes and the common law, the lands thus purchased became vested, either directly or beneficially, in the Episcopal church. The minister for the time being was seized of the freehold, in law or in equity, jure ecclesioe, and, during a vacancy, the fee remained in abeyance, and the profits of the parsonage were to be taken by the parish for their own use. Co. Lit. 340, b. 341, 342, b. 2, Mass. R. 500.

Such were some of the rights and powers of the Episcopal church at the time of the American revolution; and under the authority thereof the purchase of the lands stated in the bill before the Court, was undoubtedly made. And the property so acquired by the church remained unimpaired, notwithstanding the revolution; for the statute of 1776, ch. 2, completely confirmed and established the rights of the church to all its lands and other property.

The stat. 1784, ch. 88, proceeded yet further. It expressly made the minister and vestry, and, in case of a vacancy, the vestry of each parish respectively, and their successors forever, a corporation by the name of the Protestant Episcopal church in the parish where they respectively resided, to have, hold, use and enjoy all the glebes, churches and chapels, burying-grounds, books, plate and ornaments appropriated to the use of, and every other thing the property of the late Episcopal church, to the sole use and benefit of the corporation. The same statute also provided for the choice of new vestries, and repealed all former laws relating to vestries and church wardens, and to the support of the clergy, &c. and dissolved all former vestries; and gave the corporation extensive powers as to the purchasing, holding, aliening, repairing and regulating the church property. This...

To continue reading

Request your trial
89 cases
  • Delaware Land & Development Company, a Corporation of State v. First And Central Presbyterian Church of Wilmington, Delaware, Inc., a Corporation of State
    • United States
    • Court of Chancery of Delaware
    • January 22, 1929
    ... ... included the words "& all others, the congregation and ... members of the said Presbyterian Church and ... 242 ; Guilfoil ... v. Arthur , 158 Ill. 600, 41 N.E. 1009; Terrett v ... Taylor , 13 U.S. 43, 9 Cranch 43, 3 L.Ed. 650; Alden ... v. St ... ...
  • Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors Univ. Va
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1995
    ...to invade those of another." Madison's Remonstrance ¶ 8, reprinted in Everson, supra, at 68, 67 S.Ct., at 537; cf. Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43, 49, 3 L.Ed. 650 (1815) (holding that the Virginia constitution did not prevent the government from "aiding the votaries of every sect to . . . p......
  • Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 26, 1999
    ...invasion of the civil authority' ") (quoting Harmon v. Dreher, 17 S.C. Eq. (Speer's Eq.) 87, 120 (S.C.1843)); Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 43, 52, 3 L.Ed. 650 (1815). The Court's modern jurisprudence has continued the tradition set by the early cases, and makes clear that the Estab......
  • Ex Parte Anderson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 15, 1904
    ...the United States as being pernicious. See Calder v. Bull, 1 L. Ed. 648; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 657, 7 L. Ed. 542; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43, 3 L. Ed. 650; Regents of University v. Williams, 9 Gill & J. 365, 31 Am. Dec. 72; Welch v. Wadsworth, 30 Conn. 155, 79 Am. Dec. 239; Inhab......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...44 S.Ct. 15, 68 L.Ed. 255 (1923), 1155 Terrell v. Larson, 396 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2005), 1290 Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 43, 3 L.Ed. 650 (1815), 1536 Territory of (see name of territory) Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953), 918, 1079, 1513 Terry v. Ohi......
  • Judicial Review and Democratic Theory: Guardian Democracy Vs. Representative Democracy
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 40-3, September 1987
    • September 1, 1987
    ...school of jurisprudence (which includes Baer) "creeping Dworkinism." 9 6 Cranch 87 (1810). 10 4 Wheat. 518 (1819). 11 Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43, at 52 (1815) and Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Peters 627, at shall (not to mention Taney and his ilk) failed miserably to uphold the nat-ural right......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT