Trustees First Society M.E. Church of Newark v. Clark

• Decision Date: 28 October 1879
• Citation: 41 Mich. 730,3 N.W. 207
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: TRUSTEES OF THE FIRST SOCIETY OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF NEWARK v. JOHN CLARK and others.

3 N.W. 207

41 Mich. 730

TRUSTEES OF THE FIRST SOCIETY OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF NEWARK v. JOHN CLARK and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 28, 1879

To authorize the presumption of an incorporation of a religious society under section 3089, Comp.Laws 1871, from a ten-year successive exercise of corporative franchises the acts relied upon must be something particularly pertaining to corporate powers, implying an assertion of corporate existence, and not acts common or proper to a mere unincorporated society. A religious organization, by supporting regular worship, paying debts contracted in its name, receiving members to its communion, trying and expelling members for misconduct, being represented at annual conferences or conventions, does not assert a corporate existence. A party not in possession of real estate cannot maintain a bill to quiet the title thereto. Possession is not necessary to a right to maintain a bill to remove an encumbrance upon a title. Various difficulties in connection with the trust deed involved in this case suggested.

Appeal from Genesee.

S.B. Gaskill and William Newton, for complainant.

W.W Stickney, J.M. Wattles, M.E. Crofoot and A.C. Baldwin, for defendants.

COOLEY J.

The chief purpose of the bill of complaint in this cause is to quiet the title of complainants to a certain parcel of real estate of which they claim to be in possession, and upon which is situated a house of worship. For further relief they ask that a certain mortgage, which has been given to the defendant John Clark, upon the premises be set aside. The following is a statement of the facts from which the legal controversy arises:

On the twenty-sixth day of February, 1853, apparently in contemplation of the organization at Newark of a religious society in connection with the Methodist Episcopal church of the county, Henry N. Brown, a minister of that church executed the following certificate:

"To all whom it may concern:

"This is to certify that I, Henry N. Brown, preacher in charge of Lapeer circuit, Michigan conference, of the Methodist Episcopal church, have this day appointed, according to the discipline of the said church, and do by these presents appoint, George Clark, Sr., George Clark, Jr., James Clark, Thomas Clark and Thomas Walker, trustees of the first society of the Methodist Episcopal church of Newark, township of Lapeer, Lapeer county, state of Michigan. Dated Lapeer, Michigan, February 26, 1853.

"HENRY N. BROWN, Preacher in charge."

This certificate seems to have been in strict conformity to the discipline of the church at that time in force, and was no doubt sufficient to constitute the persons named trustees to hold society property. That discipline declared that "trustees for holding church property" should be constituted by the appointment of the preacher in charge of the presiding elder of the district. It also provided that "in future we will admit no charter, deed or conveyance for any house of worship to be used by us, unless it is provided in such charter, deed or conveyance that the trustees of said house shall at all times permit such ministers and preachers belonging to the Methodist Episcopal church, as shall from time to time be duly authorized by the general conference of the ministers of our church, or by the annual conference, to preach and expound God's holy word, and to execute the discipline of the church, and to administer the sacraments therein according to the true meaning and purport of our deed of settlement."

The discipline also contained a form for a deed to trustees for the use of the church, but it is not material to recite it. All the provisions of the discipline are applicable to trusts in the hands of individual trustees for the use of the church, though they might easily be conformed to the case of conveyances made directly to society incorporations.

On the same day that Mr. Brown appointed the trustees, John Clark and Elizabeth, his wife, conveyed to the trustees and their successors in office a half acre of land, "in trust that they shall erect and build, or cause to be erected and built, a house or place of worship for the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal church of the United States of America, according to the rules of and discipline which, from time to time, may be agreed upon and adopted by the ministry and preachers of the said church at their general conference in the United States of America; and in further trust and confidence that they shall at all times forever hereafter permit such ministers and preachers, belonging to the said church, as shall, from time to time, be duly authorized by the general conference of the ministers and preachers of the said Medodist Episcopal church, or by the annual conference, to preach and expound God's holy word therein." This deed was recorded May 12, 1853, and a house of worship was erected upon the land described in it, mainly from the contributions of the trustees and members of their families, though small sums were contributed by others. After the house of worship was erected it was used for the purposes of the Methodist Epicopal church, without, so far as we are informed, any dispute or controversy respecting the right, until some time in the year 1866. It was also at times used for the religious meetings of other denominations, with the consent of the trustees, and we have no information of any want of harmony between the trustees and the society.

On the first of November, 1866, however, for reasons not sufficiently explained, James Clark, Thomas Clark and Thomas Walker, three of the trustees, got together and assumed to audit and allow claims in favor of those who had contributed to the erection of the house of worship, and to execute a mortgage on the church lot to John Clark for moneys to meet these allowances, and to make certain necessary repairs. The amount of the mortgage was $1,456.79. When the existence of this mortgage was made known, James Clark and Thomas Clark, who were members of the church, were brought to trial on a charge of immoral conduct connected with the transaction, and were expelled. Thereupon the Clarks, claiming title to the lot, proceeded to close the house of worship against the church. Rev. A.R. Bartlett was then officiating as pastor for the society, and on one occasion he was locked out of the house and preached to his assembled congregation from the steps in front of it. Subsequently an arrangement was made, which is explained by Mr. Bartlett, as follows:

"I proposed to the defendants that, as they claimed title, and as the trustees of the church claimed title, they, the defendants, should refrain from interrupting the services, take off the irons they had put upon the doors, and that we should go there when we pleased; that we should not ask them to go there, and that they should not ask permission of the trustees to go there, and that the occupancy of the church should not be to the prejudice of either party; and, if they would consent to these conditions, we would refrain from the further prosecution for disturbances of our meetings previous to that. The defendants claimed title to the property and the right to close the house. ** The defendants assented to the propositions I made to them."

This seems to have been in October, 1867. It incidentally appears from the record that there was then a suit pending against defendants for disturbing religious meetings in the house, and Mr. Bartlett says: "It was agreed that the trial should go on, and the question of title should be decided in a court of law, and if it was decided that the title was in the defendants, the trustees would let it alone; and if the title should be decided to be in the trustees, the defendants should let it alone, and that the keys should be surrendered to the party having the title." The suit at law we understand to have terminated before this bill was filed, but we are not informed what was decided by it, and as neither party claim anything under it, and it is only mentioned by bare allusion, the inference is that nothing important to this controversy was decided.

Another witness, speaking of the arrangement respecting the occupation of the house to which Mr. Bartlett testified, says: "It was agreed that the obstructions should be removed, and the church occupied by each party without prejudice to either party." It is undoubted that when this arrangement was made the defendants had possession of the house--whether rightfully or wrongfully we do not now decide.

In filing this bill the complainants claim to do so in a corporate character; and it now becomes important to know how they acquired that character. The bill avers that complainants are a corporation "duly organized under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Michigan 'Of Religious Societies,' chapter 68 of the Compiled Laws and acts amendatory thereto, including an act to provide for the appointment of trustees in certain cases, approved February 17, 1857, and other acts amendatory of said chapter, and the laws relating to religious societies." The reference here is to the Compiled Laws of 1857. The earliest law embraced in that chapter, under which a religious society could be incorporated, was the act of February 13, 1855, and from the reference to the act of February 17, 1857, we are to understand, we think, that the organization relied upon took place after that date. But neither in the bill nor by the testimony are we informed of any proceedings taking place between the time when Mr. Brown gave the certificate already recited, and the giving of a somewhat similar one by Mr. Bartlett in 1868, as hereinafter shown, which could operate as an incorporation, or have any tendency to show...