Opinion
No. 4128.
May 26, 1932. Rehearing Denied June 9, 1932.
Appeal from District Court, Cass County; Geo. W. Johnson, Judge.
Action by the Methodist Episcopal Church against R. P. Roach and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
The Board of Trustees of the Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, acting by a district superintendent as agent and representative, brought the action against Mr. and Mr. R. P. Roach and Mrs. Aurie Edwards as individuals to recover the title and possession of three certain lots in Atlanta upon which a church and parsonage are situated. In a trial before the court without a jury judgment was rendered that the plaintiff take nothing by the suit. The plaintiff has timely prosecuted an appeal from the judgment.
On March 17, 1902, J. W. Hughes and wife, in consideration of $75 paid, deeded one of the lots in suit to R. P. Coke, A. C. Smith, and S. L. Baker, "Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of the County of Cass and State of Texas." On March 21, 1904, J. D. Johnson and wife, in consideration of $110 paid, deeded two of the lots to A. C. Smith, R. P. Coke, and S. L. Baker, "Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of the County of Cass and State of Texas." Each of the deeds have the recital "and it is our further aim to convey said property to the said Trustees for the uses and purposes of said Church and to be used by them as the Trustees for said Church as the Discipline may provide and direct them and their successors in office." The trustees named in the deeds to the church, as the evidence goes to show, have since that date died and their successors were elected by the "Quarterly Conference," as provided should be done by the accredited laws and discipline of the church. According to the undisputed evidence of M. Scherrer, who in 1928 passed his membership to the Southern Methodist Church, he and two others "were members of the Board there (Atlanta Church) and we were elected each Quarterly Conference." The evidence does not affirmatively show an election of trustees either by the local church or by the Quarterly Conference since 1928. This evidence, allowable as an inference, appears: "The Trustees that succeeded the Trustees named in those deeds have been continually looking after the church since the death of those Trustees." At the Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church held on April 8, 1929, there was duly elected, as annually done, a Board of Trustees called "The Board of Trustees of the Annual Conference." The persons so elected appear as the plaintiff in this suit. At the same Annual Conference a resolution was adopted providing that "the District Superintendent be made the agent for the Board of Trustees to sell the church and property at Atlanta, Texas, and that said agent be reimbursed for his said expenses."
The Methodist Episcopal Church as a general body is an ecclesiastical and evangelical organization. The local churches are grouped into districts, each of which is under the superintendence of a district superintendent who is appointed by the Resident Bishop. The duties of the district superintendent, as laid down in the laws and discipline of the church, are overseeing the spiritual welfare and the temporal business of the churches situated within his district. Under the system of the church, an assembly, called Annual Conference, which meets annually, and an assembly, called Quarterly Conference, which meets quarterly, is composed of ministerial and lay delegates from the different churches and charges. These two assemblies are each distinct governing bodies, with powers of regulation and discipline of congregations, churches, and officers, and of regulation of church property. As proven in this record by the accredited book of regulations, termed "Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church," each local church of that denomination shall elect a Board of Trustees to consist of not less than three nor more than nine persons, who shall serve for three years and who "shall hold all church property." The local church may create the board in the first instance and fill vacancies. As provided by subdivision 2, section 394, the trustees shall be elected by ballot by members of the local church above the age of twenty-one years at a meeting called for that purpose at a date to be fixed near to and not later than the Fourth Quarterly Conference. Further, as provided by the section: "Ten or more members of the required age must unite in a written request for such meeting, and shall present it to the pastor, or if there be no pastor, to the District Superintendent, who shall thereupon fix the date and place of election, and notice thereof shall be given publicly from the pulpit for two Sundays prior to the date fixed." Section 395 then follows, reading: "Bu? in Churches which do not comply with the provision of 394, 2, or when no such written request shall have been made by the members, the Trustees shall be elected annually by the fourth Quarterly Conference of the Charge. One third of the Trustees may be elected each year to serve for three years. In case of failure to elect at the proper time a subsequent Quarterly Conference may elect. Trustees shall hold their office until the close of the Quarterly Conference at which their successors shall have been elected."
As proven, the Quarterly Conference, a minor assembly and judicatory having immediate control of the local church, as respects local church property, takes cognizance of the failure or refusal of the local church to elect trustees or fill a vacancy at the proper time and is invested with the authority to fill the vacancy and to elect trustees of the local church property for the future. The Annual Conference, an assembly and judicatory superior to the local church, was shown to be vested with authority as follows:
"Wherever a local Society in the United States is no longer able to maintain itself without encumbering or making liable its real estate for current expenses, or whenever by reason of the reduction of its membership or the changing character of the community or population which the Church is intended to serve, or whenever by reason of the overlapping of fields of service in the same territory by Evangelical denominations, it shall seem desirable or necessary to discontinue or abandon such location, the District Superintendent of the district within whose bounds the Society is located shall call together the district Board of Church Location for a thorough study of the situation. If, in the judgment of the Board of Church Location, the discontinuance or abandonment of said Location shall seem to be for the best interest of the Methodist Episcopal Church, this Board of Church Location shall so report to the Annual Conference at its next session. If the Annual Conference, with the consent of the presiding or Resident Bishop and of the majority of the District Superintendents shall authorize and direct by two-thirds vote of the Annual Conference, the discontinuance of said location, it shall be the duty of the Trustees of said local Society to sell such property upon such terms as may be determined by the Annual Conference, and if, for any reason, the said local Board of Trustees refuses, or is unable to act in such matter, the Board of Trustees of the Annual Conference is hereby authorized and empowered to sell and convey said property in accordance with the directions of the Annual Conference. Provided, however, that said local Society may elect, in the first instance, to convey such property to the Annual Conference and in such event, said Annual Conference shall sell or administer such property in accordance with the provisions of the Discipline.
"410. In all cases where Church property is abandoned, or no longer used for the purpose originally designed, it shall be the duty of the Trustees, if any remain, to sell such property and pay over the proceeds to the Annual Conference within the bounds of which it is located; and where no such lawful Trustees remain, it shall be the duty of said Annual Conference to secure the custody of such Church property by such means as the laws of the country or State may afford, subject to return in the same manner and upon the same contingencies as named in 407, 408."
After the acquisition of the property, the members of the local congregation in 1904 built thereupon a church building and parsonage. The church was given the name of "Grace Methodist Episcopal Church," and has been used by the local congregation continuously as a place of worship conformable to that religious denomination. The evidence in behalf of the plaintiff tends to show that after the year 1928 the membership of the local church had dwindled to that of a few persons, and that the local members, especially the three defendants, protested against and refused to "reach agreement" to discontinue the church and abandon the use of and sell the property and to have "a preacher preaching there that was appointed by the Conference" and had contended for the possession of the use of the same against the District Superintendent and the present trustees of the Annual Conference.
According to the evidence of the defendants, the local congregation, of which two of the defendants are members, have always recognized the church at Atlanta as the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and have not claimed and are not now claiming any title in the same individually. The defendants further show that there has not been nonuser or abandonment of the property, and that there has been and is now continued existence of the local church as a Methodist Episcopal Church and conformable to that religious denomination. The following evidence in behalf of defendants, quoted from the evidence of Mrs. Roach, outlines proof of the defendants as respects the use of the property, and the membership: "I have lived in Atlanta for about forty years, and I am a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church there and have been a member of that church about thirty years, ever since they organized. I am a charter member. I still worship there. We have preaching services there right often. Sister Perdue and Brother Morris and several others preach for us. We have prayer meeting once a week. We have preaching service as much as once a month with prayer meeting every Thursday night, and large crowds attend the preaching services sometimes, and sometimes not so many. Something like from thirty-five to forty attend. I think we have twenty-five members now. I am sure we have that many. We do not have that many living right in town, but they are scattered around. We have wonderful prayer meetings every week and the Lord blesses us. We have about the same number going to prayer meetings as go to preaching service. The people seem to be interested in the work we are doing. Our church is not in debt and we have no outstanding indebtedness. * * * Sometimes a Nazarine holds the meeting, sometimes a Southern Methodist Episcopal preacher holds it, and sometimes the Methodist Episcopal preacher holds it. I have been there when all three of these preachers held it."
Carney Carney, of Atlanta, for appellant.
O'Neal Harper, of Atlanta, for appellees.
The appellant trustees present the point, in effect, of error in adjudging that they take nothing by the suit because by undisputed evidence they established (1) a complete legal title as successive trustees in the local church property, and (2) the right to possess such property, and the deprivation of the possession thereof by the appellants. For a consideration which was paid by the members of the local church at Atlanta, the owners of the lots deeded them to and the title was vested in three named persons as "Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of the County of Cass and the State of Texas." The deed expressly declared that the object and intention of the conveyance of the property to the three named trustees was to effectuate a simple trust, in the nature and form of "for the uses and purposes of said Church and to be used by them as the Trustees for said Church as the Discipline may provide and direct them and their successors in office." An unincorporated religious association, as here appears, is legally incapable in their associate name of taking and holding real property, and must take conveyance, as in this case was done, through the intervention of trustees. Methodist Episcopal Church v. Clifton, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 248, 78 S.W. 732; 23 R.C.L. p. 443; 54 C.J. p. 47. The deeds then put at rest any question of whether or not the legal title was vested in the duly constituted trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The effect was to vest the legal title in the trustees named, and their successors duly appointed or elected for the future, but for the use and benefit of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Atlanta. It was seemingly the members of that particular church who had furnished the money for the purchase of the lots, in the view and purpose of having erected thereon a building as the church home and place of public worship of themselves and subsequent members. And since the Rules and Discipline of the church formed a part of the declared trust that Discipline becomes and would be the embodiment of the terms of compact defining and limiting the powers of the local church and of the individual members therein and the other superior church bodies. Under that Discipline, as shown here, the local church had original authority to elect trustees and fill vacancies. But that authority is not exclusively in the local church. The Quarterly Conference, a judicatory having immediate control of the local church, has authority to fill vacancies and appoint and elect trustees for the future, either as successive or new trustees, of the local church property in case for any reason there had been either failure or refusal of the local church to fill the vacancies or elect successive trustees or to timely elect trustees. Inasmuch as the power existed to elect successive or new trustees the fact would not be controlling that after 1928, neither the local church nor the Quarterly Conference filled the vacancies or elected successors to the trustees last appointed at the Quarterly Conference, for such inaction would in no wise cause the trust to fail. 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. § 1087. Upon the election of successive or new trustees by the proper authority as directed to be done in the Discipline, then the legal title would be thus transmitted from one set of trustees to their successive trustees; otherwise, the title of the old trustees would not be divested. And the present trustees, suing as plaintiffs in this case, do not claim to have been appointed either as successive or new trustees by either the local church or the Quarterly Conference. They were, as conclusively proven, appointed and confirmed generally as a Board of Trustees of the Annual Conference, which was held at Dallas, Tex., in December, 1929. The Annual Conference is a governing body or judicatory superior to the local church and the Quarterly Conference. In view of that fact, and deriving their authority exclusively as a general Board of Trustees of the Annual Conference, the rights of the parties at issue must depend upon and be determined by the supervision and authority given to such trustees over the property of the local church by the provisions of the Discipline. In this respect it is provided by the Discipline, as shown by the proof in this case, that the Annual Conference shall have the power (1) to take over the custody and sell and convey the property of a local church that has been abandoned or no longer used for the purposes originally designed, and (2) to discontinue or disband the local church and abandon the location, and to take over and sell and convey the property. The discontinuance or abandonment of the local church may be directed and ordered by the Annual Conference whenever it shall "deem desirable or necessary" upon the happening, among other things, of "the reduction of its members or the changing character of the community or population which the Church is intended to serve." It is then provided that "the Board of Trustees of the Annual Conference is hereby authorized and empowered to sell and convey said property (of the local Church) in accordance with the directions of the Annual Conference," namely: (1) Where the local church or church property has been abandoned, or no longer used by the congregation for the purpose originally designed, or (2) where the discontinuance or abandonment of the location of the local church has been determined to be desirable or necessary by express vote of the Annual Conference. In neither instance can the Trustees of the Annual Conference assume to act and take over and sell and convey the local church property until the "local Board of Trustees," appointed by the local church or the Quarterly Conference, if they or their successors remain, "refuses or is unable to act in such matter." If the Annual Conference does not exercise its authority in the particular matters and make final termination of the local church and disposition of its property, the power of supervision and sale is not vested in the Board of Trustees of the Annual Conference. The only one who could create the power was the Annual Conference. The evidence brings in question whether or not these necessary provisions of the Discipline had been met and complied with to enable the Trustees of the Annual Conference to maintain the suit. The evidence is quite ample to show that there has been no abandonment of the local church or church property, by nonuser and failure to maintain services or keep up the premises. And the evidence does not tend to show that the Annual Conference in 1929 or since in any of their proceedings ever directed or ordered the Trustees of the Annual Conference to take over the property and to sell it as abandoned church property. Neither does any of the proceedings or records in evidence reflect or tend to show that the Annual Conference, in accordance with the provisions of the Discipline or otherwise, exercised its discretion and determined and ordered the dissolution or discontinuance of the church or abandonment of the location of the local church. In such situation the present appellant trustees may not predicate the right of holding legal title to the property as successive trustees duly confirmed as such, or rightful possession of use of the property in suit. It is only after order of the dissolution or discontinuance of the local church has been made by the Annual Conference that its general Board of Trustees can exercise its authority of sale or restraint upon the possession of the use by the local congregation. It is only after an order of dissolution or discontinuance of the local church or of its location has been duly and finally made by the Annual Conference that all rights of the local members of the possession of the use of that property cease. In the absence, as appears, of being clothed with authority in the method and manner provided in the Discipline, a legal title by succession or a rightful possession of the use of the property may not be predicated by the appellant trustees in the circumstances, and an action for ejectment or deprivation of the possession of the property would not be legally established by such trustees in the capacity in which they sue. The proof of the appointment of the District Superintendent to be the agent of the trustees in the matter of the sale of the property would not be proof sufficient to show authority of the trustees themselves to take over and to sell and convey the property.
It is believed the trial court has correctly decided the case and that this court would not be warranted in setting the judgment aside, and it is accordingly affirmed.