Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume 1 (of 2)

by W. M. Leftwich

In this opinion the court holds the following language, after a statement of the case:

“The case is not free from difficulties. The court below seemed to be acting under the statute concerning ‘Trusts and Trustees.’ But this case does not fall within the statute, for that only provides for appointing trustees in deeds of trust made to secure the payment of a debt or other liability. (R. C. 1855, p. 1554, §1.) So in this case, it would seem that the parties must resort to their equitable remedy to prevent the trust from being defeated for want of a trustee.

“There are more informalities than appear upon the record, but they are not alluded to by either party. The question presented by the parties is, whether there are vacancies in the Board of Trustees to be filled. Both parties admit that there have been vacancies, but the defendants contend that the vacancies have been filled by the Church according to the rule and discipline of that Church, and the evidence proves conclusively that the board of trustees for church purposes, under the rules and discipline of the Church, had been filled; but whether, under the peculiarities of this deed, the legal title to the property described in the deed will descend to the trustees thus appointed seems doubtful.

“The uses and purposes for which the property is to be used is not expressed in the deed, but the property is merely deeded to the petitioners, naming them, together with Watson and Stokes, describing them as ‘Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ and to them and their successors in office, lawfully appointed, forever, for a consideration of five hundred dollars. It is not stated, except as mentioned in the deed, though it may perhaps be inferred that the petitioners at the time of the conveyance were in fact trustees of the Church, appointed by the Church under its rules and discipline; nor does it appear who furnished the money to purchase the property. If it was furnished by the Church, then, most certainly, the court, upon proper application, would order these plaintiffs to convey it to such person or persons as the Church might name, to hold it for their use and benefit; but if, on the contrary, the money was furnished by these plaintiffs, the naked fact that the grantors in the deed have described them as ‘Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ would not of itself operate to destroy their interest in the property. In the former case they would hold the property in trust for the Church, and would be compelled to convey to any persons the Church might nominate to receive it; but this could only be done upon proof of the fact that the Church furnished the money with which the property was purchased.

“3. Upon the face of this deed the property belongs to the grantees in the deed; and to divest them of the title it must be shown aliunde that the purchase money was furnished by the Church. The legal title is in the grantees; but in case somebody else furnished the purchase money, then the grantees will be regarded as holding the property for whomsoever furnished the purchase money.

“If, then, the above views be correct, there can be no question of vacancy in the Board of Trustees as respects this property until the question of the title is first settled. If it belongs to the grantees, no trustees are necessary; they can manage it for themselves. If the Church is entitled to it, then the grantees must first be divested of their title, and the title vested in some person or persons for the use of the Church. The proceedings here are irregular and premature. The judgment must be reversed and the cause dismissed. The other judges concur.”

Pending this case Mr. Allen, counsel for plaintiffs in error, made a very able argument upon the relation of the Church to the civil government. He took high ground upon the separate and distinct jurisdictions of Church and State, as understood by our fathers and as developed in this country under the genius of our government. He characterized severely the efforts made by partisan fanatics to confound in fact what was distinct in law, and to unite the Church with the State for purposes of ecclesiastical power and political corruption. His argument was well worth preserving.

The decision of the Supreme Court in effect sent the case back for a trial of the rights of property, for which suit was immediately brought in the Circuit Court. But under the operation of the order of the Court of Common Pleas of June 31, 1862, the church property passed out of the possession of the M. E. Church, South, to whom it was originally deeded, and into the possession of the self and court-constituted Board of Trustees, for the use and benefit of the M. E. Church, North. The property was used by them from July 21, 1862, to some time in the spring of 1867. In March, 1867, a letter was addressed by a number of the trustees to the presiding elder and preacher in charge of Louisiana Station, who were supposed to have influence with the authorities of the Church then holding and using the property, asking their kindly offices and services in an honorable and amicable adjustment of the difficulty and the return of the property to the rightful owners.

The following answer was elicited:

“Louisiana, Mo., March 21, 1867.