Case ID: ny-super-ct_28/html/0100-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court, Monell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Rector, &c. of the Church of the Redeemer, plaintiffs, vs. James T. Crawford, defendant.
    1. Subscriptions and donations, made for the erection of a parish school house, paid to an individual, who is the treasurer of a religious corporation at the time, do not necessarily become the property of such corporation,
    2. A religious corporation cannot maintain an action against its treasurer for money received by him, as subscriptions and donations, pursuant to a scheme ' proposed at a meeting of Sunday school teachers, connected with such church, to raise a certain sum of money for a building for Sunday school purposes, after which a circular was issued by such teachers, designating the object of such scheme to be “ the erection of a parish school house, including a small free chapel for missionary services," notwithstanding the subscription list on which such subscriptions were made, was headed: “ Subscriptions and donations to the Sunday school building fund of the Church of the Redeemer,’> which was the title of such corporation.
    (Before Monell, Gakvih and Joses, JJ.)
    Heard May 17, 1867;
    decided-, 1867.
    
      Exceptions directed to be heard,-in the first instance, at the general term.
    The plaintiffs, a religious corporation created under the laws of this state, sued the defendant to recover the sum of $524. The complaint alleged that in April, 1859, the defendant was elected treasurer of the Church of the Redeemer, and accepted the office, and continued to act as such treasurer until April, 1860. That during the time he so acted as treasurer he received, among other moneys, the sum of $524, donated and collected for the Sunday school of said church, and belonging to the plaintiffs, which sum was duly demanded and payment refused.
    The answer denied that the sum of money mentioned in the complaint, as donated to or collected for the Sunday school of said church, belonged to the plaintiffs.
    The action was tried before Justice Jones by a jury. The plaintiffs proved that, at a meeting of the teachers of the Sunday school connected with the Church of the Redeemer, a scheme was proposed, by which a certain sum of money was to be raised for a building for Sunday school purposes, at which meeting an amount of money was raised and paid to the defendant. A subscription paper was put in evidence, headed: “ Subscriptions and donations to the Sunday school building fund of the Church of the Redeemer,” upon which subscriptions and donations were written, amounting to $514. This sum was paid to the defendant, who, at the time of the payment, was the treasurer of the church. Some evidence was given tending to show an offer of the defendant to give security for the payment of the moneys in his hands, but to whom the security was to have been given, did not clearly appear, the plaintiffs’ witness merely saying he “ understood to the church.” It further appeared that the defendant’s accounts, as treasurer of the church, were examined by a committee of the church, and a balance of $19.50 paid to his successor.
    The defendant testified that, at the meeting, and afterward, it was expressly mentioned and understood, that the moneys collected for a Sunday school building should have no connection whatever with the church moneys, and that he was afterward instructed by vote to keep the moneys totally distinct from the church moneys, as they were for another purpose. The rector of the church testified that neither the vestry of the church, nor the corporation, was connected with the enterprise in any way.
    A circular was also produced, stating the objects to be attained, namely, “ the erection of a parish school house, including a small free chapel for missionary services.” The rector further testified that the defendant was treasurer of the fund, and was appointed at a meeting of persons favorable to the enterprise, at the commencement of it.
    At-the close of the evidence the court directed the jury to render a verdict for the defendant, on the ground that the money in question did not belong to the plaintiffs.
    The plaintiffs excepted, and the exception was sent to -the genera] term, to be there heard.
    
      E. J. Pattison, for the plaintiffs.
    
      J. AT. Hill, for the defendant.
   By the Court, Monell, J.

The printed circular, which I think was very properly put in evidence, designated the object of the enterprise to be the erection of a parish school house, including a small free chapel for missionary services. The subscriptions and donations which were made, and paid to the defendant, were made in pursuance of such circular, and the sole question to be determined was, to whom such subscriptions and donations belonged.

It seems to have been' assumed by the plaintiffs that, because the defendant was the treasurer of the plaintiffs’ religious corporation, he was the rightful custodian of all moneys raised for any purpose by the congregation; and that, therefore, because the subscriptions and donations made for the erection of a parish school house were paid to him, the fund was necessarily the property of the plaintiffs. The whole of-the plaintiffs’ evidence established no other facts than these: that, at a meeting of the teachers of the Sunday school connected with the church, an amount of money was subscribed and paid to the defendant; and that the defendant was, at the time, the treasurer of the church. The plaintiffs gave no direct evidence that the fund was, in any sense, the property of the church, and seem to have rested their claim upon the mere circumstance of the defendant" being at the time its treasurer, and that the money was subscribed for the erection of a school house. It was not proved that such contemplated school house was to become the corporate, property of the church. Its title may have been, very properly, kept separate from the church property, and vested in special trustees, or in a new. corporation. And it cannot justly be inferred that, because the enterprise originated with, and was conducted by, the teachers of the Sunday school attached to the Church of the Redeemer, therefore the church corporation was to be vested with -the title. The only other evidence of the plaintiffs was, that when the defendant was asked to pay the amount of the fund, he offered to give, as security, a mortgage, which the witness understood was to be given to the church. By this evidence it was doubtless intended to establish a right to the fund, through an admission of the defendant that it belonged to the church. But such an admission, even had it been proved, would not probably, of itself, have been sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to recover against the claims of other persons, who might establish a paramount right to the fund, and whose claims the defendant was justified in asserting as a defense to the plaintiffs’ action. It is enough, however, to say that no such admission was proved.

The defendant, however, did not rely upon the weakness of the plaintiffs’ case. By his own testimony, which is very strongly and clearly corroborated by .the testimony of the rector of the church, he proved that it was expressly understood that the money collected for the Sunday school building was to have no connection whatever with the church moneys; and that neither the vestry of the church, nor the church corporation, was connected with the enterprise in any way.

Ho attempt was made by the plaintiffs to contradict this evidence; and any verdict of a jury found in opposition to it, could not have been sustained.

The direction, therefore, to find a verdict for the defendant, was correct.

The exceptions must he overruled, and judgment rendered for the defendant upon the verdict.