The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1866-06-21
ME1IIoDIsT CHURCH IN COURT.
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT, DY COLONEL c.
II. SIMoSToS.

May please the Court:-I cannot deny that approach
reluctance The ou, stions involved prcscnt points OF
law OF such intricscy. require the investigation " p
cipes importance and carry with them lnter
ests of magnitude. that they demand court oil
ample Jurisdiction in which full oppSrtuny woaa 90
Afforded close investigation, elaborate argumont
careful decision Tho matters now IN controFer'
sy have bccn debated by tho first minds Of the na ton
and have been dtoIied in our highest courts. Such
courts sti exist which, far from offering any impe
examination OF this case In such examination tho
rights every party in interest could be adjudcaed
and final decisioL could be obtained The questions
Involved questions OF law. upon facts admitted
or clearly proved. Nothing Of tho praot machin
The Courts of this State. and Of the United states are
open to tho plaintiffs, and can afford ample relief In
whites growing out of tho peculiar relations between
them but between two great sections of great her
archy either OF which conld go into hny Of the courts
OF the country. assured of calm, fair, and impartial
decision OF their rights.
properly. 1t is demand for the possession based on
The titles assertion that they are deyisees under the
will of test tor; such entitled to hold against the
administrator with the will annexed. and empowered
to demand and to obtain account respectfully sub
m therefore, tn At the ia not proper for this
Court that Is not within the Of its powers
Having been ordered however to try the case here l
as can upon the points which present themselves feel
ling confident that will extend to the argument the
patience which you gave to tho long and tedious
examination OF the witnesses.
member OF the Methodist Epi'copa Church III that city,
departed this life in 1881, leaving in force his last will
the M Et f,i heirs
body begot in matrimony, il white, forever If his
as aforesaid then to his Srohor Abel Mckee and lis
heirs or issue Shoull bis son and brother dio with
out heirs aoresad he gives two lots Of land to the
Methodist Episcopal Church, Charleston, for ccr
tain specific objects, and the remainder for the promo
by two or their number to DO selected by tho Board of
Trustees of te Methodist Episcopal Church In Charles
ward there wns but one Board of Trustees Of the M E.
Church In Charleston and oil the churches Of that de-
nomination were connected with the NJ Church of
the United States In 1874. this NJ E Church of the
United staes divided into two great sections upon
States was st, led tho NJ Church South that in the
non-slaveholding states retained the NJ
churches Of the M E. Church. so-cailed until ono was
forces, into Charleston. In 1896. congregation was
formed and Quarterly Conference who appointed the
with the Church, North. Abel Mckee is dead without
i dying Ia 1859 David Gibson Mckee died with
the win Of John Mexico as his executor, and on hs
death the defendant who had been named executor
oi the VIII Of Abel Kee also qualified sdministra
l1r de oons on with the will annexed of John Mckee
Inc petitioners claim from him the delivery of the pT
perry OF his testator John Mckee. and account Of
ms administration, alleging that, Trustees of the
b Episcopal Church they take under the will
tao unS"' 20 defendant is Trus
ributon of the estate-that he is liable to claims Of
other parties who not parties to this suit that he
to the protection OF tho court Now submit that the
petitioners are not entitled to the claim they set up
1st. Because the attempt by John Mckee to dispose
of his estate after the death Of his David s void
the 81 Limitation paai,a Is .s too ,a remote. . 49,.
Trustees which in existence during tho life Of John
Mckee at the period of s DEATH and that period
Sd. Because this Id Board is excluded and mono
tho NJ E. Church take the devise Iapsed inasmuch
as at ,he death of David Mckee there were such
4th Beo the administrator with the will annexed
is legally in ssesson Of the estate, aud In advance
OF and should be required deliver possession
until he 1s fully reimbursed IT all such advances aud
the debts of the estate are paid.
u WI proceed to discuss these points In their order
lst. As to the validity OF the Limitation over. John
Mckee first gives his esta consisting altogether
land to his son. 'and the lawful heirs Of his body
begot In narimony II white, forever" BE thus creates
In his son an estae in fee simple conditional at
testator gives his estate to any IN simple
ditlonal he exhausts his of disposition the
ing It, based on failure of heirs of the first taker
will not dwell on this pont, hut give the authorities
In Mazyck us. Vanderhorst, Bailey Eq 48, there
was devise OF real estate to estators daughter and o
the heirs Of her body forever but she should depart
then over, It held that the Limitation top
the body IN this ee
ditiona and such estate cannot support remainder.
that be- a
too remote The question has been fully considered,
sancrs and he question must now be regarded set
tied. See Bedon Us. Bedon, Bailey La Rep. 29l
Adams ps Chaplin. Hiii ch 1865; rdwards ps BarkB-
dale. 2 Hill. CHI lsi; Deas dorry, HiIl oh. 2a4.
tbdn these % & be AT % aud Gs I'll
Snoh the hoFe Whicp Nohee uaue 10 ulspose oI
his es ate the contingency of the death of nis
without heirs of the body must fail and the limitation
over, In such event. to tho Trustees of the NJ. E.
Church in Charleston ia too remote and void. They
cannot take under this will.
z But suppose. for Q sake Of argument that the
Limitation Is good. come to the second and the
main question in the ,. TO-,
When John Mckee made his will In 1881, by which
no evidently wished all his property 20 the NJ r.
Church in Charleston and to be by its
trees his son and his bro her left tsBue the Board
OF Trustees Of that church In Charleston consisted
VIM. Bird, g. j. Wagner John q. Miller, Abel Mckee,
K and the others mentioned in the answer. Theso men
were his personal associates; members with himself Of
this same Board, all Of them known him. all
joytng, no doubt his confidence. They were the
associates and friends OF his brother and executor
imposed and would naturally, be fu acquainted
with his wishes and plans. There can be doubt,
therefore that IL his intention these very ndi
Flduals-this came Board OF which he had been ono
ehoud fulhl his wishes and direct his bounty At that
time they were unquestionab1y Trustees oil the M Z
Church In Charleston and any body could tase they
could and did take under the very words of the will
Has anythi occurred since the death Of the esator
and since their acquisition Of right under this WILL
actually at that time the only Trustees Of the NJ E.
Church In Charleston which deprive them OF the
rights so acquired7 It II argued that Trustees
since 1884, have ceased to belong to the NJ Church
and have connected themselves with the NJ z. Church
South aud that In this way they have deprived them.
selves OF any rights they otherwise may have hsd.
Now. contenu that tho division OF the NJ e. Church
in 1884, and the addition Of the word South to the
name OF the. Southern Methodist Episcopal Church
cannot Deprive Trus OF Local Board of their right
to local properly, to be used for local purposeB
thiA conclusion Ia drawn both from tho the
division aud from the express spulaions under which