The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1867-08-15

to proceed by bin in chancery Instead
of motion. The removal or appoint
ment of trustees is an old and well es-
tablished branch OF equity jurispru-
dence, which required no statutory en-
actment to warrant the institution OF
such q suit, and the Court cannot pre-
sumo that by the 9th section OF the Code
of 1860, the Legislature simply intended
10 authorize q proceeding under tne
statute, which was in force without II.
In the opinion of the Court, the object
of that statute was 10 provide sum
mary remedy upon motion, by which,
at the Instance OF the proper authorities
of the congregation, and in the exercise
OF a sound discretion by the Court, trns-
tees might be removed or appointed
upon reasonable notice, without the ne
cessity or expense OF a regular suit.
The Courtis further of opinion that it
is clearly shown by the evidence that
this motion WAS made at the instance,
and upon the application of the proper
authorities of the church at Lewisburgi
and that 1t was necessary to the proper
exercise and enjoyment of their ecclesi
astioal as well as legal rights in the SAID
church. ETH
The Court Is further of opinion that
by the deed of February 5th, 1851, the
legal title to the church in controversy
became vested in trustees for the use
and benefit of the congregation at Lew
Isburg in connection with the Methodist
Episcopal Church of the United States;
and that, until legally divested in some
way, II must continue, to be held as a
trust for the use and benefit of the said
church so long as II continues to have
existence; and that II at any time 1t
should cease to exist entirely,
and thus the purpose for which
came completely frustrated, that the
property In that case would con-
stitute resulting trust in equity, and
revert back to the original donors or
his heirs.-See Story's Eq., ll15,
lI96, 1900, Supplement 10 U. S. Dig.
(1s47l, p. 4S6, 30s; 2 Story's Ed, 2
| ll9l, and note 1892 Id. go
The Court Is further Ofopinion that a
charity given for a particular purpose
cannot be altered or diverted to any
/ other-2 Story, S1l75. That an organ
ICED church cannot be divested OF its
property by even IA majority OF its IN em-
bers who enter into a new organiZa-
name, provided the old organization
still exists; and that when seceders
| from an organized church enter into
such new organization, they forfeit all
claim to any interest in the former
church, and lose all identity with It,
Harper rs. Straws, IA B. Monroe, 4S.
The Court is further of the opinion
Z
General Conference In 1874, plan ol
separation was agreed upon, which, II
stT'ictIy complied with on the part Of he
| Church ISouLh, would have taken this
case out OF the operation of the princi-
I Pile of Harper Us. Straws, and brought
4 il clearly within the principle of Brooke
as. Shacklett, IS Graft, 307, which was
cited and relied upon by the defendants
with SO much confidence.
But the Court is furthermore of opin-
( ion, that upon the facts shown in evil
/ dence, the case of Brooke Us. Shacklett
Is an express authority against the APP
peilants, and establishes the right .ofthe
| appellees TO the church in controversy
That case simply decided that In the
case of border Conference, such as this
| in, that separation of the churches
pursuant to the plan of 1874, that is, by
! a Vote Of the majority Of Me Society, Sta
/ tiOu, or Conference IOithin IchIch The
property lies, not only established d
| separate ecclesiastical institution in the
| church. thus separating, but carried
with 1t all the church domain within
| the limits of such Conference, Station
| or Society. That the vote of such ma
! jOTitV, whether adhering TO, or seeding
| from, the original church. or joining
the church South, not only determined
| the particular ecclesiastical complexion
| but the future rights of property in the
! local church.
| There is nothing to show in this case
! that the vote of such majority has ever
! been cast, at least, in favor of the South
! ern Church.! Certainly no Station or
I Society has thus spoken. And the
| Court is of opinion, from the various an
nual registers and other proceedings
| which were offered in evidence from
! the General Conference at New YORK In
| 1874, down to the Alexandria Conference
! in 1896, that by the vote OF no majority
| of the Baltimore Conference has the
| church in controversy, which undoubt-
kedIy once Belonged to that branch oi
| the original church, ever leg ally became
| an appurtenant of the Methodist Epis'
copal Church South, or of its local Ru-
| thorities in LeWisburg. It was claimed
| for the defendants below, that the pro-
cess of separation by which they claim
| the church in question, was initiated at
| the Conference in Staunton in 1851,
and consummRted by the Alexandria
Conference in 1866. Is this pretension
supported by the eyidence3 Whilst the
Stannton Conference disavowed and
! strongly protested against the doctrine
Of the old church on the subject OF
| slavery, it still declared itself "tO be an
| integral part Of The said church, and
as such, when 1t adjourned at Staunton
| in 1861, 1t resolved that its next General
Annual Conference should be held In
| Baltimore. 1t, that is, the same Baltt-
more Conference which adjourned at
| Staunton In 1851, met pursuant to Its
! adjournment, in Conference, at Balu-
| more in 1862, and then and there, by
the vote of large majority of such
| Conference, this protest or disavowal
of the Staunton Conference was in
turn repudiated and disavowed, leav.
! ing she question, of course, as II stood
before. In the proceedings and reaolu-
4 tions of these Conferences for the year
1861 and 1862, 1t would be more correct
to say, therefore, that the separate or.
ganization of the Methodist Episcopal
| Church South, in this department,
was both indu9ttrGted and per-
Tected by the Alexandria Confer
ence in 1856; and at that Conference,
although claimed by the Church South
to have been the Baltimore Conference,
the record shows that a large majority
of the Baltimore Conference proper
were not present, and never recognized
any OF the resolutions or proceedings at
Alexandria as the act Of the Baltimore
Conference: All the Alexandria Con-
ference did, therefore, was to sever the
ecclesiastical bond which bound 1t to
the parent Church, without acquiring
any of the property of that Church ac-
cording to the plan of separation of
1874, or under the decision of the Court
of Appeals OF Virginia in Brooke Us.
Shacklett.
The Court is further OF opinion from
the evidence, that SO far as the Baltl-
more Conference is concerned, that the
separation or election as contemplated
by the General Conference OF 1874, WAS
in fact accomplished in 1916, and re-
suited in formal, resolution by ma
iority of the Baltimore Conference, to
adhere to the Northern division of the
Church, which settled its ecclesiastical
status and carried with it the right OF
Z n1nW IN in NTN