The Andrew County Republican. [volume] (Savannah, Mo.) 1871-1876, 1874-04-10
E. A. Carson VS. the Presbyterian
Church, Savannah-Suit to Fore
elise Mortgage - Decision by
Judge Kelley.

OoO6 1ASAASy
Judge Kelley, in the Circuit Court, has rem
lerei the following decision in the above case
II appears that in 1si9. Carson, being 4 Pres
byt,rian minister in charge of Il church mt 81
vnnnah, bought a lot and had the ute conveyed
to the trustees, ruling elders in the church and To
their successors in Office, for the Use OF the church
forever. soon after II building committee conf
mrncei the erection OF II house upon sild LOT ANA
To prevent the enterprise from iiiilnG, the p iin-
tin, hy permission of The trustees. contributed
largely 10 the e instruction of said building with
his own means and labor, an. occupied 1t as a
minister from time tn time and Kept II IN repair
for many wears a~tterward. There does not
seem to nave been any contract or understanding
h. twecn the plaintiil and the trustees by which
the plaintiff SHOULD ever be l'aid by the church
for The labor and means SO invested in the con
+ strUctiun Of said building. indeed, the plaIniIi
states in his ow!. testimony, that Ia" did not IN
Tend il all as Il contribution, bat intended II part
of it rs Il git. lie does not know how mncl, he
intended Ia give, bat expected the congregation
10 give part OF it back, but they never aid.. lie
h,l known such done. aua H. does not know
whether me depended upon the honor Of the
church or upon legal obligation. He never lie
m lndad or asked payment of the claim orany
trustee. or member of the church, but let II run
because the church WAS short, and he never gave
the claim in 10 The assessor for taxation. In lcH5,
a short time before the execution Oi the acknowl-
cdgmrnt ofindebtednrs, and mortgage sued on;
in speaking of hi, right or interest IL and To said
church Property. the plaintiff stated to different
persons that he had done II great deal Tor the
church, but tina; 1t was for the cau|e, that lac Ind
no greater interest or claim On the church than
any other member, that he had done Whit he
had for the good Of he cauIc, that he did not
own ii-some persons thought h" owned ii-iiat
he had no greater interest In it iEan anv other
member, that he had no claim on it, and had not
Il brick III IL.
ON the 18th day of July, $50, after u prclimi-
nary union had been formed OF the Old and New
school Presbyterian churches. upon = basis
agreed upon between said churches with the mid
of the plaintiff, the plaintiff becoming d~issa;is-
fled with the arrangement. procured two Of the
former trustees and ruling elders of the New
school church, (tdcrc being three such trustees
and the third nnr refusing to joi'. in ~ to exc
cute to hima written acknowledgment Ofan IN
debtedncss on the part of the church 10 him IN
ttr sum " 81, JR for money anil labor expended
some twenty Wears before that time ON the
church-building with the consent and apprOba-
ton, a. alleged, of the trustees; and they also
executed II mortgage on the church property to
secure the lnyrlcnt of said 81 800 by the church
to the plaintiff.
There was much Testimony on the trial rs to
whether or MOI the two churches had actually
uni,rt, ~ one. 50 Is I, destroy the Old orghniza-
iion and determine the power of the trustees as
such. at The time oi the execution al the ac-
acknowledgement and mortgage. The defendant
denies the legal obligation of The claim, and asks
that SAIL mortgage BE- set aside and Cancelled, Ne.
The case has been earnestly and deliberately
argued by plaintiffs counsel from what they
term an equitable standpoint, arising out Of
moral right and Christian duty; but courts can
only lock nj legal controversies in the light of
equity from Il legal obligation or duty, and the
nut....n for u- 10 dctc"!nln" Is, whether the ac-
acknowledgement and mprtgag. - executed by
said two trustees are valid and binding on
the defendant, not rs II moral, but ~ a legal
obligation. a moral obligation may arise from
the circumstances in thi, cl>e, which would up
peal strongly 10 the conscirncrs ola generous
Christian people in behalf nj the plaintiff, and
vet there he no legal obligation which the law
can enforce. The rule, u! law cannot he accom-
moda'cit u plrii'ulir eases an account of>uplo>ei
hardship. To IL, >n would soon Introduce all
thai uncertainty with which th" law L. 50 Often
charged. The manifest iinpracticabili'y ofcN-
tracing from The numb rlrss moral duties
which may he demonstrated by the science of eth
ic~, 4 rul. oi law applicable I" the business rclI-
iions of life. SHOWS very plainly that those du-
tie. nf imperfect obligation are not such Is are
contemplated hy the law when u undertakes 10
enforce lryal obligation, between nun and man.
But the moral obligation must be sustained by II
prcc dent or corresponding legal obligation.
This action l. upon What l. claimed Ia be m
acknowledgment Of a prior indebtedness, or OBJ
legation by the church 10 pay Inc amount 10 tn.
plaintiff. The claim, If 1t ever had any legal rN-
istcnrr a.a demand against the church, was
n. since barred hv the statute of Limitation, b
and the object of the acknowledgment Is To taxi.
the cast Out oi the operation OF the statute. II
the claim ever constituted n valid demand
against The church which could have been en-
forced lay The law, and if the trustees hwi the
power aud authority to execute the mortgage anil
max. the Hcknowl cigfnrnt - such, and bind the
church thereby, the action can he maintained:
but if The claim never was such a demand rs
under The circumstances under which n accrued, .
could have been legally enforced against the
church, or II the trustees hul NJ authority To
make the achuuw lctiS, mrnt, thr action cannot
Ice SUSTAINED. The rule seems To he that IAN
cypress promise can only revive u precedent
good consideration which might have been en-
forced AT law, through the medium of an i'm
piled promise, had II not been suspended by
some positive rule of law, bn+ can give no orig
ind ri ghi oi action, If the obligation upon which
IL j. founded never could have brcn enforced at
law, though not barred by any legal maxim or
statute revision wendell Y. aIncy, ) Bo'.
t,-t ~ ,.s. 1I-. yaf. thu Tat -.
clear, ini,lligihlc. aud not difficult al rpplici-
iirn, AMI Is >u-tlineih by the weight oi The author
ir!rs. Mills Y. WYNN. } Pick sD3; Dodge
Nd ms, ~ Pick . ~: Elhr '. johnson, ~ Wrmu.
%: Il ,siuu Y. DoiSr, l I:ia"kf.. ~, note: Wig
giGg V. krizer, 4 Ind ~; iJohns, ~; , Easi,
.tj
person under IA disability, after the disability il
removed, or Il debtor whose debt is barred by
the statute Of Limitations, expressly promises to
pay his debt, the moral obligation is apparent,
and the pruIuis" hisa substantial basis on which
10 rest. The acknowledgment ought To contain
an unqualified AMI direct admission of = prerioas
willing to pay. II Pet. 3D. In such ease the
action is generally brought On the originil con-
tract or calisr Of action. 1.-THE statute of iimitl-
ton does not annIhilatc the debt. but su~pcnds
the remedy the promise does not give any new
cause otaction. hut simply rcyives the old cause,
and j., of no other Use than To prevent the bar Of
the ,iaIutcs:" ltarr's Adn'r v. IIuiibut's
Adlm'N, Il Mo-, 2fa, and ca,s.r cited
This involves III" consideration of another
principle OF the law as applicable 10 this ease.
which l., where II person voluntarily does an act
or renders service. and there was M intention at
the time that he should charge tn, rrior, or I'M
tcr-Ianding that The other should pay. he will
not DE permitted Ia recover, for that which WIS
originally intended as II rruiuity cannot he sub
turned into n charge. III Mo, 10;
Il Mo, So.
Ii, therefore, II was the understanding of those
under VIII psr auspices The building was erected
that the plainiiIf was doing the work a, n dpna-
ton TO help along ihr church enterprise strlig-
Cling into existence amid pecrniary cmbarrass-
mrnt-, the law will not imply n contract or OBJ
To pay for such expenditures from any
benefit received ly the church, although the
work was done with the knowledge or consent of
the trustees. Il Mo, 3S2.
| think the evidence clearly shows that the
labor and means furnished by the plaintiff and