Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1880-12-22
MASTER IN CHANcERY.

Proprietary Grant in trust To certain citi-
zens adhering TO the Presbyterian faith and
form of worship, by virtue of ORDER of sur
vey dated 30th of March, i767, and direct
ed to William MaClay, Deputy Surveyor,
for 200 acres of land for a Presbyterian
Meeting House and graveyard, alleged in
the bill and admitted in the answer.
This was not a conveyance TO trustees for
the use of a specifically designated religious
congregation a. in Brendel VS.. Ger. Ref.
Cong, Casey AIS, and McAuley's Appeals,
u Smith 397, but by the terms OF the grant
the conveyance was in trust ''fOr PreSby-
terian Meeting House and graveyard" a
purpose somewhat general, but specific
enough to clearly show the scope of its op-
Grafton as intruSted.
Whether this proprietary grant was vol
untary consequence as gift to a charitable
use. or whether il was a consequence for a
valuable consideration contributed by a
number of persons, and made TO these GER
/ tain citizens sin trust' for the purpose deS-
( ignated as intended by the contributors OF
/ the fund-in both of which cases the seer
/ tain citizens" would be base of qualitica-
! ton. fee, a fee in them for the uses of the
| trust, or whether the consideration money
was paid out of the independent personal
I funds of the certain citizens, whereby they
/ took an absolute fee, with an executionary
L Il, limited
does not appear, and in the present con-
dition of affairs is UnimpOrtant, because
although the original grant has been con-
verted. 1t has not been diverted, and the
title to the estates purchased with proceeds
of the original grant. Or rather with the
whole of the converted original grant, WAS
merged and comminglcd, no matter where
or how invested, is held in trust for the pur-
poses designated in the original grant. See
Kirlin VS. Campbell, Harris, 500; Grifii'ts
VS.. Cope, ) Harris, sc; Brendel vs.. Ger.
Ref. Cong. Casey, 424; McGinniss vs..
Matren, ) w, 9; Bar vs.. " c!d, II Harris,
81; Martin vs. McCord. ) Watts, ,i93; Price
vs.. Maxwell, 4 Casey, %.
The first question to be considered is,
What was the effect Of Charter Of incor-
poration upoa the trust expressed in the
proprietary grantl'' That the grant was
trust at the time of tie creation of the cor
poration there can be no doubt, and The
trust being lawful viii be vigorously en-
forced no matter where its inception, how
it originated, or what its present condition
The grant for Presbyterian Meeting House
and graveyard, having by appreciation of
/ landmarks, conversion and jndicious man
agement, commingling Herewith Of other
! ,rnds or values voluntarily contributed, or
wb,tno1, resulted in establishing flCO Pres
bvterian Meeting .Houses and two Presby-
terian graveyGrds, the Irposes Oh 'he OH
ginal grant are carried out in fur.l-. rance "i
the object sought to be attained thereby, -
ua: the propagation and perpetuation Of
the Presbyterian faith and form of worship,
1 but the result is doubiv augmented as com
pared with the capabilities of the grant as
estimated in the mind or minds of the per-
son or persons who Instituted the same, at
the time Of the establishment OF the meet
I ing house. The change from Cedar Spring
to Miffiintown and Lost Greek in no way in
[ ing it, extended and amplifed its operations
within the scope of its purview, a result
certainly the reverse of adverse 10 the prr-
poses of the donor. 1t must be remember
ed that the trust had attained this condi-
| ton OF augmentation as early as October ,,
| 1893, for we find by the records OF Presby-
/ terry of Huntingdon, that leave was granted
Cedar Spring-parcnt-aDd Lest Creek
offSpring-to apply to Carlisle Presbytery
| for supplies, and two years later, Nov. 10,
| 1901, we found Rev. Matthew Brown re-
ceiving call from the United Congrega-
ton of Mifiiin and Lost Creek, at which
time the present church seems to have
| given way to its legitimate offspring, Mif
I fin and Lost Greek, and we find them ad
ministering upon its estate, selling the
| Glebe lands, and making distribution and
setilement-once in 1922 and again in 1929.
had called the Rev. Matthew Brown. to wit,
/ 1901, March lst, these ecclesiastical bodies
became an aggregate civil corporation, un-
der the provisions Of the act of April, 1871,
g S. l., p 20,) by virtue of the charter of
the corporation printed and contained on
pages 8 and 10 of defendants answer in this
case, which see. This civil charter could
/ in no way restrict or limit the trust PIE
vionsly existent, or operate TO divert the
application of its revenues. 1t was simply
an instrument OF the civil law, an auxiliary
and made body polite.
| By the terms of the act of 9th April, 1891,
that corporation was created for a religious
purpose. What religious purpose ? Why,
only that which the original grant names
and if the charter conflicts with that, the
charter must succumb. and the original
grant prevail. McGinness VS.. Watson,
W., g; Henry vs.. Dietrick, Chrsis, 2S6.
Cou!d or does this civil charter lessen the
ecclesiastical powers, vested in the church
.jndicatures by the original law Of the Pres
byterian Church 1t would be an anomaly.
indeed, To hold that number of persons
who had become members of sectarian
denomination (and IN this case, as such
trustees be an express trusD and thereby
subscribed 70 all the rules of church gov
ernment, order, faith and discipline (whi;h
the trust was established 10 perpotuate)
could be released from obedience to these
rules, Sc, b. simply being Incorporated