The Portland daily press., 1893-03-01
PARK STREET CHURCH.
The Heirs of william e. Greedy not to
Have Half of the Purchase Money.

In the United States court here yester-
day, the decision of Judge Nelson, of the
Circuit court, was recorded in the case of
Second Unitarian Society of Portland VS..
Josephine f. Grant and others. This is
the case arising out of the sale Of the
Park Street church to the Presbyterian
Society. 1t was heard last August in
this city before Judge Nelson. The facts
of the case are interesting: January 1st'
1890. the Second Unitarian Society
having ceased to worship in the building,
turned the edifce over to the First Pres
byterian church with the arrangement
that the latter church should ultimately
pay $500 for the building. Thereupon
Josephine F. Grant of Cam bridge, daugh-
ter of William e. Greedy, formerly of
Portland and later of Boston, together
with others as heirs of William E. Greedy
came forward and claimed that one-third
of this sum belonged to them under an
old claim which Mr.. Greedy held ON the
church.
The old church was originally occu-
pied by the Methodists, but for some rea-
son that denomination gave it up. There
had been little trouble in the First Par
ish church about that time, and the Sec
ond Unitarian church was about being
established.
Then, in 1885, the Second Unitarian
Society was organized, and the land and
church now in question were conveyed
by Lemuel Gooding and others to Enoch
Paine, Charles Mussey, and Samuel Win
ter. In 1886 Paine and Mussey quit
claimed their two-thirds in common to
the Unitarian Society. But Samuel Win
ter, who became insolvent and demented
and finally drowned himself in the Ken
nebec river in September, 1885, did not
convey his third. 1t is this third that
has continued to make trouble for vari
Gus times for fifty years.
Winters third portion went into the
hands of his administrator, and in 1887
as result of equity proceedings in the
Maine Supreme court, the Second Uni
tartan Society acquired the right to take
the Winter third on payment of $1,000 to
his estate.
The church does not seem to have been
able or willing to pay this $1,000, although
William E. Greedy as member of the
parish committee apparently was com
missioned to buy the third.
But July 1st, 1874, Greedy did purchase
the third, not for $1,000, but for 1924
There is dispute as to the circumstances
of this purchase. On the side of the
church it was claimed that he made the
purchase as an agent of the church, and
was bound to turn it over for 1924. Gree
ly, on the other hand, did not admit this,
and demanded for the third, $1,000, the
full value, as acquired and held by Win
ter.
The church wouldn't pay this, and the
matter dragged along for two years.
When Greedy was about to remove to
Boston in 1916, he sold his third to the
church for 1924, with the condition in the
deed that if ever the society or their sue
cessors should be unable to use the same
for Unitarian church the deed should
be revoked and the property should re-
vert to himself or heirs. The language
of this condition was plain and explicit.
When the Presbyterians bought the
church, Mrs. Grant and others, as the
heirs of Greedy, now came forward and
claimed the third on the ground that the
conditions had been broken.
The society, on the other hand, claimed
filed if third of the purchase price
should be devoted to Unitarian purposes
E. M. Rand, Esq, appeared for Mrs
Grant, and Judge Symonds and Thomas
Talbot, Esq. for the Second Unitarian
Society.
The text of Judge Nelson's decision,
which is in favor of the society, is as
follows:
BY the decree OF the Supreme Judicial
Court of Maine, passed in 1887, in the
suit of the present plaintiff against the
administrators and heirs at law of Sam
uel Winter, it was declared that Winter
held the estate at his decease in trust for
the plalnLiU, ana Jne decree IuFuilef Oh
rected that All absolute conveyance of the
estate should be made by the defendant
in that suit to the plaintiff upon the re-
payment to the administrators of the
money discussed by Winter on account
of the trust. OF this decree William E.
Greedy, when ne took his deed from the
administrators in 1874, had not only the
constructive notice arising from the rec
ord of the decree itself, but he had actual
notice also, as shown by his being pew
holder and member of the society, and
by his interest in and his general nc
uuaintance with its affairs. 1t is appar-
cnt also for the sama reasons, and more
especially by his permitting the society
to occupy the estate as its own property
before his deed TO the society, that he
bought it for the ..society's benefit, and
with the expectation and understanding
on both sides that upon repayment of the
money advanced for its purchase he
would convey the estate to the society in
the execution and discharge Of the trust.
He held the title under the original
trust, and evidently intended SO to hold
it, and to stand in Winters place as
trustee. Having been paid the money
advanced with interest. and having &C