Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-07-09

tue past Two or three days or last week,
camo 10 a close on saturday. when 1t
was submitted 10 Judge Morse Tor con-
sheraton Judge Zane for the plain
tins and Hon. r. s. Richards Of the de.
Tense. concluded as follows.
JUDGE ZANE.
IN Mormon Church VS.. United states,
supra. Mr. James %. Broadhcad ana
Mr. Franklin s. Richards. attorneys for
TIE Church. said In their brief "rhe
one distinguishing feature % this cor
poration is, that being corporation
founded for religious and charitable
purposes. 10 Was not founded for tho
profit Of the C0Tporators but for the ad-
min!suatlon Of charitable trusts" Ana
% The same effect were the statements
OF Mr. Joseph l.. Mcdonald and Nc
John VI. ButloC. also attorneys for the
plaintiffs Ia her bri,f IN the same case.
And ~ the same case the suprems
court OF the United States said, In rs
opinion I'm deed It Is implledly adj
mltied by the corporation itself IN It's
answer to the bin lil this case that the
law u charities exists In Utah. for II
expressly says that Il was al the time
Of IT. creation and ever since has been
and SIN Is a cooperation or association
for religious and charitable uses
And the intorvenors
IN their petition say: That the said
Church Of Jesus Christ OF Latter-day
Saints is and FOR many years last past.
has been voluntary religious society
or association, organized and existing
IN the Territory OF Utah" And I'm ths
United States vs.. Church. supra, Mr..
William n. Dickson. attorney for the
Mormon Church, said ln his brief. THAT
these donations were made upon tbs
understanding that the same were 10 be
applied 10 the religious and charitable
uaes and purposes OF said Church BIZ or
under the direction NJ the president or
head OF said Church and hts two coun-
selors Since the dissolution
of the corporation is members have
existed ~ a voluntary religious asso-
citation known as the Church Of Jesus
Christ n Latter-day Saints"
In The last named case the court
found IN its opinion. AZ page $40:
II appears from the evidence before
Us that the contributions to the fund
~ controversy were made with the I'M
uersiandiug that they should be applied
70 church purposes. but that II wa.
optional with tho first presidency 10
which object. and n 20 more than on.
the amount 10 each that II
Ehonld he vested IN a trustee selected
oy the court 10 be devoted
exclusively 70 tho support and AID M
the poor Of the Church and 10 the bulld.
ing ana repairing OF rs houses n wor-
sl1p."
VII.
While 70 WAS neither a corporatlon
or partnership, IN order TO pass m.
on itf powers as well rs those of its
mtmbers both the law Of corporations
ana the law Of co-partnerships are 10
be resorted 20 In the absence OF statu.
tory regulations, the choice being do.
tefmined by the nature ~ the feature
Under consideration"
ostrem vs. Greene lsi y. y. DIP. $50
and 36i. W.
VII
where property ia held IN trust for
Inc bonent OF particular religious do
nomination, the dissolution OF The legal
corporation can in no wise affect M.
trust so long A. the religious denornina-
ION has an eXistence-for Il is 10 II ana
no' 70 the coFporators that the use be-
longs
calkins e al vs.. Cheney ct al. % H.
l.nois, D. AZ.
IN.
When a corporation is not Organized
10 purchase land as IN the religious and
educational corporation ETC sThe
purchase OF land not needed IN its
business for the mere purpose of
holding and selling q again. is ultra
wires. Nor can such q corporation
purchase for any other purpose that
does not tend directly 10 carry out its
own legitimate objects"
Z American & Eng. Ency Of Law. p.
slg '' D.
IN the absence ~ express charter or
statutory limitations a corporation is
ilintea, hy the rule that il cannot
acquire property for a purpose foreign
10 me object Tor which e was Great.
ca" ID, .. ne.
y
IT Is well settled that no majority.
however large, can lawfully engage the
hrm against the Will Of even one dis
hehting partner in matters which il
was never intended that the firm
should concern Itself Thus the major
ny cannot alter me principle upon
when piohis are 10 Doe dealt with. nor
engage the firm DOB a different business
nor generally make any change I'M mat
iefs provided Tor by the articles OF
partnership"
p Am, 8 Eng Ency OF Law. pp. iss
and 100.
judge Zane added an erterasd
speech on this bTIef which was rather
IN The nature 81 platform address 10
the public than legal argument no.
fore a court Occasionally however
he touched on me law In relation to
matters that he claimed were gcrnane
10 the question "a Issue. Tie said.
Corporations are always limited IN
certain objects and PURPOSES and to
that purpose the business Of the cor
poration must yield Take o. Tor in-
stance In the case Of partnershsip.
Among the thousands OF decisions man
have been rendered Cniolnng members
IN partnership from trarscerdiue
Their powers and holding them 40 the
purpose ot abe partnership. YOU applv
either hy analogy The principles of
corporation or partnership nay be- 4r.
piled 90 itis church and it is limited 10
church purposes and DO other Here
u on association under the guise OF
religion. engaging iu 400 kinds of bust.
ness. a.l kinds OF speculation All Kinds
Of tradt and traffic Taking that prime
tlple ilai N1u W1N In determining the
powers az the duties OF this trustee
sou may consider the rules that appiy
90 corporations and Che rules that ap.
oily Co partnership as % may seem most
approrliate they are stU Nmited
NF friend W0lt dispute That the
Church is really rn association. but be
sals thai noinuhsiaudiug BE- u.s. n relic-
loue association. 90 NAV ro outside srd
engage .n other purposes than reiir.
louE a corporation NAV be- dissolved
church survives thr mcmbcrehip
survives and they Efll ere co-onerst.
lng 90 carry ont che purpose of nat
thuuh Do wo~shIpinr according m he
oo.irine and disseminating be priu.
sIrffE fn AID fnr.nnu