Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/285/285mass146.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:20:54+00:00

Document:
OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY, executor, vs. THIRD UNIVERSALIST SOCIETY OF CAMBRIDGE & another. H. W. HOGARTH-SWANN & another, executors, vs. THIRD UNIVERSALIST SOCIETY OF CAMBRIDGE & others.
Present: RUGG, C.J., CROSBY, PIERCE, FIELD, LUMMUS, JJ.
Mere nonuser by a religious corporation of its corporate powers works no forfeiture of them and does not operate as a surrender of its charter.
A general legacy in a will to a religious corporation, accurately described therein, should be paid to that corporation where it had not been dissolved and still continued to exist as such, although, previous to the death of the testator, it had conveyed all its property to a second religious corporation and had temporarily suspended the holding of religious services.
At a trial at which certain action by a religious corporation at a meeting thereof was involved, there was no error in excluding the record of what occurred at the meeting, there being no offer of proof to show that the meeting was called legally or that there were articles in the warrant therefor sufficient to direct the attention of the members of the corporation to the question of taking such action.
Votes by a religious corporation at a meeting, which indicated a sense of the meeting to close the church doors, to give up "active services," to transfer the real and personal property of the corporation to another religious corporation and to instruct certain officers "to take all necessary steps for the dissolution of the" corporation, did not extinguish the corporation nor affect its right to receive legacies given to it, there being nothing to show that any effective action with respect to dissolution had been taken pursuant to the votes.
rected payment of the legacy to another respondent, no error of law nor abuse of discretion appeared in a further provision of the decree ordering the appellant to pay to counsel for the second respondent a certain sum as costs and expenses.
TWO PETITIONS for instructions, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Middlesex on May 13, 1931, and December 17, 1931, by the executor of the will of Charles F. Shourds and by the executors of the will of Irving H. Niles, respectively.
the proper transfer of the property of the Society to the said Convention, the Trustees be, and they are hereby authorized and instructed to take all necessary steps for the dissolution of the Society."
The record was excluded, "it not appearing in any manner that the clerk of said meeting had been duly sworn to faithfully perform his duties as clerk." Said respondent then offered to show through the clerk pro tempore and others what took place at the meeting. This evidence was excluded.
On each petition, a decree was entered directing that the legacy in question therein be paid to the respondent Third Universalist Society of Cambridge, and making the provision for payment of costs and expenses described in the opinion. The respondent Massachusetts Universalist Convention appealed from each decree.
H. L. Burnham, stated the first case.
R. M. Robinson, stated the second case.
P. R. Ammidon, for Massachusetts Universalist Convention.
R. F. Barrett, for Third Universalist Society of Cambridge.
vention a bill of sale of all its personal property of every kind, nature and description owned by it, whether used in the church property or located elsewhere, and that it has temporarily suspended the holding of religious services. The society has not been dissolved but continues to exist as a corporation. There is nothing in the record to indicate that any steps have been taken toward the dissolution of the society.
1. There is no doubt about the identity of the legatee. The society is precisely and accurately described in each will. It continues to exist with full corporate powers. It has not been dissolved. It is capable of accepting such legacies as here are in question without overstepping the bounds of its corporate competency. Nonuser by the corporation of its corporate powers works no forfeiture of them and does not operate as a surrender of its charter. Essex Co. v. Commonwealth, 246 Mass. 242, 248. Opinion of the. Justices, 237 Mass. 619, 623. There is nothing in the record to impair the right of the society to receive the legacies. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Stratton, 259 Mass. 465, 475.
The purpose of the legacies does not appear to have failed. They are general in character and are not restricted to any special object. No question is raised on the record as to misappropriation of the legacies or failure to apply them to the general charitable uses implied by a gift to such a corporation as the society.
2. The convention offered the records of the society. There was no adequate offer to show what those records contain. In particular, there is nothing to show that the meeting of the society in question in January, 1929, was legally, called, or that there were articles in the warrant for the meeting sufficient in nature to direct the attention of the members of the society to the question whether the corporation should be dissolved. Meader v. West Newbury, 256 Mass. 37, 40. In the absence of adequate offer of proof, there was no error in excluding the records.
(see Stebbins v. Merritt, 10 Cush. 27) was admissible, it fails to show any impairment of right by the society to receive the legacies. The votes offered went no further than to indicate a sense of the meeting to close the church doors, to give up "active services," to transfer the real and personal property of the society to the convention, and to instruct the "Trustees" "to take all necessary steps for the dissolution of the Society." Votes of this nature do not extinguish the society nor weaken its right to receive legacies. Syrian Antiochean Church v. Ghize, 258 Mass. 74, 80-81. There is nothing to justify the conclusion that any effective action has been taken pursuant to the alleged votes.
Finally, each of the testators died subsequently to the proffered votes. The legacies were not then vested in the society, and cannot have been intended to have been within the purview of the votes. The right of the society to receive the legacies is not vitiated by the votes.
The case at bar is distinguishable from Easterbrooks v. Tillinghast, 5 Gray 17, where it does not appear that a corporation was involved, or anything more than a voluntary unincorporated association; and also from Stone v. Framingham, 109 Mass. 303, where, pursuant to a special legislative act accepted by the corporation, a dissolution was held to have been effectuated. The proffered evidence was excluded rightly and in any event its exclusion did the convention no harm.
are not commonly taxed against a losing party under our probate practice. Collis v. Walker, 272 Mass. 46, 49. The award of such costs generally rests in sound judicial discretion. In equity the general rule is that a report, Harris v. Mackintosh, 133 Mass. 228, 231, as well as an appeal, Wright v. Wright, 13 Allen 207, 209, Mulrey v. Carberry, 204 Mass. 378, 381, brings to this court for review questions of discretion. So far as costs in probate and equity !are in the discretion of the trial judge, the award or denial may be presumed to be right and ordinarily ought not to be disturbed. Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co. of New York, 265 U. S. 78, 82, 83. The case at bar is distinguishable also from cases like Barnes v. Springfield, 273 Mass. 283, 286, and cases cited, where the allowance of costs is placed by special statute in the discretion of the judge. We are not inclined to revise the action of the trial judge on this point. Boynton v. Tarbell, 272 Mass. 142, 146. See Donald Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. Pollak,  A. C. 732; Taylor v. Dowlen, L. R. 4 Ch. 697; Bew v. Bew,  2 Ch. 467. No such order is made as to the costs and expenses of this appeal.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.