Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/240/240mass55.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 19:56:13+00:00

Document:
HERBERT W. EUSTACE & others, trustees vs. ADAM H. DICKEY & others, trustees, & others.
While an omission by the donor in a trust deed to express his intention as to who should control or terminate the term of office of a trustee in certain circumstances that might arise cannot be supplied by conjecture, if a reading of the trust instrument as a whole produces a conviction that, in those circumstances, a power of removal, which was not expressed by formal words, must have been intended to have been given to a certain board other than the trustees, the defect must be supplied by implication and the language of the instrument must be so moulded as to carry into effect the intention which is determined to have been sufficiently declared by the instrument as a whole.
(23) It appearing that four of the five members of the Christian Science Board of Directors were present when the vote of removal of the trustee was adopted, and that three voted therefor, and that the vote was sufficient in form, the vote was valid.
(3) In the suggestion filed by the Attorney General there was involved no question either under the Constitution of the Commonwealth or under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
Certain individual members of "The First Church of Christ, Scientist, of Boston, Massachusetts," who were not parties in the suit above described, thirty-one days after the filing of the master's report filed a petition, on behalf of themselves and of such other members as might elect to come in, for leave to file exceptions based upon certain objections which had been duly filed with the master by the defendants, but as to which the defendants had not filed exceptions within the time allowed by Equity Rules 31 and 32. About six months later and two months after the suit had been reserved for determination by this court, the same parties filed also a petition for leave to intervene and to file the same exceptions. Both petitions were denied, Held, that the petitions properly were denied, both as a matter of right and as a matter of discretion, and that in the circumstances the petitioners had no right of appeal.
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court on March 25, 1919, and afterwards amended, by Herbert W. Eustace, David B. Ogden and Lamont Rowlands, alleged therein to be trustees under a deed of Mary Baker G. Eddy dated January 25, 1898, constituting a trust to be carried on under the unincorporated name, "The Christian Science Publishing Society," against Adam H. Dickey, James A. Neal, Edward A. Merritt and William R. Rathvon, alleged to be trustees under a deed of trust by Mary Baker G. Eddy dated September 1, 1892, and an amendatory deed of March 19, 1903, and also to be directors of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, and also against John V. Dittemore and Annie M. Knott, each of whom, the plaintiffs alleged, claimed "to hold the position and office of Trustee and Director in association with the other defendants." The substance of the prayers of the bill was that a resolution adopted by the defendant directors on March 18, 1919, purporting to remove the plaintiff Rowlands as trustee of The Christian Science Publishing Society and to declare the trusteeship vacant, be adjudged nugatory and of no legal effect, and that the defendants be restrained from committing acts in conformity with such resolution.
The defendant Dittemore filed a separate answer, in which he alleged in substance that the removal of all of the plaintiff trustees was warranted by their conduct; that, if the defendant directors technically did not have power so to do, the court should do so; and he left it to the court to decide whether the dismissal of the plaintiff Rowlands, as done by resolution of the other defendants, was effectual. He further alleged that the other directors illegally and without warrant had removed him, Dittemore, from office as a director and had elected the defendant Knott in his stead. The other defendants joined in an answer, denying such allegations of the bill as asserted that their action in removing the plaintiff Rowlands as a trustee was without power or warrant and alleging the contrary.
"1. Said trustees shall hold and manage said property and property rights exclusively for the purpose of carrying on the business, which has been heretofore conducted by the said Christian Science Publishing Society, in promoting the interests of Christian Science; and the principal place of business shall be in said Boston.
"3. Said trustees shall energetically and judiciously manage the business of the Publishing Society on a strictly Christian basis, and upon their own responsibility, and without consulting me about details, subject only to my supervision, if I shall at any time elect to advise or direct them.
and other documents or writings obligatory of every kind and nature for safe keeping; also all surplus funds over and above the sum necessary to defray the running expenses of the business, until the same shall be paid over to the Church Treasurer, as herein provided. No papers or monies shall be taken from said Bank or Trust Company excepting by and in the presence of a majority of said Trustees. Once in every six months the trustees shall account for and pay over to the treasurer of 'The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass.,' the entire net profits of said business. The 'net profits' shall be understood to mean the balance remaining at the end of each six months after paying the usual and legitimate expenses incurred in conducting the business. No authority is intended to be conferred upon the trustees to expend the mono.), of the trust for property not necessary for the immediate successful prosecution of the business, or to invest the same for purpose of speculation, or to incur liabilities beyond their ability to liquidate promptly from the current income of the business. Said treasurer shall hold the money so paid over to him subject to the order of 'The First Members, of said Church, who are authorized to order its disposition only in accordance with the rules and by-laws contained in the Manual of said Church.
"5. The business manager shall present to the Trustees, at the end of each month, a full and correct statement of the receipts and expenditures of the month.
"6. Said Trustees shall employ all the help necessary to the proper conduct of said business, and shall discharge the same in their discretion or according to the needs of the business, excepting that the business manager may call in at times of necessity such temporary help as will facilitate the business.
"7. The Trustees shall employ such number of persons as they may deem necessary to prepare Bible Lessons or Lesson Sermons to be read in the Christian Science churches, the same to be published Quarterly as has heretofore been done by and in the name of the Christian Science Quarterly; and they may, in their discretion, change the name or style of such Quarterly publication as occasion may demand. They shall also fix the compensation of the persons so selected.
publication of said Quarterly, and also of all pamphlets, tracts, and other literature pertaining to said business, using their best judgment as to the means of preparing and issuing the same, so as to promote the best interests of the Cause, reserving the right to make such changes as I may think important.
"10. Whenever a vacancy shall occur in said trusteeship for any cause, I reserve the right to fill the same by appointment, if I shall so desire, so long as I may live; but if I do not elect to exercise this right, the remaining trustees shall fill said vacancy. The First Members together with the directors of said Church shall have the power to declare vacancies in said trusteeship for such reasons as to them may seem expedient.
"11. I also reserve the right to withdraw from said trust, if I shall so desire, the publication of the Christian Science Journal, but if I do not exercise this reserved option, then said Journal shall remain a part of the trust property forever.
"12. Upon my decease, in consideration aforesaid " I sell and convey to said trustees my copyright of 'The Christian Science Journal,' to be held by them as the other property of said trust.
"13. Said trustees shall each receive annually one thousand dollars for their services in that capacity, payable semiannually in payments of five hundred dollars, or such salary as the said Church may determine from time to time.
"14. The delivery of this instrument to, and its acceptance by, said trustees shall be regarded as the full establishment of the trust and as the agreement by the trustees to honestly and faithfully do and perform all things to be done and performed by them within the terms, objects and purposes of this instrument."
The suit was referred to a master " to hear the parties and their evidence, to find the facts, and report the same to the court."
It appeared from the master's report that on April 29, 1919, John V. Dittemore brought a bill in equity against the other five defendants in this suit, which was ordered by the court to be referred to the same master and to be heard with this suit.
As to that suit, the master reported: "Much of the evidence at the hearings was offered in both cases. This is dealt with in the present report, in its relation to the issues raised by the pleadings in [this suit of Eustace v. Dickey]. It is understood that further evidence remains to be heard in the case [Dittemore v. Dickey] should the parties so desire, upon such of the issues raised therein as may remain open after the determination of those raised in the present case."
The master's conclusions were, in substance, "that Rowlands' removal was not lawfully effected by the ... resolution adopted on March 17, 1919; and that he is still a trustee under Mrs. Eddy's deed of January 25, 1898, notwithstanding said resolution." Against the objection of all the defendants except Dittemore, and subject to their exception," he also "ruled that the issue whether or not Dittemore was a director when the bill was filed was an issue of fact upon which the master was " to pass in the present case; and on this subject he found, as a conclusion from other facts reported by him, "that not only was the vote purporting to dismiss Dittemore ineffectual for the purpose of removing him from his trusteeship under Mrs. Eddy's deed of September 1, 1892; but that it was also ineffectual for the purpose of dismissing him as a member of the board of five directors, authorized since 1903, by the by-laws and the acquiescence therein of the church membership, to perform functions other than those belonging to the trustees under said deed. It follows that no vacancy was created by said vote, and that Mrs. Knott did not lawfully become either a trustee under said deed or a member of said board of directors in Dittemore's place."
Other material facts found by the master and contentions raised by the defendants by exceptions to the report are described in the opinion.
The master gave notice to counsel of the preparation of his draft report on December 20, 1919. The defendants other than Dittemore moved before the master and on February 14, 1920, before Crosby, J., that the master hear all the evidence relating to the issue as to Dittemore's holding of office before filing his report. The motion was denied on March 1, 1920; and the defendants other than Dittemore appealed therefrom.
On March 1, 1920, Emelie B. Hulin of the city and State of New York "in behalf of herself and all other members of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, of Boston, known as The Mother Church, in good standing, and all members of Christian Science churches and associations and all other Christian Scientists," moved "to intervene," seeking an adjudication as to whether the directors had power to remove the plaintiff trustees, and, if they had no such power, that the court should remove the trustees. The motion was heard by De Courcy, J., and was denied; and the petitioners alleged exceptions. These exceptions afterwards were waived at the argument before this court.
Until March 25, 1920, and "were not advised of their refusal to do so until April 1, 1920," presented a petition for leave to file the motion to recommit and the exceptions above described, referred to a bill in equity brought by them on March 31, 1920, against the Attorney General and others (see post, 88), and also moved that the report of the master be recommitted and that " the further consideration of the exceptions on file herein be postponed until" their suit against the Attorney General and others " is ready for final decree." This petition was heard by Pierce, J., and by his order on April 9, 1920, an interlocutory decree was entered denying it, from which the petitioners appealed on April 27.
On August 16, 1920, by Pierce, J., this suit was " reserved and reported for determination by the full court on the pleadings, the master's report, and the defendants' exceptions thereto; and at the further request of all parties" he "caused to be printed and sent up with this reservation the appeal from the order denying the motion of the defendants other than Dittemore to direct the master to hear further evidence before filing any report, it being the only other outstanding interlocutory matter."
On October 20, 1920, Daisy Lovering Krauthoff and Edwin A. Krauthoff, acting in the same capacities as previously, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk a petition for leave "to become parties to this suit with leave to take such steps therein as the court may allow, and especially" for "leave upon being made such parties to refile the several motions and exceptions hereinbefore filed by" them "with the clerk of this court in this cause." The petition was heard by Pierce, J., and by his order an interlocutory decree was entered denying it. The petitioners appealed.
J. L. Bates, (L. M. Abbott, W. A. Dane, C. P. Smith & R. E. Buffum with him,) for the Christian Science Board of Directors.
W. G. Thompson, (F. S. Streeter of New Hampshire, F. C. Demond & G. E. Mears with him,) for Dittemore.
C. E. Hughes of New York, (S. L. Whipple, L. Withington, S. H. Strawn & R. H. Hollen with him,) for the plaintiffs.
E. A. Krauthoff & D. L. Krauthoff, pro se.
J. W. Allen, Attorney General, & C. F. Choate, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General, (E. H. Abbot, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, with them,) for the Attorney General.
RUGG, C. J. This is a suit in equity. The plaintiffs are three persons, who by succession are trustees under a deed of trust executed by Mary Baker G. Eddy, the founder of " Christian Science" so called, as donor, on January 25, 1898, to three persons therein named as trustees. The defendants are four persons alleged to be trustees under another deed of trust executed by Mrs. Eddy dated September 1, 1892, and also to be Directors of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, and two other persons, each alleged to be claiming to be a trustee and director in association with the other four. The basic question is whether the defendants have power to remove one of the plaintiffs from the position of trustee.
The answer to that question depends upon the true interpretation of these deeds of trust executed by Mrs. Eddy and whatever other matters rightly may be considered in ascertaining their meaning.
The deed of Mrs. Eddy of January 25, 1898, whereby were created the trusts hitherto administered by the plaintiffs, hereinafter called the trust deed, related wholly to personal property. The declared object of that trust, recited in the early part of the trust deed, is "for the purpose of more effectually promoting and extending the religion of Christian Science as taught by me." It transferred title to certain goods and chattels connected with the publishing business conducted for the promotion of the interests of Christian Science, which theretofore had been carried on by a corporation called The Christian Science Publishing Society. The grantees were three individuals, who accepted the transfer upon the trusts set forth in the deed. These are stated in paragraphs numbered from 1 to 14, both inclusive. The first of these requires the trustees to use the property exclusively for carrying on the business, which had been conducted by The Christian Science Publishing Society, "in promoting the interests of Christian Science." Among these trusts were provisions to the effect that the trustees should energetically and judiciously manage the publishing business under the unincorporated name of "The Christian Science Publishing Society" on a strictly Christian basis and "upon their own responsibility, and without consulting me [Mrs. Eddy] about details, subject only to my supervision, if I shall at any time elect to advise or direct them,"
should account for and pay over the profits of the business every six months to the treasurer of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, subject to the order of "The First Members" of said church, who were empowered to make the final disposition "only in accordance with the rules and bylaws contained in the Manual of said Church," and should employ and fix compensation of necessary help, assistance and persons to conduct the business and "to prepare Bible Lessons or Lesson Sermons to be read in the Christian Science churches. " The annual compensation of the trustees was to be $1,000 each "or such salary as the said Church may determine from time to time." The trustees were required at all times to be "loyal, faithful, and consistent believers and advocates of the principles of Christian Science as taught by me in my book." Clause 8 of the trust deed is in these words: "Said Trustees shall have direction and supervision of the publication of said Quarterly, and also of all pamphlets, tracts, and other literature pertaining to said business, using their best judgment as to the means of preparing and issuing the same, so as to promote the best interests of the Cause, reserving the right to make such changes as I may think important." In clause 10 of the trust deed, it is provided that vacancies among, the trustees should be filled by the donor, if she so elected, otherwise by the remaining trustees, and that "The First Members together with the directors of said Church shall have the power to declare vacancies in said trusteeship for such reasons as to them may seem expedient."
cordance with section one, Chapter 39 of the Public Statutes of Massachusetts." The master has found that the grantees never organized themselves as a corporation and never became such by virtue of their duties or similarity to deacons and wardens. The mere declaration of the grantor could not make them a corporation.
The directors were required, upon the completion of the church building, to " elect a pastor, reader or speaker to fill the pulpit who shall be a genuine Christian Scientist," to maintain public worship in accordance with the doctrines of Christian Science in said church, and to that end they were " fully empowered to make any and all necessary rules and regulations." The directors were enjoined not to allow in the church building any preaching or other religious services not consonant and in strict harmony with the doctrines and practice of Christian Science as taught and explained by Mrs. Eddy. The directors also were required to maintain regular preaching, reading or speaking in the church on each Sabbath and to rebuild the church under conditions named. The number of directors named in the deed of September 1, 1892, was four. In addition to the duties imposed on them by that deed, they have exercised other powers and performed additional functions, assigned to them by the Church Manual, all of a highly important nature and covering a wide field. There was no rule fixing their number until February, 1903, when a by-law was adopted, which has since continued in force, establishing their number at five. By the name " Christian Science Board of Directors" originally the four persons named as trustees by the deed of September 1, 1892, were described. As often, if not universally, used thereafter in the Church Manual, that name designates the board of five exercising powers and performing functions not derived from the deed but from the Church Manual.
voted to be " First Members of the First Church of Christ, Scientist." Others designated as "First Members" were added from time to time by vote of "First Members." The voting power in the church always has been confined according to its polity to "First Members." Members of the church had no voting power. The First Church of Christ, Scientist, at the instance of the founder first adopted rules and by-laws in 1895. These were radically changed from time to time during the life of Mrs. Eddy and many different editions of them called the "Church Manual" have been published. In every edition the names of the Christian Science Board of Directors have been printed under the caption "Church Officers" together with the names of other officers of the church. This is true of those editions issued before January 25, 1898. At that time important functions of the church, such as the election of all officers, the appointment of missionaries, the appointment and removal of readers of the church to conduct its services, amongst others, were vested in the board of directors by the Church Manual. Although it was not until 1908 that a by-law of the church expressly included a board of directors among the officers, it always has been provided by a by-law that all officers of the church should be elected by the board of directors.
The provisions respecting First Members in force at the time of the trust deed of January 25, 1898, were that their regular meetings were to be held semiannually, that they should vote on the admission of candidates and attend to the transaction of any church business that properly might come before them. Their number should not be permitted to fall below forty and seven constituted a quorum. It was provided in the Church Manual of 1898 that the number of "First Members" should not exceed fifty, and in several subsequent editions one hundred was fixed as the maximum number.
the entire church membership without objection, and has so continued to be observed until the present. Almost immediately after the adoption of this by-law, at Mrs. Eddy's request or with her approval, a by-law, to the effect that vacancies among the trustees of the Christian Science Publishing Society (the trustees created by the trust deed of January 25, 1898) might be declared by the First Members and the directors, was changed so as to vest that power exclusively in the Christian Science Board of Directors. Every by-law or amendment since adopted was transmitted by Mrs. Eddy to the Board of Directors alone, by whom it was adopted. It is manifest that this procedure had the approval of Mrs. Eddy. After January, 1901, the First Members never undertook to transact any business of the church and no new First Members were elected. In 1903, a by-law was adopted by the Board of Directors changing the name of "First Members" to "Executive Members" and in 1908, another by-law was adopted repealing all provisions concerning Executive Members and providing that " there being no further necessity for their organization, they shall be and hereby are disbanded." This occurred about two years before the passing on of Mrs. Eddy, and was approved, if not originated, by her. There has been no objection nor protest to this. No meetings of First or Executive members have been held since that time. There has been continuous acquiescence in the binding force of this by-law by the entire membership of the church. All by-laws and provisions of the Church Manual were adopted during the life of Mrs. Eddy and substantially every one was suggested or proposed for adoption by her. So far as concerns the government of the church, treating it as an ecclesiastical organization, the First Members, who alone had voting power, have been abolished and have ceased to exist and the entire management has passed into the bands of the directors, a self-perpetuating body, all this at the suggestion and with the approval of Mrs. Eddy.
Manual shall not be revised without the written consent of its author." Since the Church Manual on its face purports to be the work of Mrs. Eddy as author and the master has found it to be proved that substantially all its provisions were suggested or proposed by her, it is apparent that there can now, since the decease of Mrs. Eddy, be no change in the provisions of the Church Manual in accordance with its terms.
The trust deed made provision for the removal of a trustee by the concurrent action of the "First Members" and the directors of the church. That is the effect of the clause conferring upon them "the power to declare vacancies in said trusteeship for such reasons as to them may seem expedient." In this context, the power to declare a vacancy is the equivalent of the power of removal.
The precise question to be decided is whether under these circumstances one of the trustees can be removed by the board of directors, since the "First Members" have been deprived of all ecclesiastical power and have been disbanded in accordance with the polity of the church.
Every instrument in writing, although it cannot be varied or controlled by extrinsic evidence, must be interpreted with a view to all the material circumstances of the parties at the time of its execution, in the light of the pertinent facts within the knowledge of those who signed it and in such manner as to give effect to the main end designed to be accomplished by the instrument. Best v. Berry, 189 Mass. 510. Polsey v. Newton, 199 Mass. 450. Simonds v. Simonds, 199 Mass. 552. Cotting v. Boston, 201 Mass. 97. Bullard v. Leach, 213 Mass. 117. Tax Commissioner v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 523, 524. Attorney General v. Methuen, 236 Mass. 564, 573. It is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of trust instruments that they are to be so construed as to give effect to the intent of the founder of the trust as manifested by the words used in the light of all the surrounding facts, unless inconsistent with some rule of law or repugnant to the terms of the instrument. McCurdy v. McCallum, 186 Mass. 464, 469. Ware v. Minot, 202 Mass. 512. Taft v. Stearns, 234 Mass. 273, 277. The decision of the question concerning any trust instrument depends upon the intention of the founder as manifested by the words used. An omission to express an intention cannot be supplied by conjecture.
But if a reading of the whole trust instrument produces a conviction that a particular interest or power must have been intended to have been given not expressed by formal words, the court must supply the defect by implication, and so mould the language of the founder of the trust as to carry into effect the intention which it is of opinion has by the instrument as a whole been sufficiently declared. This principle has been chiefly invoked in the interpretation of wills but is equally applicable to a trust deed like that here involved. Metcalf v. Framingham Parish, 128 Mass. 370, 374. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Coffin, 152 Mass. 95, 100. Sanger v. Bourke, 209 Mass. 481, 486. Tibbetts v. Tomkimon, 217 Mass. 244, 252. Lamb v. Jordan, 233 Mass. 335, 340.
The trust deed now under consideration must be construed and interpreted according to these principles. The avowed purpose of the trust deed of January 25, 1898, was for " more effectually promoting and extending the religion of Christian Science." The business of publishing was to be conducted " in promoting the interests of Christian Science." The profits derived from that business were to be paid to the treasurer of the church who was authorized to dispose of it only in accordance with the manual of the church. Preparation of religious publications is the chief business of the trustees.
It is manifest from the structure of the trust deed as well as from its express words that the single and only design of the founder was to promote and extend the religion of Christian Science as taught by Mrs. Eddy. Every part of the trust deed re-enforces and makes even more plain the avowed purpose of Mrs. Eddy that her sole and completely dominating aim in establishing the trust was to promote and extend the religion of Christian Science as taught by her. The administration of the trust must continue to be directed exclusively to the accomplishment of that object alone.
the grantees and the performance by them of the trust thereby established was an executed trust. It must be construed and applied according to its terms. Crawford v. Nies, 224 Mass. 474. Eliot v. Trinity Church, 232 Mass. 517.
The clause at the end of paragraph eight which conferred upon the trustees direction and supervision of the publication of the Quarterly and all tracts and pamphlets, "reserving the right to make such changes as I may think important," is not a reservation of a general or special power of revocation of the trust itself or of any of its terms or provisions. The context shows that that clause refers only to the direction and supervision of the trustees over publications. Its scope and force are confined to the particular subject matter of that paragraph. It vested in the donor the right of modifying and altering the publications to be issued "to promote the best interests of the Cause." The power there retained concerned the publications and did not extend to the whole frame of the trust.
cise the functions vested in "First Members" under paragraph four of the trust deed.
The meaning of the words " First Members" in this connection is a significant aid in determining the meaning of the same words upon their second occurrence in paragraph ten of the trust deed. It is a well recognized principle of interpretation that the same words used in different places in the same instrument commonly have the same meaning and effect unless another meaning is demanded by the context. Hall v. Hall, 209 Mass. 350, 353. Attorney General v. Armstrong, 231 Mass. 196, 211. Raymer v. Tax Commissioner, 239 Mass. 410.
The second occurrence of the words "First Members" in the trust deed is in paragraph ten. The sentence there is "The First Members together with the directors of said Church shall have the power to declare vacancies in said trusteeship for such reasons as to them may seem expedient." The precise point is whether the power of removal is gone if there are no longer any "First Members." Although the trustees under the trust deed were given extensive powers concerning the publication of the so called literature of the church, nevertheless they were not the final arbiters concerning these matters, because they might be removed from office by other church authorities "for such reasons" as to such other church authorities "may seem expedient." The soundness of the reasons for such removal is not made subject to review or revision by any other church tribunal, body or officer. The expediency of the reasons moving to that action are left by the deed wholly to the church authorities therein named. No discussion is needed to demonstrate that this power of removal was comprehensive, drastic and final. It is an important feature of the trust deed.
clothed with extensive powers concerning its management. Its manual appears to be a vital part of Christian Science. The presumption is inevitable that all the parties to the trust deed of January 25, 1898, intended that the power of removal should be vested in the responsible representatives of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, however they might be described or denominated, provided they succeeded to the powers and exercised the functions of First Members and directors. The inference is irresistible that they had in mind the mutability of the names and functions of church officers and intended that the power of removal should vest in such representatives of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, as might from time to time exercise according to the government of that church the functions and possess the powers of those named in the trust deed as having the power of removal. The vote of the First Members of January 10, 1901, embodied in a by-law to the effect that the business of the church theretofore transacted by them be done in the future by the directors, was not an attempt to delegate the trust power to participate in the removal of a trustee vested in them by the deed of January 25, 1898. It did not stand alone. It was a part of a large transaction. It was one step in the process of change according to the polity of the church whereby "First Members" were abolished and their duties and authorities vested in the directors.
reasons as to them may seem expedient" imposed a continuing duty to maintain a certain intimacy of knowledge as to the work of the trustees in order to be able constantly to act intelligently. It was a power coupled with a trust. The obligation rested upon them to cause the provisions of the trust deed to be executed in accordance with its terms and the intent and purpose of the donor there expressed to be administered faithfully. This duty was given to the donees of the power by virtue of their respective positions in the church. In a sense this position was kindred to that of trustees clothed with a power coupled with an interest, in the survivors of whom the authority continues for the purpose of effectuating the object of the power. Gould v. Mather, 104 Mass. 283, 286. Parker v. Sears, 117 Mass. 513. Chandler v. Rider, 102 Mass. 268. Coffin v. Attorney General, 231 Mass. 579. Wilson v. Snow, 228 U. S. 217.
These circumstances distinguish the case at bar from Boston v. Doyle, 184 Mass. 373. In that case the holders of certain public offices had been designated in a trust instrument as members of a board of managers of a trust fund, and the offices thereafter were abolished and other offices created whose incumbents succeeded in most particulars to the same public duties. It was held that it became the duty of the court to appoint managers to take the places of those holding the original offices and designated by the donor as the board of managers.
directors. Votes and by-laws to that end were accepted with entire unanimity at the time and there has been unbroken acquiescence in their regularity for many years. The "First Members have not become incapable of participation in the exercise of the power of removal of trustees merely as the result of their own act. The governing power of the church at the suggestion or with the approval of Mrs. Eddy has brought about their elimination in connection with removals, because substantially all their power has been transferred to the directors. That has been accomplished by ecclesiastical methods accepted without question by all the church. It is a matter as to which the action of the church according to its rules is final. So far as concerns the power of removal of a trustee under the trust deed of January 25, 1898, the organization of the church in accordance with its polity has consolidated those powers, previously shared by the " First Members " and the directors in concurrence, and placed them wholly in the directors. Interpreting the words of the trust deed according to their true meaning, we are of opinion that the power of removal thereby survived and became vested in the board of directors. It exists in them by virtue of their office and the trust reposed in them by the deed of January 25, 1898, and the duties placed upon them by the church itself. Carter v. Papineau, 222 Mass. 464. Attorney General v. Armstrong, 231 Mass. 196.
of the master that they never became a corporation is accepted.
The result is that the board of five directors have the power, if they act in accordance with law and with the terms of the trust deed of January 25, 1898, to effect the removal of a trustee under that deed.
The conclusion that the power of removal of a trustee is now vested in the board of five directors is contrary to that of the master, but it is in substance and effect the application of different legal principles to the facts found by the master. The facts found by him are accepted in their entirety. The result which has been stated follows in law from those facts.
extent the trustees were required to heed the provisions of the Church Manual. Into the details of that controversy, it is not necessary to enter. Out of it has grown the present litigation. The finding of the master is that "I am unable to hold either that the final authority claimed by the Directors is so clearly established by the deed itself and the provisions of the Manual that no reasonable denial of it was possible, - or that the Directors' determination that they had such final authority was conclusive upon the trustees. Whatever the right conclusion may be upon the question whether such final authority belonged to the Directors or not, it was by no means a question regarding which no honest difference of opinion was possible." This is another way of saying that an honest difference of opinion was possible. Therefore if the directors were honest in their view, they cannot be said to be without authority to decide that it was expedient with reference to the welfare of the trust to remove one of the trustees.
exercise of good faith and an honest judgment or to have been arbitrary and lacking in the ordinary elements of fairness. Proctor v. Heyer, 122 Mass. 525, 529. Grosvenor v. United Society of Believers, 118 Mass. 78, 91. Leverett v. Barnwell, 214 Mass. 105, 108. Richards v. Morison, 229 Mass. 458, 461. This does not necessarily imply that a formal hearing must be had before removal. O'Dowd v. Boston, 149 Mass. 443. Attorney General v. Donahue, 169 Mass. 18, 22. Sims v. Police Commissioner for Boston, 193 Mass. 547, 549. Circumstance may be conceived to exist, which would render a hearing futile. Nevertheless a hearing ordinarily is important to the decision of such a question. Burgess v. Mayor & Aldermen of Brockton, 235 Mass. 95, and cases collected at page 100. Smyth v. Phillips Academy, 154 Mass. 551, 557. Gray v. Christian. Society, 137 Mass. 329, 331.
It hardly can be held to be a capricious or arbitrary exercise of power for the directors to determine that, because a radical difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the Church Manual existed between them and the trustees, the welfare of the trust required the removal of one of the trustees. It is not for us to pass upon the wisdom of such action. The only question is whether it was arbitrary and capricious and not in good faith. One of the grounds stated in the resolution of removal was that Mr. Rowlands did not recognize the importance of "promoting the interests of Christian Science by following the directions given by Mrs. Eddy in our Church By Laws" and had shown a disposition to pervert their meaning and annul their effect.
all. The last sentence of this finding to the effect that the directors honestly believed they were acting within their power and honestly believed their reasons to be sufficient is inconsistent with bad faith or fraud in its common acceptation. This is a finding of good faith on the part of the directors as to all the reasons stated except the one for failure to devote time enough to the business.
It is not a finding that the other reasons given were tainted or affected by the one as to failure of Mr. Rowlands to devote time enough to the business. Those other reasons honestly assigned were such as, within the power vested in the directors, warranted them in making a removal. It is their honest judgment upon the question of expediency in this regard which must prevail and not that of any other body or magistrate.
The circumstance that no formal hearing was held is not decisive against the validity of the removal. While ordinarily one, whose conduct is called in question, ought to be given an opportunity to be heard in his own defence, it is apparent that the long controversy between the trustees and the directors had brought out clearly the points of difference between them. The grounds of removal, on which the action of the directors can stand, had been in substance fully debated orally and in writing and Mr. Rowlands bad stated his point of view forcibly and at length.
A majority of the directors were present at the meeting and voted for the removal. That was sufficient in form to effect a removal. A unanimous vote was not required.
The result is that, upon the application of the principles of the law to the facts found by the master, the removal of Mr. Rowlands as one of the trustees was effected.
cise of judicial discretion he ought to be permitted to become a party. Those questions were raised by his petition to intervene and, having been decided adversely to his contention without preservation of any right of review, cannot now be considered.
The court has taken jurisdiction of numerous cases, indistinguishable in this particular from the case at bar, to which the Attorney General was not a party. Cary Library v. Bliss, 151 Mass. 364. Morville v. Fowle, 144 Mass. 109. Teele v. Bishop of Derry, 168 Mass. 341. Worcester City Missionary Society v. Memorial Church, 186 Mass. 531. Codman v. Brigham, 187 Mass. 309. Hubbard v. Worcester Art Museum, 194 Mass. 280. Ware v. Fitchburg, 200 Mass. 61. Crawford v. Nies, 220 Mass. 61; S. C. 224 Mass. 474. First African Methodist Episcopal Society v.Worthy, 232 Mass. 331. It is the duty of the court of its own motion to examine its jurisdiction before proceeding to any decision. Eaton v. Eaton, 233 Mass. 351, 364, and authorities there collected. It is hardly to be thought that so many cases arising over so long a period of time could have been decided inadvertently. These adjudications without joining the Attorney General as a party are almost conclusive of the jurisdiction of the court even though the point has not been discussed.
The issue here to be settled (as has been already stated) is whether one of the trustees under the deed of January 25, 1898, can be and has been removed by the directors. The public interests must be directly and essentially, rather than remotely and accidentally, involved as to some distinct issue in order to prevent the cause from proceeding to a decision without the presence of the Attorney General as a party. Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen 539, 579. McKenzie v. Trustees of Presbytery of Jersey City, 1 Rob. (N. J.) 652, 683 to 686. Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway v. Wilson,  A. C. 358.
Whether the power of removal of one of the trustees has been exercised according to law is a matter of direct interest to the parties to the present proceeding. The absence of the Attorney General does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to proceed to a final determination on the merits of the issues raised between the immediate parties. Such decision will not directly pass upon interests of which the Attorney General in his official capacity is the representative.
No question is involved in this suggestion of the Attorney General either under the Constitution of this Commonwealth or under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Cases like Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U. S. 189, and McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U. S. 90, plainly depend upon a principle different from that here raised.
On April 6, 1920, after the filing of the master's report, Daisy L. Krauthoff and Edwin A. Krauthoff petitioned, in behalf of themselves and such other members of "The First Church of Christ, Scientist," as might elect to come in, for leave to file exceptions to the master's report, a motion to recommit to the master and a motion to postpone. They sought to except to the report on objections filed but omitted from exceptions by the defendants. A decree was entered denying this petition and the petitioners claimed an appeal. The petitioners were not parties to the proceeding and therefore had no standing to present such a motion. The master's report was filed on March 6, 1920. The time allowed by Equity Rules 31 and 32 for filing exceptions thereto had expired. Smedley v. Johnson, 196 Mass. 316. They had no right to appeal from the denial of their motion. Martin v. Tapley, 119 Mass. 116. Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, petitioner, 222 U. S. 578.
and the directors. It was the duty of the latter to protect the interests of the members of "The First Church of Christ, Scientist." John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Lester, 234 Mass. 559, 562.
The result is that the exceptions of the defendants to the master's report, so far as they relate to his rulings that the directors had no power under the deed of January 25, 1898, to remove a trustee and that the removal of Mr. Rowlands was ineffectual, must be sustained. On the facts found by the master, in the light of the principles of law here found to be controlling, the plaintiffs cannot maintain their bill.
In order to decide the fundamental issues raised on this record, It is unnecessary to consider the question whether Mr. Dittemore or Mrs. Knott is a director. That issue is directly involved in another suit.
The exceptions of Emelie B. Hulin have been waived and need not be considered.
Suggestion of the Attorney General denied.
Both appeals of E. A. and D. L. Krauthoff dismissed.
Exceptions of Emelie B. Hulin waived.

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