Bennett v. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church

Irvins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant by written agreement contracted to purchase of the appellee, the trustees of “ The Methodist Episcopal Church of the city and precincts of Baltimore,” the lot of ground with the Church thereon situated upon the corner of Charles and Fayette streets, Baltimore City. Apprehending difficulty in the way of the appellee’s giving him a good title, he required the cloud to he cleared away before he could accept the property. A bill was therefore filed by the appellant, in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, to enforce specific performance.

The case was submitted to the Circuit Court upon an agreed statement of facts, and that Court determined that the appellee could convey &• good title, and accordingly decreed a performance of the contract. From that decree appeal was taken, and the sole question in the case is whether the title of the appellee to the lot in question is good. By the agreed statement of facts it appears, that on the twenty-third day of May, eighteen hundred and forty-three, the “Charles Street Methodist Episcopal Church of Baltimore.” A corporation under the laws of Maryland, by deed duly recorded, acquired title from Alexander Lorman to a leasehold estate in the lot of ground in question. In the deed, assigning the leasehold to the Charles Street Church, occurs the following clause : “ In trust that there shall be erected and built thereon a house or place of worship for the use of the Methodist Episcopal Church, according to the rules and discipline which from time to time may be agreed upon and adopted by the ministers and preachers of the said Church at their General Conference; and in further trust and confidence, that ³⁹ they shall forever hereafter permit such ministers and preachers belonging to the said church, as shall from time to time he duly authorized by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by the Annual Conferences authorized by the said General Conference to preach and expound God’s Holy Word therein, and to •execute the discipline and administer the sacraments therein according to the rules of said Methodist Episcopal Church, subject however to the payment of the aforesaid yearly rent of five hundred and forty dollars.” Subsequently, to wit, on the 11th of March, 1872, the ^•Charles Street Methodist Episcopal Church of Baltimore,” by deed duly recorded, assigned the said property to the trustees of the “ Methodist Episcopal Church, in the city and precincts of Baltimore.” This deed of assignment contained no restrictions.

On the 13th of December, 1883, the appellees, “ the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the city and precincts of Baltimore,” which is a corporation duly created under the laws of Maryland, purchased from Angelica Didier, the reversionary interest, or estate, in the lot of ground herein before described; and, by that purchase, the appellee became discharged and released from the payment of any ground rent; hut whether such purchase, and deed accordingly, effected a merger of all interests in the appellee and perfected its title, the appellant seems to have questioned and asks us to decide on this appeal. It is submitted by the appellant, that the Charles Street Methodist Church, never having obtained the assent of the Legislature to its holding the leasehold estate, under the deed from Alexander Lorman, prior to the assignment thereof to the appellee, its title was never perfected, in consequence of the provisions of the thirty-fifth Article of the Declaration of Rights which was then in force; and that the appellee never obtained the assent of the Legislature to its holding until the Legislature of 1886. ⁴⁰ In addition to the cloud which he thinks these omissions throw over the title of the appellant, he suggests, that a more serious difficulty arises from the diversion of the property |from the use expressed in the assignment by Lorman to the Charles Street Methodist Church. We do not think there is any infirmity in the title of the appellee because of any thing that has been suggested against it. The assignment by Lorman to the “ Charles Street Methodist Church,” was only of a leasehold interest in a little over one-fifth of an acre of land, as appears fi’om the record; whereas, the Bill of Rights then in force,