Boyce v. Trustees of the Towsontown Station of the M. E. Church

Stewart. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. From a careful consideration of the case, we find no error in the rulings of the Circuit Court, in the four exceptions taken hy the appellant. The controlling question to be determined under the first plea of the appellee of nul tiel corporation, is, whether any or all of the evidence offered on the part of the appellant in the said exception, and refused hy the Court was sufficient to show, that the appellant could he held to he a corporation de jure or de facto ; or to estop the. appellee from disputing its liability as a corporation.

The Act of 1868, ch. 471, in its 14th sec. provides, amongst other things, for the incorporation of religious societies ; and by secs. 151, 162, 163 and 164, for religious corporations. These last provisions are more especially applicable to the organization of a church religious society, or congregation of whatever denomination which the appellee professes to be, and it is to be presumed were intended for such purpose Amongst other requisites to constitute a religious corporation, church, religious society or corporation under these last sections, it was necessary that the agreement for that purpose should be acknowledged by the trustees or a majority of them, before two justices of the peace of the county or city in which the church, congregation or society, or the greatest number of the members shall reside, or before a Judge of the Circuit Court, or of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore, and certified hy the said justices or Judge according to the directions of sec. 163. No authority having been given to. the Judge by these provisions, to determine that the law had been complied with, his certificate is not sufficient evidence that the defendant is a corporation. But the appellant has undertaken to offer evidence of certain acts and proceedings of the appellee, referred to in ³⁷³ the exceptions, to show that it held itself out as a corporation, and treated with the appellant as such, and is estopped from denying its liability as a corporation.

We think it would be extending the doctrine of estoppel to an extent, not