Mills v. Trustees of Zion Chapel

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On July lFth, 1845, John, James and Elizabeth Muir conveyed to Samuel Corkran and six others as trustees, and their successors in office, forever, a lot of ground in Cambridge, Dorchester county. The terms of the trust as set forth in the deed were “in trust, that they shall erect and build or cause to be erected and built thereon a house or place of worship, for the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, according to the rules and discipline in which from time to time may be agreed upon and adopted, by the ministers and preachers of the said church at their general conference in the United States of America, and in further trust and confidence that they shall at all times hereinafter permit such ministers and preachers, belonging to said church, as shall from time to time be duly authorized by the General Conference of the ministers and preachers of the said Methodist Episcopal Church or by the annual conferences authorized by the said General Conference to preach and expound God’s holy word therein. Provided that in case the General Conference of said Methodist Episcopal Church shall at any time hereafter alter the conditions of the membership or introduce other innovations upon the subject of slavery which shall conflict with the existing rights, privileges and interest of its members in slaveholding states and territories, then two-thirds of the male members of full and lawful age who may worship in said lot or piece of ground hereby conveyed, being present and voting in favor of same, shall have full power to place the said lot or piece of ground, with the house or ⁵¹³ houses or places of worship erected thereon, under the jurisdiction and control of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.” * * * A provision then follows providing for the succession in the trust by the selection of new trustees as those named in the deed or their successors should die or relinquish their trust.

In 1806, acting under the provisions of Ch. 3 of the Acts of 1802, a corporation had been attempted to be created by the name of “The Trustees of Zion Chapel in Cambridge”. Upon the execution of the deed by Muir in 1845 a church building was erected upon a portion of the lot and two small portions of it were sold. In the church edifice so erected the congregátion organized under the name of “The Trustees of Zion Chapel in Cambridge” met for worship from that time until the building was destroyed by fire in 1910. Thereafter the trustees of Zion Chapel in Cambridge, who were the successors of the trustees named in the deed, contracted to sell the land to the appellants, who refused to comply with the terms of the contract on the ground that they could not be given a good, merchantable title.

In view of the numerous decisions in this State with regard to similar deeds, it it unnecessary to discuss at length the various questions which have been raised in the briefs of the counsel. The agreed statement of facts discloses that there has never been the legislative sanction given to the deed of 1845, as required by the Declaration of Rights (1776), Art.. 34, and the case is therefore an almost exact parallel to the case of The Trustees of Zion Church v. Hilken, 84 Md. 170 , in which a deed to trustees for .the benefit of the church was held void for the lack of such assent. And the same principle has been re-affirmed as recently as the case of the Regents v. Calvary Church, 104 Md. 635 , and Dickerson v. Kirk, 105 Md. 638 . It must be held in conformity with those decisions that the deed of John Muir and others to ⁵¹⁴ Samuel Corkran was void.

It is immaterial, therefore, whether the deed was in violation of the rule against the creation of perpetuities, or whether regarded as a deed creating a trust, the trusts attempted to he created were so indefinite as to he unenforceable, and the deed void for this .reason. The evidence in this case shows- conclusively that from 184G till 1910, The Trustees of Zion Chapel in Cambridge had been in the open, notorious and undisputed possession of the lot in question, a period of more than sixty years. A good title had therefore become vested in those trustees, a title which was perfect as against all persons not under legal disabilities. The valid existence of the corporation is called in question on the ground that the original plan or certificate is not shown to have been recorded among the proper records of Dorchester county, within the period of time fixed by law.

This was