Starr v. Minister & Trustees of the Starr Methodist Protestant Church

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1861 Wesley Starr and Phillipa Starr, his wife, of Baltimore City leased and demised to the Starr Methodist Protestant Church in Baltimore City a lot of ground, with the improvements thereon, on the corner of Poppleton and Lemon streets, in said city, for the term of ninety-nine years, renewable forever, subject to the payment of the yearly rent of two hundred and forty dollars, and the following provision: “Provided, however, and these presents are on these express and unalterable conditions, that the above-described lot of ground, with the house of worship erected and in process of completion thereon, shall be held by the said lessees, their successors and assigns for the use of the congregation that shall from time to- time worship in the said house or church in connection with the annual Conference of the ¹⁷⁴ Maryland District of the Methodist Protestant Church; so, however and. under all circumstances, that the seats in the said church shall he and remain forever free; that the congregation in occupying the said church or any church edifice hereafter to stand on said ground shall observe the old Methodist usage of a separation of the sexes in seating; that in public worship the singing shall be conducted in the old-fashioned way of lining the hymns; that there shall be no organ or other kind of musical instrument employed or used during divine worship in connection with the singing in said church; the trustees to have no power to raise money for completing the church, nor for any other purpose, by mortgage of the property and premises, or to incur any debt for such or any other purpose, to bind the property or thereby subj ect the same to a sale and removal of the restrictions herein provided for. That the church, in addition, is always to remain under the stationing authority of the said conference, and is to receive such minister or ministers, from time to time, as shall be duly appointed to or for it, pursuant to the Constitution and Discipline of-the Methodist Protestant Church, so as to perpetuate an efficient itinerancy, without power or authority to assume an independent relation to said annual conference.” The lease further provided for a re-entry and termination of the lease by the lessor, his heirs or assigns, upon the breach or non-performance by the lessees or their assigns of any of the covenants or conditions in the lease. On the day preceding the execution of the lease, that is to say, on the 17th day of May, 1861, the lessee, the minister and trustees of the Starr Methodist Protestant Church in Baltimore City, was duly incorporated under the general corporation laws of the State, relating 'to religious corporations, and Article 10 of its Charter is as follows: “The property and premises at the southwest comer of Poppleton and Lemon streets, in the City of Baltimore, about to be -demised to this corporation hv Wesley Starr and wife, shall be held by said trustees for -the use of the congregation that shall from time to time-worship in the house or church erected on said lot of ¹⁷⁵ ground, in connection with the annual conference of the Maryland District of the Methodist Protestant Church, so however and under all circumstances that the seats in the said church shall be and remain forever free; that the congregation, in occupying the said church or any church edifice hereafter to stand on said ground, shall observe the old Methodist usage of a separation of the sexes in seating; that in public worship the singing shall' be conducted in the old-fashioned way of lining the hymns; that there shall be no organ or other kind of musical instrument employed or used during divine worship in connection with the singing in said church.

The trastees to have no power to raise money for completing the church, nor for any other purpose by mortgage of the property and premises, or to incur any debt for such or any other purpose to bind the property or thereby subject the same to a sale and removal of the restriction herein provided for; that the church, in addition, is always to remain under the stationing authority of the said conference, and is to receive such minister or ministers from time to time as shall be duly appointed to or for it pursuant to the Constitution and Discipline of the Methodist Protestant Church, so as to perpetuate an efficient itinerancy, without power or authority to assume an independent relation to said annual conference.” In 1866 Mr. Starr died, leaving a will by the second paragraph of which he gives to his daughter-in-law, Mrs. Laura Starr, for “such time only as she shall remain the widow of "Win. M. Starr, deceased,” the yearly rent reserved in the said lease to the Starr Methodist Protestant Church, and the third paragraph contains the following provision: “I give and devise, at my death, unto the Minister and Trustees of the Starr Methodist Protestant Church in Baltimore City, as a kind of endowment, the rents, profits and yearly income of the wharf opposite the lot on Light street, in said city, purchased by me on the 1st day of January, 1842, of John H. B. Latrobe, trustee and others; and at the death or marriage of my daughtér-in-law, Mrs. Laura Starr, whichever shall first ¹⁷⁶ occur, the yearly rent of two hundred and forty dollars reserved in the said lease from hie to them of May last; to be held' and enjoyed by the said church, for and during, all such time as may elapse before the corporate authorities, official members or membership of the said church, shall admit any musical instrument, as distinguished from the human voice, into the Sabbath School, singing choir, or choir rehearsals, or singing schools of said church, held either on the church premises or elsewhere, or shall attempt—I trust they never will—to raise money, by the holding now somewhat fashionable—either in the church, or Sabbath-School room or elsewhere, of any fair, festival or concert of instrumental music; or by the delivery of any irreligious or political lecture, or the still more demoralizing and sinful mode, should the churches ever so far degenerate as to adopt it, of balls, parties, lotteries, theatrical performances, raffles, or the voting foi distinguished individuals; when, and upon the happening of any one of these contingencies, the said wharf property and ground rent shall fall into the residuum of my estate, and he subject to-the disposal hereinafter made thereof, and I give and release unto said church all ground rent in arrear under my lease to them, and the accruing rent, computed to the d'ay of my decease.” The fourth paragraph of the will disposes of “All the rest and residue” of the testator’s estate, and by a codicil to his will he revokes the devise of said ground rent to his daughter-in-law, and declares, “it is my will that the said yearly rent shall vest at once on my decease in the Minister and Trustees of the Starr Methodist Protestant Church in Baltimore City, instead of at the death or marriage of Mrs. Laura Starr, as provided for in the third article of my will, the tenure of the property or conditions of the gift to remain unchanged as prescribed in the will.” The suit in this case was brought by the “Ministers and Trustees of the Starr Methodist Protestant Church in Baltimore City, the body corporate, against the heirs at law of Mr. Starr, and the bill of complaint, after alleging the exe ¹⁷⁷ cution of the lease, and the death of Mr. Starr leaving the last will and testament and codicil to which we have referred, charges that the plaintiff by said will acquired a fee-simple title in said property, “subject to such restrictions as may found in said will,” and further alleges that the plaintiff, during the forty-two years since the death of Mr. Starr, “has remained in possession of the property, conducting it as a place of public worship, under the auspices of the Maryland Annual Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church, and has not been disturbed in its possession and use of the same that during the lifetime of Mr. Starr, and at the time said lease and will were executed, “the location of said property when said church was being built,” at the time of Mr. Starr’s death, “was a residential section of Southwest Baltimore, where it was proper that a church should be erected; that during the time which has elapsed since” his death, “the particular locality * * * has become a manufacturing centre and the changes as to the condition of the qcroperty and the circumstances attending it and its surroundings, render it impossible for” the plaintiff “to longer hold the property and carry out the intent of the testator,” and that “it is absolutely necessary, and would be for the benefit” of the plaintiff “and of all the parties interested therein, that the property be sold and the proceeds invested in the purchase of another site and the erection of a church thereon, so that the will of the testator may be enforced.”- The prayer of the bill is for a decree authorizing a sale of the property and appointing a trustee to make the sale and to invest the proceeds under the order of the Court, and for general relief. Pour of the defendants, who allege that “they have an interest in the residuum of the estate” of the testator, and are “entitled to share therein,” answered the bill of complaint, denying that the plaintiff acquired by the will a fee-simple estate in the property, and that it is necessary and would bo for the best interest of the plaintiff and all parties interested “that said property be sold and the proceeds invested in the purchase of another site and the erection of a church there- ¹⁷⁸ oil” and averring “that under its charter the plaintiff is absolutely without power to sell” the property. It is stated by counsel for the appellee in their brief that two of the other defendants filed answers denying the right of the plaintiff to the relief sought, and that the other twelve defendants answered “saying that they thought that the property should be sold, and the proceeds invested in the purchase of another site in a more suitable-neighborhood, and the erection of another church to be known as ‘Starr Church;’ ” adding that the said sale should not be decreed until plaintiff shows, to the satisfaction of the Court, its ability to purchase another site and erect thereon another edifice to be used as a church and called the ‘Starr Church,’ ” but these answers are not in the record in this Court.

The testimony was taken in open Court, and the Court below passed a decree, reciting that it appeared “that it would be for the best interest of the plaintiff and all other persons interested in the church work, that the said-lot of ground * * * should be sold,” etc., ordering a sale of the property and appointing a trustee to make the sale and further ordering “that the proceeds arising from the sale of said property shall be applied to the purchase of another lot of ground to be selected by the board of trustees of the plaintiff corporation, and the erection thereon of a suitable church building for the carrying on of the work and the accomplishment of the purposes designed by the said Wesley Starr, provided, however, that no sale reported by the said trustees shall be ratified until and unless the plaintiff corporation shall have furnished in thin case to the Court satisfactory evidence that it can provide, in addition to the proceeds arising from the sale of the property, an amount of money, if necessary, which when added to the net proceeds of said sale, will be sufficient for the securing of a site and the erection thereon of a suitable church building for the carrying on of the work and the accomplishment of the purposes designed by the said Wesley Starr; and provided further that the property so to be acquired by the plaintiff corporation shall be held as the same estate which it ¹⁷⁹ now has in the property hereby decreed to he sold; and the said property so to be acquired by the plaintiff corporation shall be subject- to any conditions and limitations which may now he in force, if any, in respect to the property hereby decreed to he sold,” and from that decree only one of the defendants has aj>pealed. From the foregoing statement of the case, it is apparent that the primary inquiry is as to the character of the plaintiff’s present estate in the property. By the lease executed in 1864, Mr. Starr conveyed to the Minister and Trustees of the Starr Methodist Protestant Church in Baltimore City, the body corporate, a leasehold interest in the property to be used for the purposes for which the church was incorporated. He did not thereby create a trust.

The gift was to the church in its corporate name for its own use, and no trust or othei use was contemplated or intended by the lessor. The plaintiff, therefore, held the property under the lease in its own right and for its own use, and not as trustee. Woman’s Foreign Miss. Society v. Mitchell, 93 Md. 199 ; Erhart v. Baltimore Monthly Meeting, 93 Md. 669 ; Doan v. Ascension Parish, 103 Md. 662 .

The estate conveyed by the lease was a conditional estate, and was liable to be destroyed by a failure of the lessee to comply with the conditions of the demise and a re-entry and termination of the lease by the lessor, his heirs or assigns. The reversion or estate of the lessor, could have been conveyed or devised by him, and would have descended to his heirs at law, if he had died intestate, with the benefit of the conditions in the lease. But when the reversion is conveyed, devised or descends to the lessee, the estate of the latter, if held in the same right, and there is no intervening estate, merges in the reversion and is extinguished. Blackstone says: “If there be a tenant- for years, and the reversion in fee-simple descends or is purchased by him, the term of years is merged in the inheritance, and shall never exist any more” (2 Blck., star page 177).

And Chaxoeet,oh Kext says: “There would be an absolute incompatibility ¹⁸⁰ in a person filling, at the same time, the characters of tenant and reversioner in one and the same estate; and hence the reasonableness, and even necessity, of the doctrine of merger. The estate in which the merger takes place is not enlarged by the accession of the preceding estate; and the greater and only subsisting estate continues after the merger, precisely of the same quantity and extent of ownership as it was before the accession of the