Trustees of the Eutaw Place Baptist Church v. Shively

Alvey, O. J., delivered the opinion of the .Court. George Gelbach, Jr., died in 1880; and by his will, duly admitted to prohate, among other bequests, he bequeathed as follows : “I give and bequeath to the Eutaw Place Baptist Church, of Baltimore City, the sum of one thousand dollars, the income, interest, or proceeds thereof, to be applied to the Sunday School belonging to or attached to said church; and I declare that the receipts of the treasurer of said church or corporation, shall be a sufficient discharge to my executors for said legacy.” The testator was a member of the church, and had, by his attention and contributions, manifested great interest in the Sunday School, organized, fostered and maintained by the Church, as a means of religious education of the young. The corporate title of the church is “The Trustees ofthe Eutaw Place Baptist Church of Baltimore City;” but there is no question raised as to the want of accuracy in the designation of the corporate body in the bequest. The identity of the legatee is unquestioned.

The Legislature of the State, by Act of 1882, ch. 87, gave its sanction to the bequest, as required by the Constitution. If the bequest had simply been to the church, without reference to the Sunday School, there could have been no question of its validity ; and the church could have applied the fund to any purpose and to promote any object within the sphere of its corporate powers arid functions, as a religious body. But it is contended that the ⁴⁹⁵ Sunday School is an unincorporated body, independent of the church, and therefore without legal entity; and that the bequest to the church is in trust for fhis undefined and uncertain body of individuals, that fluctuates from time to time, without legal succession; and consequently the bequest is void, because of this uncertainty, and want of legal identification of the objects to he benefited by the bequest. In this contention, however, we do not concur.

It is certainly true, as contended by the appellees, that, according to the law as settled in this State, a bequest to trustees for the benefit of a vague and indefinite object is equally as invalid as an immediate bequest to such object; as in neither case could the right to the enjoyment of the fund he established and enforced by any particular individual or individuals claiming to he within the contemplation of the bounty. But is this bequest one of that description ? We think not. The Sunday School, as such, is not unincorporated body, it is true; but it is shown to be an integral part of the church organization, and therefore embraced within the scope of the corporate functions and work of the church.

The church is not organized simply to maintain a pulpit that its members and others may receive instruction from that source alone. Other means of religious instruction are as common, and are as much within the province of church regulation and direction, as the pulpit itself. Prominent among these are the Bible Class and the Sunday School. Rot that Bible classes and Sunday Schools may not he formed and maintained independently of any church control; hut we all know that they are ordinary means adopted in church organizations for the promotion of religious instruction.

And that being so, why may not the incorporated church receive aid from the benevolent dispenser of charities for the support of a Sunday School or a Bible class, as well as for the support of the minister who teaches from the pulpit ? Reither Bible class nor ⁴⁹⁶ Sunday School can he successfully maintained without pecuniary outlay. Books, fuel and lights, are among the necessary things to he supplied; and if the necessary expenses he not otherwise provided, they must be raised by