Donald Fraser.

The American law register, Volume 12 online

. (page 25 of 102)
Online LibraryDonald FraserThe American law register, Volume 12 → online text (page 25 of 102)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Cranch 43 ; Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch 292; Society, ^c. v. Pawlet, 4 Pet., 480 ;
1 Pet. Dig. 490 ; Mason v. Muncaster, 9 Wheat. 445 ; 8. C. 2 Cr. C. C. 274 ;
Maun V. St. Johns, 4 Cr. C. C. 116 ; De Ruyfer y. Trustees St. Peter's Church, 3
Barb. Ch. 119; Beebe t. Fales, 16 Mass. 498; Commonwealth v. Roxbeny, 9 Gray
R. 504, and notes; 1 Mass. Records 214, 384 ; 1 Trumbull's Hist. Conn. WO ; 1
Bancroft's Hist. U. S. 124 ; Select Letters of Columbus, 3 Hakluyt, per Probisher
in 1758, cited in Tyler's Ecc, L. ch. 1 ; 1 Kent's Com. 7 ed., 645-647.

Under the ordinance of Congress of May 20, 1785 (1 Laws U. S. 563), and
Proceedings of Congress under the Articles of Confederation, July 23d, 26th
and 27th, 1787, and the Act of April 21, 1792, the section 29 of land in each
township in the " Ohio Company's Purchase" in Ohio is *' given perpetually for the


zed by Google


on state authority by declaring that ''no state shall enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citi-
zens; nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdic-
tion the equal protection of the laws."'

purposes of religion." See Act of Virginia, October session, 1783, Chancery Re-
Tised, 1 Tol. L. U. S. 47.

The laws and proceedings of Congress on this subject are collated in Swan's
Ohio Land Laws of 1823, pp. 15-25. Similar provision is made in '' Sjmes's Pur-
chase,*' Swan's Land Laws 26-34. The Ohio legislature has made provision for
the salo of these lands, and for leasing thdse not sold. The proceeds of lands
fold are invested in the sinking fund of the state, and interest thereon, and rents
from lands leased applied to the support of religion. The Act of March 14, 1831,
as to lands leased in the townships where these lands are, provides*'* that each and
every denomination of religious societies, after giving themselves a name, shall ap-
point an agent, who shall produce to the trustees [of the township] a certificate
containing a list of their names and numbers, specifying that they are citizens of
said township ; and the agent shall pay over an equal dividend of the rents, to be
appropriated to the support of religion at the discretion of each society."

And it has been decided that *' persons having no system of religious faith,
wriuen or traditional, cannot be deemed a denomination or sect." A library
association is not a "religious society." Slate v. Trustees^ 7 Ohio St. 58; State
X. Trustees^ 11 Id. 24 ; Ohio v. Township Four^ 2 Id. 108. These lands are called
'* Ministerial Lands," and the fund arising therefrom the Ministerial Fund. See
fisLSS. Stat. 1799, ch. 87, J 2 ; Turner v. liurlington, 16 Mass. 208 ; Amesbury v.
Weed, 17 Id. 54 ; Mason v. Whitney , 1 Pick. 140; Inglee v. Bozworthy 5 Id.
501 ; Ware v. Sherbcrn, 8 Cush. 267. As to Louisiana, see Church St. Louis v.
Blanc^ 8 Bob. R. 52. Act of Congress, March 2, 1805 ; Ordinance of Congress,
July 13, 1787.

7 Even before the adoption of this provision, the general sentiment of this conn-
try was that all men should be protected by law in the enjoyment of religious
opinions, but that there should be no state aid or preference given to any. 3
Writings of Madison 179 ; 1 Jefferson's Works 39. **Let us remember," says
Vattel, ** that religion is no farther aa affair of state than as it is exterior and
publicly established : that of the heart can only depend on the conscience. * *
It is a principle of fanaticism, a source of evils and the most notorious injustice, for
weak mortals to imagine that they ought to take up the cause of God, maintain his
glory by acts of violence, and avenge him on his enemies." '^Let us only give
to sovereigns," said a great statesman and an excellent citizen, *^ let us give them
for the common advantage the power for punishing whatever is injurious to charity
in society ; it does not belong to human justice to become the revenger of the
cause that belongs to God." Cicero, who was as able and as great in state affairs
as in philosophy and eloquence, thought like the Duke of Sully. In the laws he
proposed relating to religion he says, on the subject of piety and interior religion,
"If any one conamits a fault, God will revenge it;" but he declares the crime
capital that should be committed against the religious ceremonies established for the
public affairs, and in which the whole state is concerned. The wise Romans were
yery far from persecuting a man for his creed : they only required that people


zed by Google


Under this provision, perhaps no state could give any pre-
ference to any one class of persons because of their religious
opinions over any other.

The question whether, or how far, the National Government could
extend its protecting care in the states over the right of persons
to enjoy religious opinions, has not been judicially determined :
Permoli v. First Mun.y 3 How. 689-609 ; Ux parte Garland^ 4
Wallace 399.® It may derive some light from the discussions of
the last few years in Congress.

There is no restraint upon the states in affording legislative
protection to the enjoyment of religious privileges, equally to all
persons, unless it should at some time be found after the exercise
of such pow^r by Congress in a form incompatible with that of a

The states have ample power to regulate and control the man-
agement of property for religious purposes. It is probable that
all the states have made statutory provisions securing religious
privileges, and for the management and control of property for
religious purposes.*^

Many if not most of such rights of person and property find
protection and support in the principles of common law and
equity jurisprudence. By the common law it is the right of natural'
persons to dispose of every kind of property by gift, sale or last
will and testament, and it is the right of such persons, for them-
selves or as trustees, and of corporations within the scope of their
powers, to receive the same for charitable uses, including pur-
poses of religion.

In England, and in some of the states of our Union, these
rights have been either aided or restrained by legislation.

The statutes which have imposed limitations of certain descrip-

Bhould not disturb the public order. " Vattel's Law of Nations, B. I., ch. xii., {133.
Deorum injuria Diis curae, was the maxim of the Romans. '* Let the gods avenge
their own wrongs.'* IngersoU arguendo^ in the Presbyterian Church Case, Todd
et aL V. Green et a/., Sup. Ct. Pa., March 1839. As to Roman Toleration, 4 John
Adams's Works 530. And see the provisions of the several state Constitutions,
as to religious toleration. Tyler's Ecc. L., § 12, <>/ seq,

B These cases were prior to the XlVth Amendment to the Constitution.

• See authorities cited in Lawrence's Rep. on New York Election Frauds,
House Rep. 31, 3 Sess. 40th Congress, Feb. 23, 1869, p. 82.

»o Ohio Const, of 1802, art. viii., {J 8-27 ; Ohio Const, of 1851, art. i., { 7;
art. yi., { 2 ; art. xii., { 2.


zed by Google


tions upon the alienation of real estate for charitable uses, are
known as Mortmain Statutes.^^

*< The Enf^ltsh Mortmain Statutes prohibited the conreyance or settlement of
lands (or diaritable uses unless by deed made twelve months before the death of
the donor or grantor. By the statute of 34 & 35 Hen. 8, c. 5, J U, and the
Stat. 9 Geo. 2, c. 36, devises to charitable uses, with certain exceptions, are void.
And see stat. 15 Rich. 2, c. 5 ; Williams' Real Prop. 72. These statutes hare not
been generally adopted in the United States : Williams on Real Prop. 66. See
English Mortmain Act, 9 Geo. 2, c. 36 ; stat. 9 Geo. 4, c. 85 ; stat. 24 Vict. c.
9 ; 23 & 24 Vict. c. 134 ; 25 Vict. c. 17 ; 27 Vict. c. 13 ; 26 & 27 Vict. c. 106 ;
16 & 17 Vict. c. 137 ; 18 & 19 Vict. c. 124 ; 23 & 24 Vict. c. 136 ; 25 & 26 Vict.
c 112 ; 4 & 5 Vict c. 38 ; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 37 ; 12 & 13 Vict. c. 49 ; 14 & 15 Vict.
c. 24 ; l^& 16 Vict. c. 49 ; 22 Vict. c. 27 ; 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102 ; stat. 7 & 8
Wra. 3, c. 37 ; 1 Qreenl. Cmise 53 ; stat. 19 ft 20 Vict. 124 ; 20 & 21 Vict. c. 14 ;
21 & 22 Vict. c. 60 ; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89 ; Walker y. Richardson, 2 Mees. & Welsh.
882 ; Atty.'General r. Glynn, 12 Sim. 84 ; Ashton v. Jones, 28 Bear. 460.* For Eng-
lish restraining acts from Magna Charta to Victoria, see note X: to p. 98 of Grant
on Corporations, 1 Blackst. 479 n. See stat. 34 & 85 Hen. 8, c 5, ] 14 ; 43 Elii.
c. 4 ; stat. 9 Geo. 2, c. 36 ; stat. 15 Rich. 2, ch. 15 ; 6 Greenl. Cruise 16 and notes,
and page 128, notes; where many authorities are collected, and the cases to which
the sut. 9 Geo. 2 applies is stated ; 2 Greenl. Roper on Legacies, ch. 19 (ed. of
1828) ; I Jarman on Wills 211, note ; Doe r. Wright, 2 Bam. & Aid. 710. The
Mortmain Statutes do not *' mention personal property, and as to real estate the
title of a corporation is ralid nniil office found:** Williams on Real Prop. 72, Am.
■ notes ; Tayler Prec. Wills, 66 n. ; Potter ▼. Chapin, 6 Paige 639 ; 2 Pet. 566 ;
3 Id. 99 ; a Myl. ft K. 576 ; Shelford on Mortmain 8 ; Rungan r. Cofter, 14 Pet.
22 ; 3 Binney 626 ; Vidal y. Oirard, 2 How. 189 ; Magill r. Brown, Brightly R.
350 ; Miller y. Leech, I Wallace, Jr. 212 ; Leaxwe r. HiUegas, 7 S. & R. 321 ;
Methodist Church y. Remington, 1 Watts 224 ; Atty.-General y. Guise, Vernon R.
S66; Pa. Stat, of April 6th 1833, Pnrd. Digest 419 ; Dunlop's Digest, chap. 447,
p. 567, 2d ed. ; stat. of 1855, Pnrd. Dig., tit. Charities, 146 ; Runyan y. Coster,
14 Pet. 122 ; 1 Greenl. Cmise 54 n. ; Angell ft Ames on Corp., ch. y. ; 2 Kent
282>3, and note. As to Ohio, B ri vkerhofv , J. , said, in ilnMrtcaa Bible Society r.
Marshall, 15 Ohio St., ** There are no statutes of mortmain in this state. For
myself, I heartily wish there were." As to New York, see Robertson y. Bullions,
I Keraan 243 ; Hill on Trustees 467, note ; 2 Kent 283 ; Jackson y. Hartwell, 8
Johns. 422 ; SuUon r. Cole, 3 Pick. 232 ; Phillips Academy y. King, 12 Mass.
546. Corporations created in one state may hold lands in another ; 2 Kent 283 ;
14 Pet. 122 ; Lathrop y. Bank of Sciota, 8 Dana 114 ; Bank Augusta y. Earle, 13
Pet. 584 ; 4 Greenl. Cruise 22 ; American Bible Society y.. Marshall, 15 Ohio St.
538. Mortmain stat. in force in Maryland : Barnes y. Barnes, 3 Cr. C. C. R. 269 ;
Newton y. Carberry, 5 Cr. C. C. 632. By the common law it was incident to
every eorporation to haye a capacity to purchase lands : 1 Blackst. 479 ; 10 Rep.
30 ; Reynolds y. CommU., 5 Ohio 209. The Statute of Wills of 34 Hen. 8, c 5,
prohibited devises to a corporation until the Stat, of Charitable Uses of 43 Elis.,
c. 4, made exceptions, but these were narrowed by stat. 9 Geo. 2, c. 36. By many
statutes from Magna Chartay 9 Hen. 3, c. 36, to 9 Geo. 2, c. 36, the right of cor-
porations to purchase lands was taken away, except when authorized by license


zed by Google


Subject to the equal protection of the laws required bj the
National Constitution of every state for persons within it, there
is no restriction upon the power of the states except such as may
be found in their own constitutions and laws, as to the support by
law of chnrch or religious establishments. No state attempts now
to support churches by taxation, nor is it probable that any such
aid could, in the present state of public opinion, be received by
law, even if state constitutions did not prohibit it.

H6w far the limitations of the National Constitution relating to
a religious test for office, and the establishment and free exercise
of religion, are applicable to the territories" of the United States,

from the king. <' By the ciyil law a corporation was incapable of taking lands,
unless by special pririlege from the emperor :" Cod. 6, 34, 8. In the United
States corporations are generally capable of holding real estate. See authorities :
6 Greenl. Cruise 16 note, and page 128, n. ; S Kent 283; Lumbardy, Aldrichy
8 N. H. 31 ; Schier v. St, Fault, 12 Met. 250; Angell & Ames Corp., ch. 5 ;
Gibson v. McCall, 1 Rich. 174 ; Reynold* r. Stark, 5 Ohio 205 ; 2 Pet. 566 ; 3
Pet. 99 ; 2 Myl. & K. 576 ; 7 Cow. 540 ; 2 Id. 664 ; 2 Kent 283 ; 4 Id. 507 ; Jar-
man on Wills 57-197. There are restrictions in New York : 2 N. Y. Rct. Statute
118, s. 3 (3d ed.) ; Theological Seminary y. Childs, 4 Paige 422 ; Wright y. TViit-
tees if. E. Church, I Hoff. Ch. R. 225 ; 4 Kent 507 ; Taylor Prec. Wills 67 n. ;
4 Paige 419 ; Potter y. Chapin, 6 Paige 639. In Florida, Thomps. Dig. 279. In
Georgia, Rey. Stat. 1845, p. 372. In Pennsylyania, by statute aboye referred to.
In other states special charters make limitations. As to grants for charitable uses,
see Statutes of Charitable Uses ; 4 Greenl. Cruise 22, n.'; Vidal y. Girard, 2 How.
127 ; Baptist Association y. Hart's ExWs., 4 Wheat. 1 ; Stanley y. Colt, 5 Wall.
119 ; 6 Greenl. Cruise 16 ; stat. 43 Elii. c. 4 ; stat. 9 Geo. 2, o. 36 ; Tiffany &
BuUard on Trusts 232 and 238 n. ; Story Eq., 2 1162; Hill on Trustees 133;
Duke on Charitable Uses ; Dwight on Charitable Uses ; Pratt on Chariuble
Uses ; Sanders & Warner on Trusts ; Lewin, Perry and Uslin on Trusts ; Charita-
ble Uses in Ohio ; Le Clerq y. Gallipolis, 7 Ohio 217 ; Bryant v. AfcCandless, 7
Ohio, part 2, p. 135 ; Wef)b y. Afoler, 8 Ohio 548 ; McTntire y. Zanesville, 9 Id.
•203 ; 20 Id. 483 ; Kemper y. Lane, 17 Id. 293 ; Urtney v. Wooden, 1 Ohio
St. 160 ; Id. 478 ; Board of Education y. Edson, 18 Id. 221 ; 7 Id. 58 ; 4 Ohio
515; 5 Id. 283; 6 Id. 363; 16 Id. 583; Carder y. Commas., 16 Ohio St. 353.
The common law in relation to charities, as it existed prior to the 43 Eliz., c. 4,
is in force generally. In Pennsylyania : Magill y. Brown, Bright. 346 ; 14 Haz.
Pa. Reg. 305. In Ohio : Perrin y. Carey, 24 How. 465. The Statute of Eliza-
beth is not in force in Maryland : Barnes y. Barnes, 3 Cr. C. C. 269 ; Baptist
Association y. Ilart, 4 Wheat. 1 ; Dashiell y. Attorney- General, 5 H. & J. 392 ; 6
H. & J. 1. Nor in Virginia: Wheeler y. Smith, 9 How. 55; Literary Fund y,
Dawson, 10 Leigh 147 ; Gallego y. Attorney- General, 3 Leigh 450 ; Wheeler y.
Smith, 9 How. 55.

»« Const. U. S. Art. 1, J 8. Also, Art. 4, { 3. See Appendix C-ong. Globe,
▼ol. 20, pp. 270, 273, 274 : 2 Benton's Thirty Years* View 729-731 ; 2 Stat, at
Large U. S. 242, J 2 ; I Pet. 511; 14 Id. 52 ; 4 How. 567 ; 19 Id. 393, 61 1 ; 2
Story's Const. (2d ed.) J 1328; 1 Kent 383; Rawle on Const., ch. 27, p. 237.


zed by Google


to the District of Colambiay and to places purchased in any state
by consent of the legislature thereof, "fo^ the erection of forts,
magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings,"
might give rise to some conflict of opinion. Churches erected on
such lands would not be subject to taxation by state^' authority,
and perhaps not if erected on lands purchased by the United
States for public purposes, even without the consent of the legis-

But one church building has ever been erected from resources
of the National Government.^

The National Government employs and pays chaplains for both
branches of Congress, for the army and navy, &c. ; and the states
generally do the same in some of their benevolent institutions.
Christianity has been judicially declared to be part of the common
law of some of the state's, while in others, as in Ohio, it has been
determined otherwise.^^ In Ohio, as in most of the states, the

» U, S. T. Weise, 2 Wall. Jr. 72; 7 Opin. Att.-Gcn. 628 ; U, S. v. Cornell,
2 Mass. 60-91 ; 6 Opin. 577 ; Comm, v. Young, Brightly 302 ; People v. Godfrey,
17 Johns. 225 ; U, 5. v. Trover, 2 Wh. Cr. Cas. 490 ; People t. Lent, Id. 548.

1* This was the charch erected in 1870, at the Soldiers* Home, so called, near
Dajton, Ohio. As to the title of this property, see Sinks v. Reece, 19 Ohio St.
213; Renner v. Bennett, 21 Id. 431.

»* 1 Bcav. Die. 245, tit. Christianity ; Andrew v. N. Y, ff P. B. S., 4 Sandf.
N. Y. R. 182; Ayers v. Jf. E, Church, 3 Id. 377; Updegraff t. Commonwealth,
tl S. ft R. 394 ; Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. 198 ; Blair v. Odin, 3 Texas 300 ;
Wheeler r. Moodg, 9 Texas 376 ; Antoinees v. Esclava, 9 Porter 527 ; Terrett t.
Taiflory 9 Cranch 43 ; Pasch. Const, n. 245 ; Pasch. An. Dig. n. 154 ; McGat-
trick r. Wason, 4 Ohio St. 571 ; Cincinnati v. Rice, 15 Ohio 225 ; 9 Ohio St. 439 ;
Bloom T. Richards, 2 Id. 392; Bogardus v. Smith, 4 Paige R. 178; 11 Serg.
& Rawle 394 ; 5 Binn. R. 555. New York : 8 Johns. R. 291 ; Lindenmuller t.
People^ 21 How. Pr. R. 156 ; 8. c. 9 American Law Register 591, Old Series. Con-
necticut : a Swift's System 321. Massachusetts : Dane's Ab. vol. 7, ch. 219, a. 2,
19. To write or speak contemptuously and maliciously against it, is an indictable
offence. Vide Cooper on the Law of Libel 59 and 114, et seq., where he contends
thiit the decisions which have been made declaring Christianity to be a part of the
law, are the result of ignorance or falsehood. See, also, Mr. Jefferson's Letter
to Major Cartwright, Appx. No. III. to Cooper's Law of Libel, on the same sub-
ject. Vide generally, 1 Russ. on Cr. 217 ; 1 Hawk. ch. 5 ; 1 Vent. 293 ; 3 Keb.
607 ; l.Bam. & Cress. 26, 8. o. 8 Eng. Com. Law R. 14 ; Barnard 162 ; Fitzgib.
66; Roscoe's Cr. £t. 524 ; 2 Str. 834 ; 3 Bam. & Aid. 161 ; s. c. 5 Eng. Com.
Law R. 249; Jeff. Rep. Appx. $ 1, Cro. Jac. 421 ; Vent. 293; 3 Keb. 607 ;
Cooke on Def. 74; 2 How. S. C. Rep. 127, 197-201. In 6 Jefferson's Works
303, &c., is a review of some authorities ; Id. 312-319 ; Id. 66-291 ; 9 Id. 199-485.
See Lawrence's Article on Law of Impeachments, Sup. to Globe, 1868, Trial of
President 46, notes; Tiffany & BuUard's Trustees 778.
Vol. XXL— 14


zed by Google


mode of acquiring^ holding^ managing and disposing of church
property depends somewhat upon the date and manner of the
organization of any particular church, bBcause different statutes
are applicable according to time or circumstances. When, there-
fore, information is desired upon these subjects, it is important
first of all to ascertain to which of the several classes of church
organizations such church belongs. These classes, as they have
generally existed in Ohio, and doubtless in many if not most of
the states, may be thus stated : —

I. Unincorporated societies^ with property conveyed to unincor-
porated trustees.

There were many such prior to the Act of January 8, 1825 ;"
and their rights may yet continue ; but this act has given the
trustees, to some extent, a corporate** capacity where lands and
tenements are conveyed to some person or persons as trustee or
trustees for the use of a church,*^ The general understanding
seems to have been that this act extends only to trusts for not
more than twenty acres of land.

II. Religioics societiesy incorporated by special charter or act of

There are many such yet in existence. They were created
from the early settlement of the state until prohibited by the
Constitution of 1851.'* Their rights yet continue under their
charters, except in cases where they have accepted the provisions
of other statutes.

III. Unincorporated societies with corporate trustees.

The Act of January 8, 1825, gives a corporate capacity to
trustees holding church property not exceeding twenty acres. It
applies to all trustees of the designated description** pri^r to and
since its date, unless they have acquired a corporate capacity
under some more recent statute.* More titles are held for re-
ligious societies under this act than under all others. Under this
act, too, there may be trustees for any incorporated as well as
unincorporated society.

'» 2 Chase Stat. 1460 ; 1 Swan & Critchfield Stat. 305.

>« Keyser t. Stcmsifer, 6 Ohio R. 363 ; Morgan t. Leslie^ Wright's B. 144 ;
Devo$8 T. Grayy 22 Ohio St. ; M, E. Church t. Wood, Wright's R. 12.

*f Devoss V. Gray, 22 Ohio St. R.

«• Ohio Const., Art. xiii., J 1.

»• Devoss V. Gray, 22 Ohio St. R.

M Act May 1, 1852, { 66-71, 2 Carwen Stot. 1877 ; ActFebraarj S8, 1846, S
Carwen 1255.


zed by Google


IV. Societies inearparated by special charter to have the
powers mentioned in GENERAL ACTS of the legislature.

These commence under the Act of March 5, 1836)^' and con-
tinue to exist with all the powers conferred by that and the sta-
tutes creating them, unless in those cases where they have accepted
the provisions of other more recent statutes.^

V. Societies incorporated under general statutes enacted
prior to the Constitution of 1851, hut without special acts of

These commence under the Act of March 12, 1844. None
could perhaps be organized since the Act of May 1, 1852, though
prior organizations continue under the laws authorizing their

VI. Societies incorporated under the General Corporation Act
of May 1, 1852, and the amendatory acts.

Now as to all these classes of churches, some of the questions
of frequent occurrence are and may be considered under these
heads : —

I. How MAY A Church be organized ?

II. How MAY Church property be acquired and title

III. How may a Church organization be maintained,
trustees be appointed, vacancies filled, etc.

IV. The mode op controlling Church property.

V. Rights in case of a division or dissolution of a society,
resulting trusts, forfeiture, etc.

VI. The power to sell and mortgage, and the mode

VII. The mode of taking and collecting choses in action


These do not comprehend all the forms of religious societies,
but this view of those which have existed and do exist is suffi-
cient for present purposes. In a subsequent chapter additional
forms may be stated as capable of having an existence in some
of the states.

A limited statement and discussion of some of the principles
and statutes relating to these topics, with some forms for prac-

«' 2 Cnrwen Stat. 235.

«« Act MftY 1, 1852, J 66-67 ; 3 Curwen Stat. 1877 ; Act February 28, 1846 ;
2 Curwen 1255.


zed by Google


tical use ia the organization and incorporation of religious socie-
ties, and for the conveyance or bequest to or for the benefit of
such and other charitable associations, whether incorporated or
not, will be hereafter presented."

These, though more especially applicable to Ohio, may in some
measure aid the labors of the legal profession in other states in
the examination of similar subjects there.

If to this could be added an outline of the general principles
of ecclesiastical jurisprudence as administered in church judica-
tories, with appropriate forms of procedure adapted to the church
government of the principal religious denominations, it would
supply a want long felt.^ This would not only be valuable to

*> At the session of the Central Ohio Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, in September 1863, a committee was appointed *' to examine and report
how far the Discipline conforms to the law of Ohio in regard to the appointment
of trustees and the holding of church property, and what change, if any, is neces-
sary to make it conform with the statutes of Ohio in such cases:" Minutes, p. 7,
Sept. 10th 1863. That committee made a report to the Conference at the Septem-
ber Session, 1864, when a committee was appointed, consisting of Rev. Alexan-
der R. Harmount and William Lawrence, **to prepare a form of deed for the
conveyance of real estate for churches and parsonages.** Mr. Lawrence made a
report to the Conference at Bellefontaine, Ohio, Sept. 2, 1865, a synopsis of which
was soon after published in the Western Christian Advocate : Minutes, p. 4-32,
Sept. 22, 1864. At the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
Brooklyn, May, 1872, the following proceedings were, among others, had: — On
the 9th May 1872, a resolution was introduced by Wm. Lawrence, which was mo-
dified and adopted May 15, as follows:—

*^ Resolved^ That the bishops be and are hereby required to appoint in each state
and territory, and in the District of Columbia, one person, learned in the law, whose
duty it shall be to furnish gratuitously to the Board of Church Extension a form
of deed of conveyance for church lots, parsonages, cemeteries and. other property

Online LibraryDonald FraserThe American law register, Volume 12 → online text (page 25 of 102)