66 Md. 36 | Md. | 1886
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellant by written agreement contracted to purchase of the appellee, the trustees of “ The Methodist Episcopal Church of the city and precincts of Baltimore,” the lot of ground with the Church thereon situated upon the corner of Charles and Fayette streets, Baltimore City. Apprehending difficulty in the way of the appellee’s giving him a good title, he required the cloud to he cleared away before he could accept the property. A bill was therefore filed by the appellant, in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, to enforce specific performance. The case was submitted to the Circuit Court upon an agreed statement of facts, and that Court determined that the appellee could convey &• good title, and accordingly decreed a performance of the contract. From that decree appeal was taken, and the sole question in the case is whether the title of the appellee to the lot in question is good.
By the agreed statement of facts it appears, that on the twenty-third day of May, eighteen hundred and forty-three, the “Charles Street Methodist Episcopal Church of Baltimore.” A corporation under the laws of Maryland, by deed duly recorded, acquired title from Alexander Lorman to a leasehold estate in the lot of ground in question. In the deed, assigning the leasehold to the Charles Street Church, occurs the following clause : “ In trust that there shall be erected and built thereon a house or place of worship for the use of the Methodist Episcopal Church, according to the rules and discipline which from time to time may be agreed upon and adopted by the ministers and preachers of the said Church at their General Conference; and in further trust and confidence, that
On the 13th of December, 1883, the appellees, “ the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the city and precincts of Baltimore,” which is a corporation duly created under the laws of Maryland, purchased from Angelica Didier, the reversionary interest, or estate, in the lot of ground herein before described; and, by that purchase, the appellee became discharged and released from the payment of any ground rent; hut whether such purchase, and deed accordingly, effected a merger of all interests in the appellee and perfected its title, the appellant seems to have questioned and asks us to decide on this appeal.
It is submitted by the appellant, that the Charles Street Methodist Church, never having obtained the assent of the Legislature to its holding the leasehold estate, under the deed from Alexander Lorman, prior to the assignment thereof to the appellee, its title was never perfected, in consequence of the provisions of the thirty-fifth Article of the Declaration of Rights which was then in force; and that the appellee never obtained the assent of the Legislature to its holding until the Legislature of 1886.
We do not think there is any infirmity in the title of the appellee because of any thing that has been suggested against it.
The assignment by Lorman to the “ Charles Street Methodist Church,” was only of a leasehold interest in a little over one-fifth of an acre of land, as appears fi’om the record; whereas, the Bill of Rights then in force, excepted from its operation two acres conveyed for the express purpose of a church building or grave-yard. The deed of assignment of this property was in express trust that a church should be built thereon for the worship of God, according to the rites and usages of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Such church was erected and still exists,, as appears from the record. This assignment, therefore,, was not in contravention of the Bill of Rights. It is true, that, the appellee’s deed of assignment from the Charles-Street Methodist Church contains no restriction as to the use to be made of the property; but as the vendee was a religious corporation of the same body of Christians, in-buying a house of worship, it is but reasonable to suppose it was sold and bought for the purpose of religious worship, and there is no suggestion that it was not so used up to the time of the appellee’s purchase of the fee from the reversioner.
The Declaration of Rights, in the Constitution of 1851,. makes a like exception to that already mentioned in the original Bill of Rights of the State, in favor of property to be used for a church, only extending the exception to five acres, instead of two; but if it were true, that this assignment without restriction as to use in express terms, could be regarded as in contravention of the Bill of
The remaining objection to the title arises from the supposed forfeiture of the right of “Charles Street Methodist Church” to the property, by conveying it to the appellee without naming the use to which it was to be put; or if not then and thereby, by the diversion of the property from the created use in the proposed sale to the appellant. If the deed of assignment by the Charles Street Methodist Chureh to the appellee could be supposed to have worked a diversion from the trust created by the Lorman deed, the effect thereof would only be, that the grantor of the fee or owner of the reversion would he entitled to claim a forfeiture and resume possession of the property. Lorman had only a leasehold interest to assign, and the creation of a trust, when he assigned all his
Decree affirmed.