67 Colo. 217 | Colo. | 1919
Opinion by
The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below. July 6, 1900, Greek Catholic Church of The St. Michaels was incorporated by the filing of the affidavit in accordance with the statute for incorporating churches.
June 12, 1901, an affidavit was filed, showing that a meeting of the church was held May 20th, 1901, at which a change of name was attempted to “The Greek Catholic Church of St. Michaels.”
March 31, 1908, an affidavit was filed, purporting to change the name of “The Greek Catholic Church of St. Michaels,” to the “Greek Orthodox Church of St. Michaels,”
July 3rd, 1908, the attempt seems to have been made to change the name again to “The Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic St. Archangels Michaels Church of Pueblo, Colo.”
On the same day, by warranty deed, The Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Archangels Michaels Church purports to convey to Archbishop Platon Roizdestvensky and his successors in office the church property, which had been conveyed in 1901 to the “Trustees of the Greek Catholic Church of the St. Michael,” The grantee was an archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church.
March 15th, 1913, this suit was brought in the name of-“The Greek Catholic Church of St. Michaels” against Archbishop Platon Roizdestvensky. The Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic St. Archangels Michaels Church of Pueblo, Colorado, was afterwards added as a defendant.
The prayer was to cancel the last two changes of name and the deed to the Archbishop, and to quiet the title in the plaintiff.
It was claimed, on the other hand, that the church had always been an Orthodox Greek Catholic church, and that the changes of name were made to express that more clearly, and the defendants’ evidence tended to show this. The defendants moreover pleaded laches and showed that during the incumbency of the orthodox priests from about 1904 to 1913 some three or four thousand dollars had been expended in improving the property and paying off mortgages upon it.
The opinion of the court below, which is made a part of the record on error, shows that the learned judge who tried the case was of the opinion that the plea of laches had been sustained by the evidence, and, accordingly, he gave judgment for the defendants.
Argument is made here that mere lapse of time is not sufficient to constitute laches. While we think that is not always the case yet the question does not -now arise, because, during the long delay from 1904 to 1913, the parties in possession, in apparent good faith — we must assume that
It is also urged that the proceedings sought to be can-celled are absolutely void, and therefore the doctrine of laches does not apply. The rule here invoked does not itself apply to a case where the party pleading the laches has, by reason of the delay, been put to disadvantage.
We can see no equity in returning to the plaintiff the property with additions made and debts removed which would not have been made or removed if the plaintiff’s action had been prompt.
We think the record show's other grounds to support the judgment, but it is not necessary to notice them.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Garrigues, C. J. and Scott, J. concur.