148 F. 634 | N.D. Ill. | 1906
The bill of the complainant, Holmes, a citizen of Kentucky, seeks a decree declaring a trust of certain prop
The question of the District Court’s jurisdiction under the stipulation having challenged the attention of the court, the Holmes bill was filed in the'Circuit Court, and all parties have entered into an agreement
It appears that John Alexander Dowie, a native of Scotland, where he had been educated along theological lines, came- from Australia to the Pacific Coast in 1§88, and remained there a number of years engaged in church work. From there he came to Illinois, and after considerable time devoted to the same1 work in Chicago undertook the Zion City enterprise in 1899, in execution of a scheme conceived by him many years before; that in furtherance thereof he purchased a tract of land aggregating some 6,000 acres, a part of which was subdivided and laid out in park and residence property, provision being likewise made for manufacturing sites and for other commercial enterprises ; that conveyances of lots were made to various persons by instruments in form of lease for 1,100 years, upon which lots dwelling houses have been erected by the grantees, accommodating a population of 6,000 or 7,000 people; that Dowie has constructed several.schoolhouses at a cost of $25,000 each, buildings for higher educational purposes at an outlay of approximately $200,000, and a tabernacle for church services, seating 6,000 or 7,000 people; that a lace factory, soap works, candy factory, and other industrial enterprises have been established by Dowie, and furnish employment to the inhabitants, who are practically all members of the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church.
jlhe financing of this scheme was accomplished in part by moneys received from purchasers under the 1,100 j^ear leases. What these funds amounted to does not appear, but that a very substantial part of the capital .used in the development of the plan was made up of money contributed to Dowie by persons outside of Zion City and living in various parts of the world, plainly appears from the evidence of Dowie, whose testimony on that subject is substantially as follows:
“I acquired this property by tiie generosity of good people throughout the world, very largely unconnected with the church, as well as connected with the church. I' ha.ve looked upon the property as the result largely of my own good sense under God. I paid for the land only $250 i>er acre, an exceedingly low price, and have maintained a minimum selling price of approximately $3,000 per acre. I have carried on my land wojk through a land department, my law work through a law department, my general stores through a general stores department, my lace industries through a lace industries department, etc. The money came in the form of offerings and contributions from the same common source — the people all over the world, mostly outside of Zion City. I believe the property to be completely mine to do with as I please, and that no human being other than myself has any right, claim, or interest in it. X consider, however, that the way in which I got this property and the way in which I have it absolutely binds me, when I have ceased to control it, to put it in trust in perpetuity for the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church, so that it shall go down to generations to do good in that line, with the exception of 2% per cent, which I think is fair for me and my family. I did think 5 per cent., but I have reduced 'it to 2%, and am somewhat inclined to reduce it more.”
•‘ity unilerstanding is that Dowie had the absolute legal title to the property. and that ho always regarded himseli as holding it in trust for the extension of the Kingdom of God, not that he believed Zion City owned that property or had any interest in it.’"
It may be observed here that a solution of this problem is not embarrassed in any respect whatever by Voliva’s alleged conveyances to Granger, for the obvious reason that those conveyances were in plain violation of the spirit and intent of Dowie's power to Voliva, which both Voliva and Granger wTell knew. Moreover, they knew from a cablegram received shortly before the execution of the documents that Dowie had forbidden such conveyance. Therefore, as between Dowie, Voliva, and Granger, those instruments were mere waste paper. It is also to be borne in mind that there is a vast aggregate of pecuniary liabilities outstanding, a substantial portion of which is now past due. Included in these liabilities are purchase money notes secured by mortgages covering lands upon which the city stands, obligations to pay annuities to persons who have turned over to D'owie moneys and property, merchandise and other creditors, including labor claims of employes of the several Zion enterprises, as well as the demands of depositors of funds in the bank. Those conditions which had existed for many months before Voliva came to Zion City in February, 190(5, resulted, as was to have been expected, in a curtailment, if not suspension, of commercial credit. Material had to be paid for in cash,; the sale of the products of the several factories was restricted, and workmen were thrown out of employment. In short, there was commercial and industrial depression at Zion City. However, in my view of this case a detailed examination into the management of the business enterprises or a minute consideration of the vast aggregate of singularly acrimonious disputes with which the controversy lias been burdened, would be wholly superfluous. During Dowie’s sojourn in Australasia and on the Pacific Coast, he received and devoted to the purposes of church and charity, according to his judgment, a large amount, of money. Apparently he did not seek to amass a private fortune. When he reached Chicago, in 1893, he possessed in addition to a library, wearing apparel etc., only about $2,000. After he came here and down to the occurrence of the events which brought the parties before me he had a very large revenue made up of offerings and contributions from people all over the world, running in some years to as much as $250,000. This money was used by him for church and charity purposes.as he saw the necessity or wisdom of such expenditures, and for the material development of Zion City. And he states that he engaged in secular occupations only as an incident to, or in aid of, the accomplishment of his main object, namely, the propagation of his religious doctrine. As Dowie himself expresses it, he earned money from secular pursuits “for God and humanity.” Thus came about the laying out of Zion City and the establishment there of various industries and commercial enterprises for the temporal welfare of his followers, the ultimate pur
It is a well-recognized principle of equity that where a person accepts money or property to be used by him for the benefit of some other person or persons, or for the advancement of some lawful enterprise, such money or property constitutes a trust estate. It is the function of a chancery court to ascertain whether or not a conveyance falls within this category. If it be determined that it does, it then becomes the duty of the court to prevent a diversion of the fund and to safeguard it for the object of the gift. This may be accomplished by the exercise over both persons and property of those broad powers which so characteristically inhere in a court of equity. The inquiry then is: Did these offerings come to Dowie for his private purse, or did the contributors intend that the fund should be directed to charitable or religious uses? If for any other purpose than the purely personal benefit of Dowie the estate is a trust. It is the duty of the court to get at the substance of the thing, and in ascertaining the purpose of the gift the court is not limited to an inspection of written documents or other specific declarations of the parties made at the time. If their relation is one of confidence, or if he who receives the gift is in a position of influence over him who makes the gift, as for instance, if the person receiving the mone}"- is the advocate of a religious faith, and by word and attitude and environment induces a conviction in the minds of large numbers of people that as an instrumentality of divine authority, he can and does relieve physical ills, and is clothed with power to exert an influence on the spiritual welfare of men and women, who thereupon give him of their lands and goods — surely, the motive of such gift ought not long to remain a matter of doubt in the minds of rational men. The fact that such contributions, amounting at times to as much as $250,000 in a single year, came to him in the form of checks and currency through the mail and b)'- express, the contributor omitting to require the execution of a formal declaration of the trust, does not tend to divest the transactions of their real character. It is just as if a contributor sitting in a church pew had placed the funds on the collection plate passed to him by a deacon. Surely in such case the court would not decree that the parson might put the money in his pocket on the alleged score of no agreement to the contrary, merely because the contributor had failed to rise in his place and exact a pledge of trusteeship from the pulpit.
The Christian Catholic Apostolic Church is unincorporated. If it had been incorporated and John Alexander Dowie had thereupon been duly chosen as general overseer, and the contributions that went to the building up of this estate had come to such general overseer, clearly he could not have a decree of individual proprietorship. Can it be that the mere omission to incorporate changes his relation to the property, and that the general overseer of the unincorporated society is therefore to be adjudged the individual proprietor merely because of such omission? It would be difficult to conceive of anything more inherently inconsistent than Dowie's claim of private ownership and his admission of trust obligation for the spiritual
Ret us now examine what has been Dowie’s own understanding of his relation to this estate as evidenced by his declarations before the events which caused this litigation. In his contracts with intending lessees of land at Zion City and with subscribers to the stock of the Zion Ruikling & Manufacturing Association, unincorporated, he covenanted for himself and his successors. At a meeting in February, 1899, he inquired from the pulpit if any member of the congregation objected to his sole trusteeship, and no objection being voiced he thanked the congregation for their confidence in him. This was prior to the purchase of the land, and on an occasion when the Zion City venture was under consideration. In September, 1908, in a signed letter, published in Reaves of Healing, he asserted:
“Zion’s business is God’s business. Two million dollars of new capital required for the extension and development of the linaneial, commercial, and industrial undertakings of Zion City.”
And he called upon his followers to realize by immediate sale the cash proceeds of all their property and come with all their house to Zion City and invest in Zion securities or Zion lands. At a church meeting’ held in November, 1903, he declared that “Zion, as a whole, has 95 per cent, of the money interest,” and that he, Dowie, has 5 per cent. Again, in Reaves of Healing, November, 1904, he declared:
“This is my word to you: Zion is not my personal property. Get in, and got in with all you have.”
Leaves of Healing was the official organ of the church, edited by Dowie, and used by him as his channel of communication with his followers and sympathizers all over the world. While a witness he declared that it would he difficult to exaggerate the power and, importance of Reaves of Healing. The declarations quoted above, so communicated to his people, were made for some purpose. IManiiesth’, that purpose was to influence the minds of men and women possessed of property. That Dowie recognized that such persons were, in fact, so influenced by his importunities and declarations is evidenced by a codicil to his will executed in August, 1905, as follows:
“The. remaining uiiietoen-twoTUieths of said, estate in my name which I hold and have held in trust for said (Christian Catholic Afiostoiic) Clmrcii, X do*640 hereby give, devise ancl benueath to my successor in office, to him and liis successors in office, to be administered for said church and the extension of Zion and the Kingdom of God, in conformity with the rules of said church and pursuant to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ as expressed in the Holy Scriptures as understood and administered by such church.”
There is no escape from the plain meaning of these words. The .declaration is an unqualified and complete recognition of an existing trust obligation. No specious construction or refinement of reasoning could make anything else out of it, and for this court to enter a decree of private ownership would be to perpetrate a fraud. Counsel have offered in evidence a will executed by Dowie within the last few months, purporting to dispose of this .property in a different way from that provided in the document from which the August codicil is quoted above, and it is argued that the subsequent will supersedes the former one. Of course, it is elementary that so long as a man lives he may change his will or revoke it altogether, and it is therefore entirely competent for Dowie to dispose of whatever individual property he may have in such way as will give effect to the last purpose his faculties enable him to conceive. But this is not the point involved here. While he may alter the disposition of his own property, the words of the 1905 codicil, solemnly declaratory of his trust relation to this property, once committed to paper and his signature attached, are beyond recall.
This estate is and must be held to be a trust for the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church. The appointment of a receiver to take possession and administer the property pending the entry of a final decree, and the designation of a permanent trustee, therefore, becomes necessary. Considering the ecclesiastical dispute which has cast a shadow across Zion City and its inhabitants, and bearing in mind the large variety of conflicting interests, this task is one of extreme delicacy: The position in which the people of Zion City find themselves at this time in respect of the question of employment is to my mind the most pressing consideration before the court. It is strongly insisted by counsel for the complainant Holmes and for the Voliva faction that the defendant Alexander Granger be continued in charge. This appointment it is asserted is an absolute necessity. I do not concur in this proposition. Waiving all questions of Granger’s fitness or unfitness from the standpoint of business ability for this undertaking, some time ago he took a vow from which I quote the following:
“I vow in the name or God my Father and of Jesus Christ, His Son and my Saviour, and of the Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Father and the Son, that I will be a faithful member of Zion’s Restoration Host,' and X declare that I recognize John Alexander Dowie, General Overseer of the Christian Catholic Church in Zion in his three-fold prophetic office as a messenger of the Covenant, the Prophet foretold by Moses, and Elijah the Restorer. I promise to the full extent of all my power to obey all rightful orders issued by him, and that all family ties and obligations, and all relations to all human government shall be held subordinate to this vow. This I make in the presence of Almighty God.”
It is not my duty to express my contempt for the man that could exact or take this oafh, but I am not obliged to repose confidence in
The question of the overseership of the church has to be considered. That officer will represent the religious organization for whose use the receiver will administer the trust estate. Wilbur Glenn Voliva is at present acting overseer. He was brought from Australia, wdiere he occupied a subordinate position, and placed in charge at Zion City by Dowie, whose grave physical malady required him to sojourn in a southern clime. Without going into the merits or demerits of the several ecclesiastical contentions of the different factious, it is a fact that Voliva and his adherents assumed to suspend Dowie from the general overseership, in Dowie’s absence, and without giving him a hearing. Charges gravely affecting Dowie’s private character were made. An incident of the controversy was the suspension of Wilhite, Peters, and others from fellowship in the church, by a communication in the following language:
“Mr. Fielding H. Wilhite — Dear Brother in Christ: inasmuch as you are aiding and abetting an officer of this church who has been suspended from his office and from fellowship, it becomes my duty to remove you from office and suspend you from fellowship in the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church in Zion for cause. Unless you turn from the error of your way it will be necessary to remove you from Fellowship. Praying to God to lead you to repentance, I am,
“Faithfully yours, in the Master’s service,
“J. G. Excell, Ecclesiastical Secretary.”
The punishment thus inflicted upon Dowie’s followers as a penalty. for their refusal to desert their leader so taints their proceedings with unfairness that common decency seems to require that some sort of orderly method, free from all possible coercion and duress, be employed to select a general overseer by a process which will leave his title free from cloud. It is the general rule that a court
An order will be entered in the bankruptcy matter of John Alexander Dowie in the District Court vacating the order adjudicating him a bankrupt, and dismissing the petition.
