{
  "id": 5447505,
  "name": "The United Brethren Church of Moline v. The First Methodist Episcopal Church of Moline et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "United Brethren Church of Moline v. First Methodist Episcopal Church of Moline",
  "decision_date": "1891-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "608",
  "last_page": "611",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "138 Ill. 608"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "7 Mass. 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        1999417
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/7/0158-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Pet. 319",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Pet.",
      "case_ids": [
        534502
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/30/0204-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Pick., 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pick.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5249199
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/27/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Barb. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Barb.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 Ill. 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2611806
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "400"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/63/0344-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5249199
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/27/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2611806
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/63/0344-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 405,
    "char_count": 7414,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.920178883658142e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42017198686101004
    },
    "sha256": "3329e1b47a03ccba759e546ad020fe5781fd645d0bc8b4964e7c20cd3d359b12",
    "simhash": "1:722f5996dea518ee",
    "word_count": 1337
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:24.779386+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The United Brethren Church of Moline v. The First Methodist Episcopal Church of Moline et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Magruder\ndelivered the opinion of the. \u25a0Court:\nThis is an action of ejectment begun on November 30,1889\u00bb in the Circuit Court of Bock Island County by the \u201cUnited Brethren Church of Moline,\u201d a corporation, against the First Methodist Episcopal Church of Moline, a corporation, and nine persons as trustees of said Ghureh,.to recover the possession of Lot 6 in Block \u00e9 in South Moline, as said lot is-known and designated upon the recorded plat of South Moline. The pleas were not guilty and nul tiel corporation. The verdict and judgment below were for the defendants.\nUpon the trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence an affidavit of incorporation, as prescribed by section 35 of chapter 32 of the Revised Statutes in relation to the organization of religious corporations, in which one Carr swears that, at a meeting of the members of the United Brethren Church of Molineheld at their meeting house in the city of Moline on March-13, 1873, for that purpose, three persons (naming them) wereeleeted trustees of said Church according to the usage thereof, and said Church adopted as its corporate name, \u201cUnited Brethren Church of Moline,\u201d and that, at said meeting, the affiant, Carr, acted as Secretary, which affidavit was sworn to before a notary on March 17, 1873, and recorded on March 19, 1873.\nThe plaintiff further introduced in evidence a warrantee deed dated April 10, 1882, executed by James Morphy and wife, as party of the first part, to \u201cJosiah G. Heck, Adam-Fries and Stanward D. Wendell, trustees of the United Brethren Church and their successors in office, of the city of Moline,\u201d as party of the second part, conveying said lot to said party of the second part, and their \u201csuccessors in office and assigns,\u201d to have and to hold the same to said, second party, \u201cand their successors- and assigns forever.\u201d The covenants in the deed are with the second party and their \u201csuccessors in office and assigns.\u201d\nAppellant claims, that the title to the lot was vested in it by the deed from Morphy. But the plaintiff in this suit is the \u201cUnited Brethren Church of Moline, \u201d a corporation. The deed from Morphy was not made to the corporation, but to Heck, Fries and Wendell, trustees of the corporation. The Tatter held the legal title, and the suit should have been brought 'in their names, and not in the name of the corporation. (Den v. Hay, 1 Zabriskie, (N. J. L.) 174; Chadsey v. McCreery, 27 Ill. 253.)\nThat the deed from Morphy put the legal title in the trustees named therein as grantees, and not in the corporation, does not seem to be denied by appellant, but it is claimed that such grantees held the property in trust for the Church, or for the use of the Church, and that, under section 3 of the Conveyance Act, the trust was executed by the Statute of Uses, so as to vest the fee at once in the Church, as the cestui que use. (Witham v. Brooner, 63 Ill. 344.) But the Statute of Uses applies only to express trusts, and not to implied or constructive trusts, or trusts created by operation of law. (Tiedeman on Real Prop. sec. 497.) In Witham v. Brooner, supra, we said: \u201cUnder this statute a deed in the form of a bargain and sale must be regarded as having the force and effect of a feoffment; and, under the Statute of Uses, a feoffment to A for the use of, or in trust for B, would pass the legal title to B.\u201d But in the case at bar there is no express trust created. The deed made by Morphy does not convey the lot to the grantees in trust for, or to the use of, the Church; it does not even convey it to them as trustees.\nInasmuch as the plaintiff below did not show the legal title to be in itself, it was not entitled to recover, and the judgment was properly rendered for the defendants. It is unnecessary to consider any other errors.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Magruder"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Marion E. Sweeney, and Mr. Ira O. Wilkinson, for the appellant:",
      "Messrs. Searle & Searle, and Mr. William Jackson, for the appellees:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The United Brethren Church of Moline v. The First Methodist Episcopal Church of Moline et al.\nFiled at Ottawa October 31, 1891.\n1. Conveyance\u2014deed construed\u2014as to who shall take the legal title. A deed to \u201cA, B and C, trustees of the United Brethren Church, and \u2022 \"their successors in office, of the city of Moline,\u201d as parties of the second part, conveying a lot to the said party of the second part and their \u201csuccessors in office and assigns,\u201d to have and to hold the same to said second party \u201cand their successors and assigns, forever,\u201d with covenants to the second party and their \u201csuccessors in office and assigns,\u201d as not a conveyance to the corporation, but to the individuals named .as trustees. Such deed does not convey the lot to the grantees in trust \u25a0for or to the use of the church, and does not even convey it to them as \u2022trustees.\n2. Same\u2014section 3 of act relating to, construed\u2014feoffment to A for \u25a0use of B. Section 3 of chapter 24, relating to conveyances, applies only to express trusts, and not to implied or constructive trusts, or trusts created by operation of law. Under this statute a deed in the form of a bargain and sale must be regarded as having the force and effect of \u25a0a feoffment; and under the Statute of Uses a feoffment to A, for the use of or in trust for B, will pass the legal title to B.\n3. So a deed to \u201cA, B and 0, trustees of a church, and their successors in office,\u201d conveying to them a lot, to have and to hold the same to them and their successors in office and assigns, forever, creates no express trust, and the Statute of Uses will not pass the title to the church.\n4. Ejectment\u2014plaintiff must show title. In ejectment, unless the plaintiff can show a legal title in himself, he can not recover.\n. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Bock Island county; the Hon. Abthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Marion E. Sweeney, and Mr. Ira O. Wilkinson, for the appellant:\nThe deed from Morphy and wife is in the common form, conveys the premises to the grantees as trustees of the appellant, and imposes no duties on the trustees, and by its legal effect and the operation of the statute vests the legal title of \"the grantor, Morphy, in the United Brethren Church of Moline, the appellant herein. Rev. Stat. chap. 32, sec. 3; Witham v. Brooner, 63 Ill. 344; Kirkland v. Cox, 94 id. 400; Vinson v. Vinson, 4 Bradw. 138.\nMessrs. Searle & Searle, and Mr. William Jackson, for the appellees:\nIt is incumbent on appellant to make out aprima facie case* Patterson v. Johnson, 113 Ill. 570.\nThe deed from Morphy vests no title in the appellant corporation, but in the persons named, the addition of the words; \u201ctrustees,\u201d etc., being merely descriptio persones,\u2014descriptiva; of the persons named as grantees. Den v. Hay, 1 Zabr. 174; Brown v. Combs, 5 Dutch. 36; Tower v. Hale, 46 Barb. 461; Chadsey v. McCreery, 27 Ill. 253; Norton v. Leonard, 12 Pick., 158; Clark v. Courtney, 5 Pet. 319; Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189; Fox v. Frith, 10 M. & W. 136; 3 Washburn on Real Prop. 237; Story on Agency, 151.\nIt is undoubtedly true that the statute executes bare on naked express trusts; and it is equally true, both on principle and authority, that such trusts are the only kind it does-execute. It would be obviously contrary to public policy, as well as in direct contravention of the Statute of Frauds, to permit the \u201cStatute of Uses to execute implied, resulting or -constructive trusts,\u201d\u2014in other words, secret trusts. 2 Wash-burn on Beal Prop. 437, and cases cited; Tiedeman on Beal-. Prop. sec. 479, and cases cited."
  },
  "file_name": "0608-01",
  "first_page_order": 608,
  "last_page_order": 611
}