About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

William A. Smith and others, v. Leroa Swormstedt and others U.S. 288 (1854)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0217 and id is 1 raw text is: 288 SUPREME COUR:T. Smith et al. v. Swormstedt et al. the plaintiffs as owners of three undivided fourth parts of the land. The judgment of the Circuit Court is tffirmed, with costs. Order. This cause came on to.be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs. WILLIA A. SIITH AND OTHERS, vi. LERO. SWORMSTEDT AND OTHERS. In 1844, the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States, at a General Confer- ence, passed sundry resolutions providing for a distiret, ecclesiastical organization in the slaveholding States,.in case the annual conferences of those States should deem the measure expedient. In 1845, these conferences did deem it expedient and organized a separate ecclcsias- tical community, under the appellation of the lethodst Episcopal Church South. At this time there existed property, known as the Book Concern, belonging to the General Church, which was the result of the labors and accumulation of all the ministers. Commissioners appointed by the Methodist Episcopal Church South, may file a bill in chancery, in behalf of themselves and those whom they represent, against the trustees of the Book Concern, for a division of the property. The rule is well established that where the parties interested are numerous, and the suit is for an object common to them all, some of the body may maintain a bill on behalf of themselves and of the others; and a bill may also be maintained against a portion of a numerous body of defendants, representing a common interest. The Methodist Church was divided. It was not a case cf the secession of a part from the the main body. Neither division lost its interest in the common property. The General Conference, of 1844, had the legitimate power thus to divide the church. In 1808, the General Conference was made a. representative body, with six restrict- ive articles upon its powers. But none of these articles deprived it of the power of dividing the church. The sixth restrictive article provided that the General Conference should not appropr- ate the profits of the Book Concern to any other purpose than for the benefit of the travelling ministers, their widows, &c.-; and one of the resolutions of 1844 recom- mended to all the annual conferences to authorize a change in the sixth restrictive article. This was not imposed as a condition of separation, but merely a plan to enable the General Conference itself to carry out its purposes. The separation of the church into two parts being legally accomplished, a division of the joint property by a court of equity follows, as a matter of course. THIS was an appeal from the Circuit, Court of the United States for the District of Ohio, which dismissed the bill. The bill was originally filed in the names of Henry B. Bascom,

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most