Boxwell v. Affleck

Citations

• 79 Va. 402
• 1884 Va. LEXIS 95

Syllabus

<p>Churches and Church Property—Case at Bar.—In 1854 N. devised, after C.’s death, a house and lot at B., to the trustees of the M. E. church at B., for the use of said church. B. was within the limits of the Baltimore conference then attached to the M. E. church, but afterwards, in 1866, attached to the M. E. church south. In 1876 a joint commission, appointed by the general conferences of the two churches, awarded this house and lot to the M. E. church south. C., the life tenant, died in 1881. Upon a bill by the trustees of the M. E. church south, at B., against those of the M. E. church at B., to determine the title to this house and lot—</p> <p>Held:</p> <p>1. Baltimore conference, by its said action in 1866, did not become entitled to the benefit of the plan of division adopted in the general conference of the church in 1844. Hoskinson v. Pusey, 32 Gratt. 428.</p> <p>2. The devise was to a particular congregation of the M. E. church ; and hence was valid. It was not to that church in a general sense. If it had been, it would have been invalid. Code 1873, chapter 76, § 8.</p> <p>3. The general conference of the M. E. church had no power, directly or indirectly, to transfer the property of the said congregation of. the M. E. church at B. to the M. E. church south.</p> <p>4. Hence the joint commission at Cape May had no power to make such award.</p>