director, whether under Mrs. Eddy's deed of board of directors of the First Church of 1892, or otherwise.

11. Religious societies

14-Wisdom or expediency of removal of church officer not reviewed by court.

When validity of order of removal of director of church is challenged in courts, wisdom or expediency of removal is not reviewed. 12. Religious societies 14-Removal of of. ficer according to rules final on courts.

Decision of society, or its officers acting in good faith, removing officers according to their own rules, is final on courts, whether right or wrong; courts ascertaining only if there has been compliance with essential formalities, and whether proceedings are regular, and whether decision is within scope of jurisdiction.

13. Religious societies 9-Director could be
removed by vote, without hearing or notice.
Under Church Manual, Church By-Laws, art.
1, § 5, of First Church of Christ, Scien-
tist, Boston, providing a majority vote or the
request of Mrs. Eddy for dismissing a member,
directors could remove one of their members
by a majority vote without notice or hearing.
14. Religious societies 9-Removal of direc-
tor held not malicious, whimsical, or capri-

cious.

Assuming that power of directors to remove one of their members by majority vote could not be exercised maliciously, whimsically, or capriciously, findings by master that members voting for removal were incapable of impartial judicial consideration and were hostile to removed member, but that controlling motive which induced removal was desire to remove an obstacle presented by presence on board of one interfering with compromise of litigation, did not warrant interference by court.

15. Equity 410(6)-Exceptions as to rulings of law not considered, when not within requirement of rule to master.

Under rule to master "to hear the parties and their evidence, to find the facts and report the same to the court," exceptions relating to rulings of law need not be considered as such because rulings of law were not within require

ment of rule.

Christ, Scientist, in Boston," and seeks injunctive relief to compel the several defendants to recognize him as such director.

[1-3] 1. The present case was brought at about the same time as Eustace v. Dickey, reported in 240 Mass. 55, 132 N. E. 852. Both cases were referred to the same master.

The evidence received in one was to be considered in the other so far as pertinent. A report was made by the master in Eustace v. Dickey, which dealt with the issues there involved, before the hearings in the case at bar were concluded. The master in making his report in Eustace v. Dickey decided that in one aspect it was necessary for him to determine whether the present plaintiff was a director or whether he had been removed. A motion that he be directed to conclude the hearing of evidence in the present case before filing the report in the other case was denied by the court. Accordingly the master proceeded to make findings of fact on that issue, which were adverse to the contentions of the present defendants. Those findings were not material to the decision of that case and hence became of no final force and effect. 240 Mass. 55, at page 88, 132 N. E. 852. After that decision was rendered by this court, the defendants moved that the rule to the master be discharged and a new master appointed. In substance, the grounds alleged in that motion were that the master had prejudged this case because of his decision in the other case, and was biased and could not give the defendants that impartial hearing to which they are entitled. Affidavits and counter affidavits were filed. The motion was denied after hearing and consideration, and the defendants appealed. The discharge of one master after hearings have begun and the appointment of another is unsual. It ought not to be done except for compelling reasons. The master in the case at bar was exceptionally equipped by long experience in high judicial position. It is the right of every citizen, secured by constitutional mandate, to be tried by judges as

Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial "free, impartial and independent as the lot Court, Suffolk County.

Suit by John V. Dittemore against Adam H. Dickey and others, to compel defendants to recognize him as director of a church. Case reserved. Decree dismissing bill ordered entered.

W. G. Thompson, of Boston, and F. C. Demond, of Concord, N. H., for plaintiff.

of humanity will admit." No one ought ever to be appointed master in an equity suit whose character is not unblemished and above reproach. His mind ought always to be open to the truth and susceptible to every right influence flowing from the evidence. Hall v. Thayer, 105 Mass. 219, 221, 7 Am. Rep. 513; Harrington v. Boston Elevated Railway, 229 Mass. 421, 432, 118 N. E. 880, 2 A. L. R. 1057; Commonwealth Tobacco Co. v. Alliance Ins. Co., 238 Mass. 514, 516, 131 N. E. 213. The affidavits fail to indicate RUGG, C. J. This is a suit in equity any want of competency in the master to wherein the plaintiff assails the validity of a hear fairly and decide impartially all isresolution purporting to remove him from sues. His decision in the other case falls "the Christian Science board of directors, the far short of disqualification. Until a com

W. A. Dane and J. L. Bates, both of Boston, (C. P. Smith and R. E. Buffum, both of Boston, of counsel), for defendants.

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

(144 N.E.)

paratively recent rule of this court, it was for a period of more than 22 years, until the common practice for one to sit as a member of the full court in review of his decisions rendered as a single justice, and instances are not infrequent where such justice has expressed the judgment of the full court and of himself in reversing his previous decision. See, for example, Gorham v. Moor, 197 Mass. 522, 526, 84 N. E. 436; Crocker v. Justices of the Superior Court, 208 Mass. 162, 180, 94 N. E. 369, 21 Ann. Cas. 1061. Moreover; the decision of such a motion by a single justice will not be reversed on appeal, except in most extraordinary circumstances. Cunningham v. Worcester Five Cents Savings Bank, 223 Mass. 361, 363, 111 N. E. 898. This motion was overruled rightly.

August, 1892. The old church organization had directors whose members varied from time to time. The "voluntary association of Christians" thus described in the resolutions had directors appointed by Mrs. Eddy during this interval, vacancies among them being filled by her without consulting the members, though it does not appear what their precise duties were. Since May, 1892, Mrs. Eddy had been planning a reorganization of her church, being this voluntary association retaining the name of the original corporate organization. Another incorporation was first proposed, under the same name, to be effected in the first instance by 12 selected by her out of the larger membership of the voluntary association. At her direction these 12 signed "Articles of Organization" for the purpose of becoming incorporated, and written notices of meeting to be held on August 29, 1892, were sent out. The signers met accordingly, but no proceedings for organization were had pursuant to the notice, because one of the signers appeared bearing a message from Mrs. Eddy to the assembled

[4] 2. This case presents another aspect of internal dissensions in the sect known as Christian Scientists, some of which were before us in Eustace v. Dickey, 240 Mass. 55, 132 N. E. 852. The main question for decision on the present record is whether the plaintiff has been removed as a member of the Christian Science Board of Directors. That involves the determination of a pre-signers to the effect that she had changed liminary question as to what persons compose that Board of Directors. It is contended that there are two such boards, one created by deed and the other by the manual or bylaws of the church. To understand and decide this preliminary question requires a detailed statement of some of the facts. The case was first referred to a master to hear the parties and their evidence, to find the facts and report the same. There is no report of the evidence. The facts as found by the master therefore must be accepted as true, since they are not mutually inconsistent or contradictory.

Mrs. Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, was the leader in the organization of an incorporated church, whose charter was obtained in June, 1879. Its name was the Church of Christ, Scientist, and she became its pastor. This continued until December, 1889, when the members in annual meeting, duly called, adopted resolutions declaring that its existing by-laws and regulations, except only such as fixed the name of the church, were null and void, that "the corporation be and is declared dissolved," and directing the clerk to take the necessary steps to give the resolution legal effect. Another clause in the resolution was that:

"The members of this church hereby declare that this action is taken in order to realize more perfectly the purpose of its institution as an organization, namely, growth in spiritual life and the spread of the 'Glad Tidings,' and that they will continue as a voluntary association of

Christians
* in the exercise of all the
ministrations and activities heretofore perform-
ed by them as the Church of Christ, Scientist."
The members continued to meet and hold
services as contemplated in this resolution

her plan and was not going to have the church incorporated, that she had had prepared a trust deed which he read to the meeting, and that she desired the 4 grantees therein named, who also were present, for "directors of her church." A president and secretary of the meeting of signers were chosen. The signers voted without dissent to "accept" the four persons named as directors. Although there was testimony to the effect that a record was kept of this meeting, it cannot now be found and this meeting appears to have received no further mention or notice. Under date of September 1, 1892, Mrs. Eddy executed the deed of trust which had been read to the meeting of August 29, 1892, conveying land in Boston to 4 persons therein named, "as trustees as hereinafter provided and to their legitimate successors in office forever," upon express trusts specified in 11 numbered articles. The first of these was in these words:

"Said grantees shall be known as the 'Christian Science Board of Directors,' and shall constitute a perpetual body or corporation under and in accordance with section 1, chapter 39, of the Public Statutes of Massachusetts. Whenever a vacancy occurs in said board the remaining members shall within 30 days fill the same by election; but no one shall be eligible to that office who is not in the opinion of the remaining members of the board a firm and con

sistent believer in the doctrines of Christian

Science as taught in a book entitled 'Science and Health,' by Mary Baker G. Eddy, beginning with the seventy-first edition thereof."

Further trusts were to build a church on the land conveyed, "to elect a pastor, reader or speaker to fill the pulpit who shall be a genuine Christian Scientist," to maintain

It was not until 1908 that provision was inserted in the manual constituting the Board of Directors officers of the church, but no change seems to have been wrought thereby in actual practice, either as to the functions of the directors or the attitude of the church and its members toward them. It seems not open to fair doubt that the Board of Directors as named in the deed of September 1, 1892, have been officers of the church under Christian Science polity from the beginning of their joint existence to the present. Since 1901 practically the entire management of the church has been in the hands of the four constituting the Board of Directors up to 1903 and of the five composing that board since that date.

public worship in the church in accordance | been transacted by the Christian Science with the doctrines of Christian Science and Board of Directors. In 1903 a by-law was not otherwise, the congregation worshipping adopted that the Christian Science Board of in the church to be styled "the First Church Directors shall consist of five members. An of Christ, Scientist." Other trusts were an- additional person was elected as director in cillary and subsidiary. The deed contained conformity to the polity of the church. Five no provision for the removal of trustees or persons have since continuously acted as directors. The habendum was "to said gran- such directors. tees and their successors in office to the uses and trusts above described forever." The 4 persons named as grantees, and their successors, exercised the functions and powers assigned by the deed until 1903. At a meeting held on September 23, 1892, 11 persons, including the 4 grantees in the deed of September 1, 1892, organized "the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass." The records of the church begin with this meeting. A president, clerk and treasurer were elected. "First Members" were elected; tenets and 6 rules for the government of the church were adopted. One further rule was adopted soon after. These rules provided for annual meetings, for the choice of officers, hearing reports and transaction of other church business, for quarterly meetings, for It thus has come about that so far as conqualifications, election and publication of cerns the ecclesiastical management of the names of members, for observance of the church the Board of Directors consists of communion and prohibited membership in five members. This number was established other churches. The distinction between either at the suggestion or with the approval "First Members," who alone had voting pow- of Mrs. Eddy and has been universally acer and whose numbers appear always to have cepted without dissent by all members of the been comparatively small, and other mem-church. No distinction has been drawn in bers of the church who became such by sub- practice between the duties created by the scribing to the tenets, was maintained until deed of September 1, 1892, and those created by proceedings under the polity of the church by the manual. The five directors have "First Members" in any ecclesiastical sense since 1903 performed all duties indifferently, ceased to exist. The church so organized has and their records have been kept without continued its existence and the maintenance distinction with respect both to the deed and of its public worship and services to the pres- the manual. ent. Mrs. Eddy was pastor emeritus from the beginning as long as she lived. In 1895 the first Church Manual was adopted by vote of the First Members. It contained rules and by-laws differing in important particulars from the earlier ones, and containing much new matter. The earlier rules were repealed. These rules and by-laws adopted in 1895 were published as the first edition of the manual, under date of 1895. In this manual, under the caption "Church Officers," after Mrs. Eddy's name as pastor emeritus, came, under the title "Christian Science Board of Directors," the names of the 4 grantees in the deed of September 1, 1892. These by-laws provided also that the officers of the church should be elected by the board of directors and not by the "First Members." In 1901 a by-law was adopted to the effect that:

"The business of the Mother Church [another designation of the First Church of Christ, Scientist] hitherto transacted by the First Members, shall be done by its 'Christian Sci

ence Board of Directors.'"

Since that time by universal practice and consent all the business of the church has

[5-8] The question recurs in the light of this church history as to the scope and effect of the deed of September 1, 1892. Every instrument in writing is to be interpreted, with a view to the material circumstances of the parties at the time of the execution, in the light of the pertinent facts within their knowledge and in such manner as to give effect to the main end designed to be accomplished. A trust instrument is to be so construed as to give effect to the intent of the founder as manifested by the words used illumined by all the attendant factors, unless inconsistent with some positive rule of law or repugnant to other terms of the instrument. An omission to express an intention cannot be supplied by conjecture. But if the instrument as a whole produces a conviction that a particular result was fixedly desired although not expressed by formal words, that defect may be supplied by implication and the underlying intention of the founder of the trust may be effectuated, provided it is sufficiently declared by the entire instrument. Eustace v. Dickey, 240 Mass. 55, 72, 73, 132 N. E. 852, and cases there collected. Words and terms in a deed with respect to the con

(144 N.E.)

cerns and administrations of a particular | churches of the then more familiar ecclesireligious sect, executed and accepted by those astical sects and their officers. Even if it who are its adherents, ought to be interpret- be assumed that the church as a religious ed, expounded and applied according to the society was not sufficiently developed on sense and meaning in which they are known September 1, 1892, to support the existence to be used in that sect. Earle v. Wood, 8 of its officers as a corporation under the statCush. 430, 461. ute, the intent of the grantor in the deed is plain that she desired the grantees whom she named as directors of the church to hold this property as officers of churches hold property. She gave to the named grantees titles as officers which were familiar from usage to those who then were known as Christian Scientists and were her followers. She described them by the name which she had given them and which her adherents had accepted, adopted and ratified in their somewhat informal preliminary gathering. It was a name which they have continued to bear ever since.

[9] Mrs. Eddy was the founder of a new sect or denomination of Christianity. Her views in 1892 apparently were in a state of transition, development or evolution. She had not then completely formulated the precise form of ecclesiastical organization best adapted in her mind to carry out her conception of a church. She was studying that problem, but had not reached a conclusion. She desired to give a tract of land for the purpose of erecting a church edifice. She made an unmistakable declaration that the grantees in her deed of September 1, 1892, should constitute a corporation under the The words "successors in office," which ocname "Christian Science Board of Directors," cur in the habendum, as well as earlier, in in accordance with the terms of the contem- the deed of September 1, 1892, must be takporaneous statute governing religious soci-en to mean those who succeed the grantees eties. She cited that statute. Its words thus in the office of directors of the Christian imported into her deed by reference were Science Church. The declaration in the deed that: that the directors are to take as a body cor

"The deacons, church wardens, or other sim-porate under Pub. Sts. c. 39, § 1, if ineffective ilar officers of churches or religious societies, in other aspects is at least equivalent to a and the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal declaration that the succession to those granChurches, appointed according to the discipline and usages thereof, shall, if citizens of this commonwealth, be deemed bodies corporate for the purpose of taking and holding in succession all grants and donations, whether of real or personal estate, made either to them and their successors, or to their respective churches, or to the poor of their churches." Pub. Sts. c. 39, § 1. See St. 1884, c. 78, now G. L. c. 68, § 1.

Of course mere declaration in a deed of grant cannot make named persons a corpo ration. But the words of grant in the deed of September 1, 1892, show an unequivocal purpose. There was in any event in existence at that time "a voluntary association of Christians" as they termed themselves, to whom Mrs. Eddy had been and was at that time preaching. She had declared to those of these whom she asked to assemble that she wanted the four persons named as grantees

in the deed then read to them "for directors

of her church," and the members there assembled voted with unanimity to accept them as "directors." It is indubitable that a religious society as those words are used in our statute was then in process of formation, and that the two things then determined were its name and its managing officers. Its organization was completed during that month. The powers conferred by the deed of September 1, 1892 with respect to the maintenance of worship in the edifice that was to be erected show that the board of directors was to exercise extensive administrative functions. The directors were clothed by that deed with most of the powers usually exercised by the

tees named in the deed as directors is to be according to the succession in the religious societies there described. It is plain that if a grant were made to 4 named persons as deacons of an existing Congregational Church as a corporation under the statute and their successors in office, and the number of deacons subsequently was increased or diminished, the whole number of persons thus later named as deacons would act in the

administration of the trusts created by such deed. They would act also according to such rules or by-laws as might from time to time be enacted and would not be confined to such as were in existence at the delivery of the deed. The effect of the deed here in question is the same as if it had expressly stipulated that the succession should be to such-perof the Christian Science Church and with sons as might from time to time be directors such powers as they might from time to time possess under the polity of that church subject to the trusts of the deed. This is the only way in which the intent of Mrs. Eddy as expressed in the deed can be given full ef

fect. The effectuation of this intent vio

lates no rule of law and is not repugnant to any of the terms of the grant.

It follows that when the number of directors of the church was increased to 5 that they became trustees under the deed of September 1, 1892 in succession to the directors originally named. There are not two boards of directors, one under the deed of September 1, 1892, and one under the Church Manual. Those who constitute the

Christian Science Board of Directors of the | 458, 461, 118 N. E. 868, and cases there colFirst Church of Christ, Scientist, according to lected. Eustace v. Dickey, 240 Mass. 55, 84, its manual and the ecclesiastical polity of 132 N. E. 852; Carter v. Papineau, 222 Mass. that church administer as one board both the 464, 111 N. E. 358, L. R. A. 1916D, 371, Ann. trusts of the deed of September 1, 1892, and Cas. 1918C, 620. the functions devolved on them by the Church Manual.