ARK.] LAU.. 1115 LAEL T. CROON. ' 4-4354 ()Pinion delivered , 'Octobei: 5, , 1936.-• •• 1. DEEDs.—Since a 'deed to certain -15ersons, ' naming them, as trust tees, .conveYs a good title, a deed to : I.::; • Commander . bf Cany'Beh MCCullough of Confederate Veterans, conveyed title- to'L. 'aa trus= tee, although . the camp was an unincorporated assoCiation. a deeil made to Camp Wiley Crook, Sons of Confederate:Vet-: erans, is not valid, because made to the unincorporated,association Whiell ' had no power : to aoplire iiroperty • in . its nanie.' 2. DEE6s--4iEqUISITE1 a—The' requisites .. of ' a:deed ' are thA there be persons able-AO contract with for ' : the' purpose intended-, by •the deed,' so that in- every grant. there Must . be a grantee, a• grantor, and a thing to . be granted:: ,It is: essential, that the grantee ;be,.a person, natural or artificial, capable of taking title ' at' the time, of the Conveyance. • 3 DErizs. — Where- the comniarider • of. a " cainP of -Confederate Vet: erans, 'an unincorporated asSociation; held'title tO real estate- As-trustee for' the association,'a conveyance, by hirn.to . Camp Wiley Crook, .Sons of Confederate Veterans, , was.invalid and conveyed • no title becanse Camp Wiley (rook was. an unincorporated dsso-ciation, and aS such . coUld not take ' title, and title reniained 'in successor . to L, cernmander bf' Camp . Ben 'McCullough . of 'Confed2 erate Veterans, as-trustee: Appeal from "Lineal; ClianCe0 .-Ccriirt J. 31:" Shaw, Special Chancellor . ; affirmed. Thomas W. Waines, for appellant. A. J. Johnso ,o; for . appellee. • , MEHAFFY ? J. On Jaramyy.B,, 1_909, A. J. : White, and M. A. White, his : wife, execiited'aild delivered to W. H.. Lyle the following.deed: 'Know • all•rnen •by these presents•:-•• • • • "That we, A. J. White 'and' M. A.'White; • his -wife, for and in consideration of the • suni-of Seventy4fi.ve No/100' Dollars cash in- liand To us' paid by W. H. Lyle;, comMander of Camp Ben:McCullough ofLincOliirCounty,• Arkansas, do hereby grant, bargain, sell-rind convey , unto' the said W. H.-Lyle, ,commandef of Can* 'Ben McCul-lough arid unto : his saccesSors -: And assigns ever the following landsdsituated in , the , County Of celn and State of •Arkansa,:lowit: •
1116 LAM:, V. CROOK. [192 "The northeast quarter of southwest quarter of section twenty (20), township nine (9) south, range seven (7) west, containing ten (10) acres of land, more or less, with all water.privileges, that is to say, to have the use of the water of both springs free of all charges with free ingress and egress to and across the northeast .quarter of southwest quarter of said section 20 to and from the lands herein conveyed to the two springs of water herein mentioned. "To have and to hold the same unto the said W. H. Lyle, commander of Camp Ben . McCullough and unto his successors and assigns forever, with all appurtenances thereunto belonging. And we hereby covenant with the said W. H. Lyle, commander of Camp Ben McCullough, and unto his successors and assigns forever, that we will forever warrant and defend the title to the said lands against all lawful claims whatsoever. And I, M. A. White, wife of the said A. J. White, for.and in consideration of the said sum of money, do hereby release and relinquish unto the said W. H. Lyle, commander of Camp Ben McCullough, and his successors and assigns forever, all my right of dower and homestead in and to said lands. " WITNESS our hands and seals this 6th day of Janu-ary, 1909. "A. J. WHITE, "M. A. WmTs." Said deed was properly acknowledged and recorded. On July 19, 1929, Camp Ben McCullough of confederate veterans adopted a resolution authorizing W. M. Crook, commander of the camp, to execute a deed to the property described in the deed from White to the camp, to camp Wiley Crook, •ons of Confederate -Veterans, and chapter J. Mart Meroney, U. D. C. of Lin-coln county, Arkansas. On August . 6, 1930, the deed, as provided for in the resolution, was executed by W. M. Crook, commander. On Decembei- 6, 1934, the appellant, J. A. Lael, brought this suit asking that the deed from A. J. White and wife be construed as a tenancy in common in the plaintiff and surviving members of camp Ben McCul-
ARK.] LAEL V. CROOK. 1117 lough, parties who paid the consideration, and that the deed from camp Ben McCullough to camp Wiley Crook be canceled and title divested out of it and vested in appellant and other survivors who paid the consideration for the deed, and ' that the deed. to J. L. Scott be canceled and title be divested out of J. L. Scott and .vested in appellant and other survivors who paid said consideration. . The following Statement of facts was agreed to and introduced in evidence : "In addition to the written documentary evidence introduced before the court the following witnesses were duly sworn as follows : J. A. Lael, W. M. Crook and R Lee Fish. - "J. A. Lael testified that he was the plaintiff; that be .. was a member of CamP Ben . of McCullough, No. 542, . the United Confederate :Veterans . in Lincoln County ; that in the year 1909 Camp Ben McCullough as such pur-. chased from A. J. White and wife the lands involved in this suit and took his deed thereto which was introduced in evidence. That at the time of the purchase of said lands the camp had a membership of seventy-two (72) ; that the groUnds or lands involved have been. used by the camp since that time as a reunion ground. "W. M. Crook testified tha.t he was the present commander of the Camp Ben McCullough No. 542 • f the United Confederate Veterans ; that the camp had no written constitution ; that it conducted all its business including the purchase, lease 6r sale of its lands by Motion or resolution passed by a majority of the members present at the ahnual meeting of the camp in July of each year: That the conveyance to sons and -daughters involved and introduced in evidence before the court here was so authorized and executed and was without consideration except to , maintain . the reunion: "R. Lee Fish testified that he was familiar with the transaction and took the acknowledgment,to the deed executed by A. J. White and M. , A. White to W..H..Lyle, then . commander of Camp • Ben McCullough No. 542 of the Confederate Veterans ; that the lands had been used
1118 LAEL V. CROOK. [192 for the . pUrpose of a reunion ground since that time; that thc'eAntp held a reuniOn 'in 'July •of each year-- and has been Condubted and held by the camp itself 'consisting of the Membership of :old . soldiers 'as long as they were physically 'able . to conduct the reunion celebration: About 1930, oWing largely if not wholly to :their physical weak-tresses, theY turned-over the 'responsibility of maintaini ing the reunion to the sons and daughters. The grounds have:been used for the purpose of :this celebration selely and only since 1909." - • The- chancery . court • entered a decree . in : fai r or of appellees, and this :aPpeal is prosecuted ti p. rever g e Said decree. • ..• It is contended by the appellant that since 'the - e\ti deithe • shoWS . that Camp Ben -McCullOtigh had no consti, tution ' Onl.by4aWs .autherizing it to take and hold 'Prof, etty in the naine . of W. II. Lyle, conithander,.that the .deed -frOM . Vhite and Wife to . Lyle Was in effect a..conveYariC`c tO ail Unincorporated association, and that • the title te said lat'operty bY'said cOnveyance' . vested hrthe •raptabers . of the asSociation of Confederate: 'veteranS; knOwna g Cali* . Beil 'McCullough. Appellant calls at-1 tention first io the case .of German LaTid . Asit.v. Schole.r, 1.0 Minn. 331:: The . court : said in, that case: The German Land AssoCiation, being - a. mere voluntar y , association of : persons unincorporated, llackno legal eapacity to tal:e or . hold real property: , grant to such associationeo. no9i'viv,c would pasS uo legal title." • The court also •aid,in that , case : .".The authorities-in the United States .are by no means harmonious aS to the source - or extent of :the power of courts in -this clasS of cases." The court in the case mentioned; hoWever, held that' there was no person or persons 'named as grantee . in *said deed; and . for that reason if any title passed, it went- to' the: persons who made . up the old 'association. But the court did not hold that the deed would be void if made to certain narned•persOns as trustees.
lAkK.1 :LAM; CROOE. 1119 .The • next •case . . relied . on by appellant ;is , Mirk v. Brbwm, •108 S. 421. Thd cOurt -in thi's caSe. •Said: `;̀ ,Menibers.. of , voluntary; • unincorporated asSociations, can hold property in . no ; other way ; than through the .medium-of trustees; • acting as depositaries-of • the • . fitle, •and • this legal :equitable • interest 'entitles ; • each beneficiaq to- the. same vOice- in the. Management and Control) iof the • property as if he wdre , a, joint owner- and. holder •of f a• legal - title. The rights Of :•mernbers of. churches and other -voluntary .associations nOt organized , for commercial • • purposes; -in .the :property held for a...common n&e, is :user . , one of only. This ; case,- however,: 'was . , concerned ;Chiefly about the ; rights.; of the: churCh .inernbership, • and the ;right to .creatdunions, etc.:* It 'clods nOt discuss • , the ques-don involVed .in the instant . case. • ; • , The next::case , to: Avhich. p appellant calls attention outhit . is 17.-Stif.tqon,- "In this..casd. it was - said : 4ustin: v., Sh . aw, (10 Allen (MaSs.) 552), ,it . was -decided that where a man mortgaged his land to certain .pey-sons named . in the mortgage dee . d, but described As . officers of an unincorporated assoeiation, the legal title vested -in ihe per5gos described:And , notin the company. * * Had the . deed . beenmade to one or . more of this supposed board hy name, , describing them as . . director& or • . trustees, the deed _Might have been , upheld oo • the: authority . , of; the Massachnsetts- and New . Jersey , cases above . referred .tQ, although . the decision in Minnesota holds the deed vOid oven in sUch caSds." • •' Appellant also''calls' attentiOn to '5' O."J.' 1343; 'which holds that" , • a ; Yohintary raSsociatibn; havihg 'no legarex-istence; is ordinarily. incapable ; as 'air' 'erganizatiOn, 'Of taliing or holding' property' in. its: associate' nanie ; hat tile • paragraph . • iinmediatelY follO-Wing thiS,' on' : page • 1344, 'as follows ;' " To avoid the inColiVeniences reStilting froin the incapacity of a voluntary assoCiation totake and hold :property As an organization,. conveyances _to trustees . . •May 'be ; made for. the. nse and ,benefit of the association or • its..members. In, suCh . ca g e,- the,. legal: title , vests in. the trustees."
• 11.20 LAEL V. .CROOK. [192 Attention iS next called to the case of Ward 1 7. . Me-Math, 153 Ark: 506, 241 S. W. 3.- In that case we held that by the terms. of the deed the grantor expressly conveyed to the parties named therein, designated trustees of Pat Cleburne Camp, United Confederate Veterans,No. 1.91, 'and unto • their successors and . assigns .forever, for the consideration-named therein, the land : in controversy, describing it.- The court also held in that- case, that the language of the deed -showed clearly that the land con-veyed- was. trust 'property to -be held :in- trust :by the trustees . , their successors and- assigns , for' the 'use and benefit of the camp. That- the.legal title.Wa g 'thus vested by the unmistakable language of the deed.in the trustees as individuals,- while the equitable title was vested in-and held by those who then constituted the 'Members 'of' the camp and who could be readily ascertained according to the Constitution and by-laws of • he associadon • governing -its Membership: ' : . The deed 'Was' hold not to be obnoxious to the rule against perpetuities which preventS alienation. Another ease' mentioned ' by aPp;e11"t, is rr opicins v. Crossle, 132 Mich.' 612, 96 N. W. 499 . . In that . case the court . he1d that such a trust as the facts 'showed *ei.dsted there was only sustainable as a charity, and-since the doctrine of charitable uses did . not exi g t . in Michigan,. the trust was void. The principles' announced there . have no application to the case at bar:. . • - Counsel also call attention to the case of . Gksele v. Bimeler, 14 How. 589, 14 L. Ed. 554. In that case . a number of persons formed a. society and purchased land amounting to about 10,000 acres. It was paid for by the labor of the members of the society. It was alleged that Bimeler acted fraudulently -as their agent in taking 'the deed and title papers to himself and his heirs forever. There seems to he nothing in that case -in conflict with the principles announced here. • • In Devlin on Real Estate, vol. 1, p. 179, the question of deed . to trustees of an unincorporated associatiOn is discUssed, and it is announced that in a deed to a number of persons who are described as trustees of an associa-
MIK:1 LAEL V. ChOOTi7. • 1121 tion na appearing to be •incorporated, U T is to be. assumed that the association is a partnership of individuals of .which• the grantees :were. members. • They are: llot to.. be .cOnSidered mere trusteesy holding simply a nominal title. It - is. immaterial whether: such deed; is to be regarded,as Made to th• •grantees nained oras. a conveyance for • their benefit, ,and that of. others..:In •either case, the persOns.named as grantees have the. authority to sell the property, and to: convey gOod title.: • • • In the instant case• the property . Was conveyed by ,White and wife to LYle-commander. • -He had the legal title, and had the right to -convey it.. • It was •held, of course, in. trust, for the camp; • but under our, decisions it was a valid deed. to -Lyle. • :Not only . has: this .Court: held that • a. deed. made .to' :persons, naming them, as trustees, .conveys, good title 'and, that trustees• have the •legal title and. may. convey-. the .property; • but this • seems :to be ,supported by the weight of .authority:, !East Haddam Central Baptist Church v. East Haddam Baptist: Eeelesiastieal Society, 44 Conn. 259. The deed from White and wife is valid. The deed made by Crook, commander, to camp Wiley Crook, .Sons of . Confederate Veterans,. and Chapter J. Mart Meroney, Daughters of Confederacy; : i:s-not valid, because it was made to the • unincorporated association , which had no power to acquire property in its name. Pltiladelphia BaptiSt ASsoOiation v. liart;.d Wheat ' . 1, 4 L. Ed: 499:' • In. conveyances of real .estate there .'must , be a grantee,' and the grantee nnist be capable of contracting. The . reqnisites of a 'd'eed 'are' that there -be persons able te T contraet with . for'tlfe pnrpose intended by the deed, so that in every grant there must be a grantee, a grantor, and thing to be granted 'It is 'essential that the grantee be 'a person, natural or artificial, capable of:taking a title at the time of the conveyance: , Duf field v...Duffield, 268 Ill. 29,- 108 N. E. 673, Ann...Cas.. 1916D 859 ; Wiehl v...Rob-ertson, 97 , Tenn. , 458, , 37.S.. W. 274, , 39 L. R. A. 4 .2. • ' As the-deed madeby :Crook was to an unincorporated assOciation,• •it was'•invalid: , But the ..appellant's rights we re in no •way Affect ed ,by, the deed.. Tte legal*title was
1199 [192. still in the successor of Lyle. 'The property was devoted to the same use that was intended in the original conveyance, and the legal title, still being in the succesSor of Lyle, the appellant had •no cause of action. It is stated, however, in:the brief that the chancellor; in his oral findings, and'deClarations of law, suggested that the commander should convey,: as 'comniander; to ;the .ranking officer of the organizations, and that this has been accomplished and a new deed made froth the commander to the commanding officers of the: organizations. This conveyance, if made, to the ranking, officer as truStee, would be a valid conveyance.. It is not claimed that there \vas a. breach of : the trust. There is no claim that the property had been diverted to any othei use than that originally, intended. The opinion in Gravette v.. Veaah, 186 Ark.'544, 54 S. W. (2d) 704, in so far as in conflict \vith this opinion is overruled. The decfee of 'the' chancery'coUrfis correct, and it is therefore affirmed.:
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.