Summary

In Anderson v. Brock, an action of trespass quare clausum was brought by John Anderson and Isaac Brackett, deacons of a society of Shakers in Alfred, Maine, against the defendant for unauthorized entry onto their land in 1825. The plaintiffs claimed they were granted title to the land in question as overseers for the society of Shakers in Alfred. Anderson v. Brock, 3 Me. 243 (1825). After filing their complaint, the plaintiffs made a motion to amend it by adding that they sued as deacons and overseers of the society of Shakers. Id. Their motion was granted, though the defendant objected on the grounds that the title of the land did not pass to the plaintiffs by succession and that they had no legal right to maintain the action. Id at 247. The Court held that under Massachusetts law, the deacons of the societies of Shakers were permitted to take and hold lands in succession. Id. Further, the Court held that in a trespass action such as the one brought by the deacons of a society of Shakers, members of the same society can serve as competent witnesses. Id. at 249. Thus, the court held that the society of Shakers was within the scope of legislative power to endow its officers with power to take estates in succession and to take and defend legal action. Id. In its discussion of the covenants which bind the society of Shakers and prevent them from taking legal action against one another, the court cites a New York case, Wells v. Lane. Here, plaintiff Lane brought suit against defendant Wells for harboring his slave, Betty, for two days in November of 1810 under the 14th section of the Act Concerning Slaves and Servants (sess. 24, ch 188). Wells v. Lane, 8 Johns. 462 (1811). The defendant argued that Betty was not property of Lane; she was the daughter of the plaintiff and was a member of the society of Shakers by her own choice. Id. Lane argued that, although Betty was his daughter, she had been born before he married her mother and that he had bought both Betty and her mother as slaves. Id. The trial court held that the Shakers were all in partnership, with one common interest, and it found for the plaintiff, for 25 dollars. Id. The New York Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that although the society of Shakers may be partners in interest as a religious community, this partnership does not extend to the case of a penalty forfeited by its members. Id.