Everitt v. Duss

206 F. 590, 124 C.C.A. 388, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1577
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJune 20, 1913
DocketNo. 1,717
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 206 F. 590 (Everitt v. Duss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Everitt v. Duss, 206 F. 590, 124 C.C.A. 388, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1577 (3d Cir. 1913).

Opinion

J. B. McPHFRSON, Circuit Judge;

Early in the nineteenth century a company of German immigrants organized a community in the western part of Pennsylvania that bore several names at one time or another but in the end was commonly called the Harmony Society. It was based upon certain religious and certain economic beliefs, and for a time prospered exceedingly. Afterwards it dwindled and came to know adversity, but it lasted for 100 years, and did not come to an end until 1905. The two plaintiffs, Ada Everitt and Louisa Tryon, never were members, and contributed nothing to its assets, either in money or other property, or in services. For the purposes of this case we shall assume them to be among the next of kin of George Rapp, who was the originator and one of the earliest members; their claim to share in the assets undoubtedly rests upon George Rapp’s relation to the society and to its property. That the plaintiffs are not solitary in their claim of kinship will appear by turning to George Rapp’s Fst., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 609. Judge Wickham’s opinion (delivered in 1893) refuses for the second time the application of 109 similar claimants, who were then asking the register of Beaver county to grant letters of administration to them upon George’s estate. Their previous application had been refused in 1885.

In a sense Rapp was the founder of the society; that is, he was the first among its members to be dominated by tbe underlying religious and economic ideas that were afterwards adopted; he propagat[592]*592ed these ideas with zeal, he convinced others of their truth, He persuaded the converts to try them in practice, and there is no doubt that he. was. by common consent the trusted and venerated leader of the arduous experiment. Apparently also his supremacy was complete; perhaps it may sometimes have been autocratic, but although it did not always pass unchallenged it continued with little dispute or abatement during the 40 years that preceded his death. But in another sense — the sense that is more important in the present inquiry — no one knows who was the founder of the society; that is, who was the person (if there-was only one) that furnished the money to give it the needed start, to buy its home in Pennsylvania, to begin its equipment, and to establish and sustain its membership while they were taking the first painful steps in an untried path. In this sense there is little evidence worth considering that -George Rapp was the founder; almost certainly, he was not the only original giver, and there is nothing to point him out as better furnished for beneficence than others of the early members. As will be seen in a few moments, this lack of evidence is not accidental; the members themselves deliberately destroyed such writings as might have disclosed the persons of the first givers and the size of the respective gifts. The only evidence concerning Rapp’s financial ability that has been laid before us is the so-called “passport’-’ dated April 7, 1804. This paper was executed by certain officials in Wiirtemberg, and makes several declarations concerning the personal status of George Rapp and his family. It is entitled “Ge-burtsbrief,” describes itself as “an authenticated certificate of his legitimate birth and freedom from bondage,” and among other statements contains the following: “With regard to his property the same amounts to 2000 fl. two thousand gulden.” This sum we understand to have been the equivalent of, say, $.800; and, if we suppose that all his “property” was in cash, the utmost effect that can be given to the statement is that in April, 1804, George Rapp was the possessor in Germany of $800.' What .he did with this sum, we have no means of knowing; there is not a scrap of evidence to show how much, if anything, was spent out of it for the expenses of the voyage, or to show how much, if anything, wa¿ used in the purchase of land or in supplying other early needs of the society. Nearly all we can affirm with confidence is that George Rapp was in the United States in 1804 — perhaps having been here before — that other persons came with him or followed him, and that in February, 1805, the following fundamental agreement was entered into and signed by all the persons then engaged in the common enterprise (how many signers there were, we do not find in the record, but the plaintiffs’ brief says [page 2] that “a large number of persons” were induced to emigrate before 1805):

“Be it hereby known to all who need to know it, that the following agreement has this day been made and concluded between us, the subscribers of the one part and George Rapp and his associates of the other part:
“Article 1. We the subscribers, on our part and on the part of our heirs and descendants, deliver up, renounce and remit all our estate and property consisting of cash-, land and chattels, or whatever it may be, to George Rapp and his associates, in Harmony, Butler county, Pennsylvania, as a free gift or donation, for the benefit and use of the community there, and bind ourselves on our part, as well as on the. part of our heirs and descendants, to [593]*593make free renunciation thereof, and to leave the same at the disposal of the superintendents of the community as if we never had nor possessed it.
"Art. 2. We do pledge ourselves jointly and severally to submit to the laws and regulations of the community, and to show due and ready obedience toward those who are appointed and chosen by the community as superintendents in such a manner that not only we ourselves endeavor, by the labor of our hands, to promote the good and interest of the community, hut also to hold our children and families to do the same.
“Art. :>. If, contrary to our expectation, the case should happen, and wo jointly or severally could not stand to it in the community, and we would within a few or more years break our promises, and withdraw from the community, for whatever cause it may be, never to demand any reward, either for ourselves or children, or those belonging to us, for any of our labors or services rendered, but whatever we jointly and severally shall or may do we will have all done as a voluntary service for our brethren.
“In consideration whereof George Kapp and his associates adopt the subscribers jointly and severally as members of the community, whereby each of them obtains the privilege to he present at each religious meeting; not only they themselves, but also their children and families, shall and will receive the same necessary instructions in church and school which is needful and requisite for their temporal good and welfare as well as eternal felicity.
“Art. 4. George Kapp and his associates promise to supply the subscribers jointly and severally with all the necessaries of life, as lodging, meat, drink and clothing, etc., and not only during their healthful days, but also when one or more of them become sick or otherwise unfit for labor, they shall have and enjoy the same supi>ort and maintenance as before, and if, after a short or long period, the father or mother of a family should die, or be otherwise departed from the community and leave a family behind, they shall not be left widows or orphans, but partake of the same rights and maintenance as long as they live or remain in the community, as well in sick as healthful days, the same as before, or as circumstances or necessity may require.
“Art. 5.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Skinner
298 F. 606 (N.D. Georgia, 1924)
Walters v. Pittsburgh & Lake Angeline Iron Co.
167 N.W. 834 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
206 F. 590, 124 C.C.A. 388, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everitt-v-duss-ca3-1913.