A[ ! 0! 1 • 2 ' 8 \l 3 ! 6 UNIVERSITY OF AT LOS 3F CALIFORNIA ANGELES THE CIVIL LAW AND THE CHURCH By CHARLES Z. LINCOLN Legal Advi»er to Governors Morton, Black, and Roosevelt, of New York. Author of ConHlitutiiinul History of New York and The FundameutaU of American Government. THE ABINGDON PRESS NEW YORK CINCINNATI Copyright. 1916, by CHARLES Z. LINCOLN -ir- 3V PREFACE In the summer of 1008, while I was livinj? in Albany, New York, 1 was asked for an opinion as to the powers of church trustees under specified conditions. In my studies for the ]»nrpose of i)rej)aring an opinion on the question subniittot has heretofore been made to collect and present in this form the decisions covering this important field of judicial inquiry. DbNO.M I. NATIONAL ARTICLES In prei)aring this work I found so many decisions relat- ing to particular denominations that I concluded to arrange these in separate groups under the names of the respective denominations. Ivich topic of this class is believed to pre- sent the principal judicial decisions relating to the particu- lar denomination, so far especially as the questions involved are distinctive and peculiar to that denomination; but it should be observed that not all denominational cases are ]»resented in this book. At the outset of my studies I thought a comprehensive list of such cases might be prac- ticable, and I collected the cases for this purpose, but so many of them were found to be of merelj'^ local interest, l>resenting nothing new, that I concluded to omit decisions involving only factional controversies and in which the rule declared was only a repetition of well-established legal principles. Local Statutes I have in this book attempted to present a view^ of decisions relating to the application of the civil law to the solution of general questions affecting the church. It has seemed im- practicable to consider in detail decisions which relate only to particular local statutes, and, accordingly, I have for the most part omitted cases merely construing statutes of that class, assujuing that a student interested in such a statute PREFACE V will examine the decisious of the parlicular state or coun- try in which the statute was enacted, for a judicial interpre- tation of it. My examination of judicial decisions to be in- cluded in this book closed on the first of July, 1915. Personal For the last fifteen years I have been unable to use ray own eyes in this kind of work, and consequently have been and am now (le])endcnt on readers, stenographers, librarians, and others in collecting materials supposed to be needed in pursuing my literary studies, and also in all other work involving the u.se of eyesight. It has been my custom to listen to the reading of books and other forms of literature bearing on the topic under consideration, and dictate to a stenograi)her the matter intendetl to be used, including ex- tracts, original notes, and general discussions. The value of the service 1 have received from those who have aided me in my work cannot be measured. It has made })()ssible tlie accomplishment of results which might not otherwise have been reached. When in 1908 this book was conceived, I was engaged in prei)aring an annotated edition of the Mes- sages of the Governors of New York, Avhich edition was published the next year. I began my studies for the i)resent volume early in the autumn of 1909, and s]>ent the winter of 1909-10 searching for materials, using for this purpose the rich resources of the New York State library at Albany, and I was assisted in my researches by Mr. Frederick ]). Colson, then law librarian of the State Library, who not only gave me the freedom of the libra i-y, but atVonled me special facilities foi- pursuing my studies by enabling me to occupy a corner , my study has been carried forward without serious interrui)tions. Man}' parts of the work have been considerably' expanded beyond the original plan, re- quiring new notes and the examination of additional au- thorities. In this work I have been assisted by my i)reseut reader and stenographer, Miss Elsie Kramer of Buffalo, New York, and I hereby express my cordial appreciation of the faithfulness and accuracy applied by her in working out her part in the preparation of this volume. Buffalo, New York, March 1, 191G. C. Z. L. CONTENTS PAGE Actions 1 African Methodist Episcopal Church 21 American Home Missionary Society 22 Arbitration 23 Articles of Religion 24 Associate Reformed Church 25 Baptist Church 30 Bells 39 Bible 41 Bishop 47 Blasphemy 49 Campbellites .' 51 Camp Meetings 54 Cemetery 58 Chapel 67 Charitable Use 6S Charity 83 Christian Church 92 Christianity 97 Christian Missionary Society 102 Christian Science 103 Church 106 Church Edifice 119 Church of England 120 Church of God at Harrisburg 124 Churchwardens 126 Civil Courts 127 Community Societies 167 Confession of Faith 176 Con(;re(;ation 177 CoNGRECiATIONAL ChURCH 179 Conscience 187 Constitution 189 Cumberland Presbyterian Church 190 Deacons 196 Denomination 197 Disciples op Christ 198 Dissenters 199 vii viii <'()N'I'I:NTS I'AGK DiHTiTRHiNO Reuoious Meetino 20() D()(TKINE 21o DoWIEIHM 216 DUNKERS 217 Ecclesiastical Council 219 Ecclesiastical C'ochts 221 Ecclesiastical Law 232 Elections 233 Evangelical Association 241 Evangelical Lutheran 249 Free Baptist ('hurch 250 Free Church of Scotland 252 Friends 255 Friendship Lihehal League 268 German Evangelical Lutheran Church 269 German Evangelical Synod of North America 271 German Reformed Church 273 German Society 276 Gospel 277 Greek Church 278 Guardian 280 Independents 282 Injunction 283 Jews 293 Libel 295 Lutherans 297 Mandamus 308 Masses 313 Meetings 314 Members 317 Mennonites 329 Methodist Church of Canada 331 Methodist Episcopal Church 333 Methodist Episcopal Church, South 359 Methodist Protestant Church 370 Ministers 372 Missions 403 Mormons 406 Mortgage 416 Mortmain 420 Municipal Ordinances 421 Music 422 New Thought Church 424 Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Church 425 CONTENTS ix PAGE Nuisance 429 Oath 430 Officers 431 Parish 433 Parsonage 441 Particular Baptist Church 444 Partition 445 Pews 446 Pious Uses 407 Prayers for the Dead 470 Presbyterian Church 480 Primitive Baptist Church 515 Primitive Methodist Church 516 Profanity 519 Property 520 Protestant 545 Protestant Episcopal Church 548 Quo Warranto 574 Reformed Church 575 Reformed Dutch Church 578 Reformed Presbyterian Church 587 Religion 589 Religious Belief 597 Religious Corporations 598 Religious Establishment 617 Religious Freedom 618 Religious Garb 626 Religious Principles 627 Religious .Societies 628 Religious Toleration 647 Religious Worship 651 Roman Catholic Church 657 Salvation Army 690 Schism 093 Schoolhouse 094 Secession 695 Sectarian Institution 708 Sectarian Instruction 710 Shakers 719 Slander 727 Spiritual and Philosophical Temple 728 Spiritualists 729 Subscription 731 Sunday 743 X CONTIiNTS PAfJK Sunday School 7S9 Si'i'KRSTiTious Uhe 79() SWKDKNHOUGIANS 792 Taxation l^J'.i Town 800 Treasurer 803 Trustees 805 Trusts 824 Unincorporated Society 844 Unitarians 847 United Brethren in Christ 852 Ignited Presbyterian Church 864 ITniversalist 865 Voters 868 Wesleyan Methodist 874 Will 876 Winebrennerians 894 Witness 895 Young Men's Christian Association 905 TABLE OF CASES Abernethy v Society of the Church of the Puritans 3 Daly (N. Y.) 1 . . . .453, 455, 465, 465 Abyssinian Baptist Ch., Re 13 N. Y. Supp. 919 640 Ackley v Irwin 71 Misc. (N. Y.) 239 381, 557, 562 Ada St. Methodist Epis. Chui-ch v Garnsey 66 111. 132 18, 807 Adair v State 134 Ala. 183 206, 653 Adams v Gay 19 Vt. 358 756 Adams v Howe 14 Mass. 340 622, 795, 795, 844 Adams v Rusch 2 Str. (Eng.) 1133 126, 229 Adey v Theobald 1 Ciu-teis (Eng.) 373 123, 267 Adnam v Cole 6 Beav. (EngT) 353 422 African Baptist Church v White. . 24 Ky. L. R. 646 234, 812 African Methodist Bethel Church, Baltimore v Carmack 2 Md. Ch. 143 4, 4, 616, 809 African Meth. Episcopal Ch. v Clark ;•••;■■. 25 La. Ann. 282 21, 141 Mrican Methodist Epis c opal Church V New Orleans 15 La. Ann. 441 21, 649 African Meth. Epis. Union Church, Re 28 Pa. Sup. Ct. 193 21, 599 Aitken Estate, Re 158 Pa. 541 792 Alden v St. Peter's Parish, Syca- more 158 111. 631 81, 844 Alderman v Phelps 15 Mass. 225 761 Alexander v Bowers 79 S. W. (Tex.) 342 132, 226 Alexander v Slavens 7 B. Men. (Ky.) 351 830 Alexander Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia . . ". 30 Pa. St. 154 531 All™ V Deming 14 N. H. 133 776 Allen V Duffie 43 Mich. 1 610, 739, 778 Allen V North Des Moines Meth. Epis. Chu 127 la. 96 603, 610, 635 M Saints Church v Lovett 1 Hall's Sup. Ct. 195 604, 810 Alna, Inhabitants of, v Plummer. 3 Me. 88 439, 801 Alton Bav Camp Meeting Asso- ciation V Alton 69 N. H. 311 55 American Bible Society v Noble. . 11 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 156, 175 420 American Bible Society v Wetmore 17 Conn. 181 881 American Primitive Society v Pilling 4 Zab. (N. J.) 653 236, 517, 633, 696, 813, 820, 870 American Sunday School Union v Philadelphia 161 Pa. St. 307 793 American l^ract Society v At water. 30 Ohio St. 77 887 American Tract Society v Purdy Executors 3 Iloust. (Del.) 625 420 xii TAUIJ; Ol'^ CASEH AtiM'shiirv Niiil I'Jiclorv ( 'otiipunv V \Vl ill V (Irlhaiis, el ul 71 I:i. 170 737, 740 Aiulcison V lin.ck 3 Mc.243. IG, 1(K), 180,547,600,650,721 Amlcisoii V WCiliiiiilon 40 Kan. 173 421, 6!il Aiulnw V New \ ork Bible and I'nivcr liook Society 4 Sanclf. (N. Y.) 181 80 AiioiiyiMouH 2 Hill (N. Y.) 375 7.56, 765 Aiioiiyinous Fed. Ca.s. No. 446 895 Antones ot al v Kslava's Heirs. . . 9 Port (Ala.) 527 20, 523, 687, 816 .\iilriin V Mal.sbui y. . 43 N. J. Eq. 288 60 .Vpo.-^tolic Il()liiic.s.-< Union of Po.st VMs V Knudson 21 Idaho 589 525 Api) V Liithcnui Cong 6 Pa. St. 201 701 Aihucklc V Reaume 96 Mich. 243 777 Archer v Sweet nam Fort. (Eng.) 34() 460 Arden, Matter of 20 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 865 606, 637 Argar v Holdsworth 2 Lee (Eng.) 224 120 Arnd v Amling 53 Md. 192 902 Arnold v Arnold 13 Vt. 363 430, 901, 902 Arthur v Xorheld Cong. Church . . 73 Conn. 718 183, 374. 401, 751 Arts V Cuthrie 75 la. 674 706 Ash V Methodist Ch 27 Ont. App. Re. 602 155, 332 Ashby V ^^•ellington 8 Pick. (Mass.) 524 440, 802 Aspell V Hosbein 98 Mich. 117 779 Associate Presbyterian Cong., He- bron V Banna 113 App. Div. (N. Y.) 12 615 Associate Reformed Church v Trustees Theological Seminary, Princeton 4 N. J. Eq. 77 27, 27, 29, 838 Association for the Benefit of Col- ored Orj)hans in New Y'ork v New York 104 X. Y. 581 653 Atcheson v Everitt 1 Cowper (Eng.) 382 265, 900 Atkinson v Bell 18 Tex. 474 523 Attorney General v Bishop of Chester 1 Bro. C. Cases (Eng.) 444 47, 877 Attorney General v Bishop of Oxford 1 Bro. C. C. (Eng.) 444 n 831 Attorney General v Boultbee .... 2 Ves. (Eng.) Jr. 380 86 Attorney General v Calvert 23 Bcav. (Eng.) 258 72 Attorney General v Christie 13 Grant's Ch. (Can.) 495 253 Attorney General ex rel Independ- ent or Congreg. Church of Wap- petaw V Clergy Society 8 Rich Eq. (S. C.) 190, 10 Rich Eq. (S. C.) 604 84 Attorney General v Cock 2 Ves Sen. (Eng.) 273 33 Atforn(>v General v Delaney Ir. 10 C. L. 104. 121 477 Attorney General v Drummond... 3 Dru. & War. (Eng.) 162. .97, 396, 546 Attorney General ex rel Abbot v Dublin. 38N.H.459. .73,180,215,376,377,706 Attorney General ex rel Marselus V Dutch Reformed Church, New York 36 N. Y. 452 398 .Attorney General v Fishmongers Company 2 Bcav. (Eng.) 151 478 TABLE OF CASES xiii Attorney General ox lel Ter Vreo v Geerlings 55 Mi(;h. 562 149, 196 Attorney General v (Gladstone. . . 13 Sim. (Eng.) 7 883 Attorney General v (Juisc 2 Vern. (Enf?) 266 88 Attorney General v Hall 2 Irish R. 291, 309 (1896) 86,117,122,477,479.592 Attornej' General v Ilerrick Anib. (Eng.) 712 74 Attorney General v Jolly 1 Rich Eq. (S. C.) 99 . . .79, 81, 89, 832 Attorney General v Lawes 8 Hare (Eng.) 32 •. . 87 Attorney General v Matthew. ... 3 Rus.s. (Eng.) 500 238 Attorney General ex rel Bailey v Moore's Executors 18 N. J. Eq. 256, 19 N.J. Eq. 503. 77,888 Attorney General v Old South So- ciety in Boston 13 Allen (Ma.ss.) 474 88, 90, 815 Attorney General v Parker 3 Atk. (Eng.) 576 439 Attorney General v Pearson 3 Meiv. (Eng.) 353 843 Attorney General v Power 1 Ball & B. Rep. (Jr.) 145 47 Attorney General v Proprietors of Meeting House in Federal 8t . . 3 Gray (Mass.) 58. . . 163, 178, 436, 458, 505, 534, 630, 643, 652, 799, 842 Attorney General v Smithies 1 Keen (Eng.) 289 127 Attorney General v Stei)ney 10 Ves. Jr. (Eng.) 21 887 Attorney General v Stewart 2 Merv. (Eng.) 143 420 At torney General v Union Society, Worcester 116 Mass. 167 833 Attorney General v Wallace 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 611 277, 830 Attorney General v Wilson 16 Sim. (Eng.) 210 85 Atwater v Woodbridg(> 6 Conn. 223 796 Atwood V Welton 7 Conn. 66 900 Auburn Theological Seminary v Childs ...'.... 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 419 826 Auburn Theological Seminary v Kellogg : . . . 16 N. Y. 83 876 Auburn v Y. M. C. A., Auburn . , 86 Me. 244 799, r v Lukens 35 Pa. St . 146 788 Baker et al v Nachtrieb 19 How. (U. S.) 126 170 xiv 'I'AIILi: or CASES Hiikcr V Sutton 1 Keen (EnR.) 224 8.'> Baldwin v iMnst M. K. Church. . . 79 Wash. 578 10 lialdwin v First Parish in I'"itch- hurn 8 rick. (Mji-ss.) 494 4:iS lialdwin v McClinch 1 Mc. 102 399 Ball V State 67 Mi.ss. 358 2O.0 Baltzcll V Church Home and In- firniarv. Baltimore 110 Md. 244 549,612 lianas vSnow 1 M:i.s.s. 181 439 Banist(T v Thompson 24 T. L. 11. (Eng.) 841 122 Bank of Cumberland v Mayborry 48 Me. 198 774 Banks v Bhclan 4 Barb. (X. Y.) 80 74, 893 Banner v Rolf 43 Tex. Civ, App. 88 75 Baptist Church, Hartford v With- erell 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 296 107, 137, 229, 374, 4.50, .544, 608, 635 Baptist Cong, v Scamiel 3 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 48 286, 822 Baptist Society, Wilton v Wilton. 2 N. H. 508 529 Bardin v Calcott 1 Hagg. Consist. Re. (Eng.) 309. . . 65 Barhyte v Shepherd 35 N. Y. 238 796 Barkiey v Donnelly 112 Mo. 561 877 Barkley v Hayes .'. 208 F. (Mo.) 319 195 Barline v Ramirez 7 Philippines 41 677 (2) Barnard v Whipple 29 Vt. 401 466 Barnes v First Parish, Falmouth. . 6 Mass. 401 10, 99, 655 Barnes & others Trustees First Presbyterian Ch., Glens Falls v Perine 9 Barb (N. Y'.) 202 736 Barnes v Shore 1 Rob. Eccles. Rep. (Eng.) 382. . . 177 Barnett, Re 29 (38 Pt. 1) L. J.Ch. (Eng.) 871 .82,893 Barrett v Allen 10 Ohio 426 775 Barrs v Jackson 1 PhilHps Ch. (Eng.) 582 136 Barry, Matter of 164 N. Y. 18 688 Barry v Order of Catholic Knights, Wis 119 Wis. 362 320, 667 Bartholomew v Lutheran Congre- gation 35 Ohio 567 646 Bardett, Petitioner 163 Mass. 509 71 Bartlett v Hipkins 76 Md. 5 47, 122, 549, 561 Bartlett v King 12 Ma-ss. 537 469 Barton v Erickson 14 Neb. 164 Barton v Fitzpatrick 65 So. (Ala.) 390 310 Bascom v Lane Fed. Cas. 1089 (Cir. Ct. Dis. N. Y.). 331,334,341,345,363 Bates V Houston 66 Ga. 198 34, 165. 701, 817 Bates V Sparrell 10 Ma.ss. 323 462 Batsford y Eyery 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 618 780 Batterson y Thompson 8 Phila. (Pa.), 251 138, 287 Battiscombe y Eye 9 Jiir. N. S. (Eng.) 210 229 Ba.\ter y Langley 38 L. J. Mag. Co. (N. S.) (Eng.) 1 . .746 Ba.xter v McDonnell 155 N. Y. 83 129, 152, 661, 663, 678, 827 Bayberry v Mead SO Me. 27 460 Beach y Allen 7 Hun. (N. Y.) 441 540 Beachem y Portsmouth Bridge. . . 68 N. H. 382 762 Beall y Surviving Ex'rs. of Fox. . 4 Ga. 404 73 TABLE OF CASES xv Beam v First Meth. Epis. Church . 3 Pa. L. J. Rep. 343. . 8, 63, 113, 596, 613 Bean v Christian Church, South Danbury 61 N. H. 260 96, 616 Bear v Heasley 98 Mich. 279 136, 165, 229, 630, 853, 860 Beardsly v Foot 2 Root (Conn.) 399 895 Beaver v FiLson 8 Pa. St. 327 492, 829 Beckett v Lawrence 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 403. . .212, 569 Beckwith v McBride & Co 70 Ga. 642 . 5 Beckwith v Rector, etc., St. Philip's Parish 69 Ga. 564 79, 566 Begbie v Levi 1 Crompt. & J(t. (Eng.) 180 750 Bell V Graham 1 Nott & McG. (S. C.) 168 211 Bellport Parish v Tooker 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 256 600, 615, 630, 835 Beman v Wessels 53 Mich. 549 775 Benedict v Bachelder 24 Mich. 425 778 Bennett v Brooks 9 Allen (Mass.) 118 788 Bennett v Morgan 112 Ky. 512 148, 154, 215 Bennett v State 1 Swan (Tenn.) 411 903 Benson v Drake 55 Me. 555 776 Benziger v Steinhauser 154 Fed. 151 173 Beresford v Jervis 11 Jr. L. T. R. 128 476 Berrian v Methodist Society, New York 4 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 424 18,431 Berry v Clary 77 Me. 482 783 Berryman v Reese 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 287 532, 638 Bethany Cong. Ch. v Morse 151 Iowa 521 150 Bice V State 109 Ga. 117 210 Bigelow V Congregational Society, Middletown 11 Vt. 283 119, 325, 641 Billiard v Board of Education, Topeka 69 Kan. 53 713 Bird v Merklee 144 N. Y. 544 350 Bird v St. Mark's Church, Waterloo 62 la. 567 ... 48, 140, 440, 553, 560, 561 Bisbee v Evans 4 Me. 374 394, 438 Biscoe v Thweatt 74 .Vrk. 545 81 Bishop v Stone 1 Hagg. Con. Re. (Eng.) 424 24 Blair v Odin 3 Tex. Rep. 288 674, 687, 688 Blair v Seaver 26 Pa. 274 903 Blanc V Alsbury 63 Tex. 489 663 Blass V Anderson 57 ;Vrk. 483 753 Blenon's Estate, Re Brightly N. P. (Pa.) 338 70 Bhcm V Schultz 170 Pa.' 563 374 Bliss V American Bible Society. . . 2 Allen (Mass.) 334 339, 829 Block V McMurray 56 Miss. 217 780 Blocker v Burno.ss 2 Ala. (N. S.) 354 S9!) Bloom v Richards 2 Ohio St. 387 100, 765, 780 Blount v Viditz 1 Ir. R. 42 (Ireland) (1895) 80, 471 Bloxsome v Williams 3 Barn. & Cre. (Eng.) 232 779 Blundoll's Tru.sts, Re. . 30 Beav. (Eng.) 360 474, 477 Board of C^hurch Erection Fund, General A.'^senibly Pres. Church, llnited States of .America v First Presbyterian Churcli, Seattle. . . 19 Wiush. 455 410 xvi TAHLIO ()I-^ (ASKS Hoard of Education of Cincinnati V Minor 23 Ohio St. 211 715 Hoard of lOduciition Normal Schof)! District v Trustees, First Bap- tist Ch., Normal 63 111. 204 536 Hoard of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church v Mc- Miuster Fed. Ca-ses No. 1,586 (Cir. Ct. Md.) 497, 83r) Hoard of Street Opening, He 133 N. Y. 329 64 Hohl V State 3 Tex. Ct. App. 683 783 Honaeum v HaiTington 65 Neb. 831 129 (2), 230, 291, 661 Honaeum v Murphy 71 Neb. 463 (487) . . .130, 131, 661, 675 lionham y Harris. ! 145 S. W. 169 525 Hooth V Baptist C'hurch of Christ, Pouphkeepsie 126 N. Y. 215 877 Borders y Stale ()6 S. W. (Texas) 1102 762 Hose y Christ 193 Pa. St. 13 697 Bourhier y Taylor 4 B. P. C. (Eng.) 708 136 Bouldin v Alexander 15 Wall (U. S.) 131 34 154 696 821 Boutell V Cowdin 9 Mass. 2.54 ' '. '.183 Bow V Parsons 1 Root (Conn.) 481 899 Bowden y McLeod 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 588 159, 832 Bowen v Irish Presby. Cong. N. Y. 6 Bosw. (N. Y.) 245 16, 522 Bowman y Domestic & Foreign Missionary Society 182 N. Y. 494 75 Boxwell y Affleck 79 Va. 402 336 Boyce y Cliristian 69 Mo. 492 878 Boyles v Roberts 222 Mo. 613 115, 117, 176, 189, 191, 193, 195, 693 Boynton y Page 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 425 757, 773 Bradbury y Cary 5 Me. 339 610 Bradfield y Roberts 175 U. S. 291 683 Bradshaw y Jackman 21 L. R. Ir. 12 474 Brainard y Colchester 31 Conn. 407 543 Brannigan y Murphy 1 Ir. Rep. 418 (1896) 76, 477 Breeks y Woolfrey 1 Curteis (Eng.) 509 476 Brennan v Brennan Ir. Rep. 2 Eq. 321 473 Brewster y Hendershot 27 Ont. App. 232 707, 853 Brewster y McCall's Ex'rs 15 Conn. 274 405, 880, 881 Brick Pre-sby. Ch., Re 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 155. . .65, 448, 538 Brick Presbyterian Church v New York 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 538 65, 538 Bridges y Bridges 93 Me. 557 784 Bridges y Pleasants 4 Iredell's Eq. (N. C.) 26 404 Bridges y \\'ilson 11 Heisk, (Tenn.) 458 158, 228 Bristor y Burr 120 N. Y. 427 397, 442, 823 Broad Street, Sewickley Methodist Episcopal Ch 165 Pa. St. 475 798 Broadway Christian Ch. v Com- monwealth 23 Kv. (Part 11) 1695 797 Brock y Milligan 10 Ohio 121 897 Brockway y Allen 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 40 14 Bronson y St. Peter's Ch., Auburn. 7 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 361 452 Bronson y Strouse 57 Conn. 147 293, 837 TABLE OF CASES xvii Brooke v Shacklett, (Carter v Wolfe) 13 Gratt. (Va.) 300 323, 338, 342 Brooklyn v Toynbee 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 282 763 Brothers of the order of Hermits of St. Augustine v Philadelphia County 4 Clark (Pa.), 124, Brightly N. P. 116 533 Browers v Fromm Add. Pa. Rep. 362 476 Brown v Clark 102 Texas 323 143, 191, 195 Brown v Kelsey 2 Cush. (Mass.) 243 78 Brown v Lutheran Ch 23 Pa. St. 495 641, 831 Brown v Monroe SO Ky. 443 367, 702 Brown v Porter 10 Mass. 93 394 Brown v State 46 Ala. 175 203 Brown v Thompkins . 49 Md. 423 404, 554 Bruce v Central Methodist Epis- co{)al C^hurch 147 Mich. 230 608 Brunifitl v Roberts L. R. 5 Com. PI. (Eng.) 224 452 Bnmdage v Deardorf 92 Fed. 214, aff'g. 55 Fed. 839 136,707,831,856,862 Brunnenmeyer v Bulu-e 32 111. 183 383, 840 Brunnett v Clark 1 Buff. Sup. Ct. (Sheldon) (N. Y.) 500 747 Brunswick v Dunning 7 Mass. 445 438 Bryan, et al v Watson 127 Ind. 42 739 Bryant v Biddeford 39 Me. 193 760 Bryant v McCandless 7 Ohio (Pt. 11) 135 834 Bryson's Estate, Re 7 Pa. Sup. Ct. 624 344, 405 Buettner v Frazer. 100 Mich. 179 154, 326 Bulkelev v Worthington Ecclesi- astical Society 78 Conn. 526 404 Bullock, Re 6 Dem. Sur. Ct. (N. Y.) 335 880 Bundy v Birdsall 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 31 6, 18, 810 Burd Orphan Asylum v School District of Upper Darby 90 Pa. St. 21 556 Burden v State 8 Ga. App. 118 209 Burke v Rector, etc.. Trinity Church 63 Misc. (N. Y.) 43, (aff'd. 132 App. Div. (N. Y.) 930) . . 141, 565, .566, 573 Burke v Roper 79 Ala. 138 318 liurkc V Wall 29 La. Ann. 38 58, 284 Burr V First Parish in Sandwich. . 9 Ma.ss, 276 12, 147, 181, 184, 219, 220, 374, 380, 395, 397, 398 Burr Ex'rs. v Smith 7 Vt. 241 81 Burrel v Associate Ref. Church, Seneca 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 282.. 156, 542,615, 696 Burry's Appeal 1 Monag. Pa. Sup. Ct. Cas. (Pa.) 89 747 Burt V Oneida Community 137 N. Y. 346 172 Burton v Grand Rapids School Fm-niture Company 10 Tex. Civ. Rep. 270 20 Burton V Henson 10 Meeson & WeLsby (Eng.) 105. . .434 Bush V Cununonwc iillli SO Ky. 244 902 Bush V State 5 Tex. Ct . App. 04 205 Bushong V Taylor 82 Mo. (UiO 355, 539 P.ustin V Rogers 11 Cush. (Ma.ss.) :i4(i 778 wiii TAI'.IJ: <»I' ("ASICS Bullrr V K.-Iscv ; '"' •'"•""•'^ ^N. Y.) 177 774 Uutlcr V Trust (H's, Parochial Fund Protestant Epis. Church, WchI- crn N. Y 1)2 Hun. (N. Y.) 96 r,72, KiH Button V Aniorican Tract Society. 23 Vt. ."«() H>H) Hutts V Swarlwood 2 Cow. (\. Y.) 431 '.KM Hyors v McCartney 62 la. 339 S42 Cahill V HiKKcr 8 B. Mon. (Ky.J 211 444 (^ain V Dalv 74 S. C. 480 782 Calkins v Cheney 92 111. 463 529, 558, 637, S()8 Callsen et al v Hope ot al 76 Fed. (U. S.) 758 299, 3(Hi Calvary Baptist Church v Dart . . 68 S. C. 221 37, 419 Cammever v United German Lu- theran Churches, New York ... 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y'.) 208 306, 327, 603, 821 Campbell v International Life As- surance Society, London 4 Bosw. (N. Y'.) 298 7(i3 Campbell v Paddington. . 24 Eng. Law and Eq. Re. 597. . . .544 Canadian Religious Association v Parmenter 180 Mass. 415 119, 320, 671, 808 Canajoharie and Palatine Church V Leiber 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y'.) 43 604 Candia v French 8 N. H. 133 8a2 Cann v Rector, etc., Chu. of the Holy Redeemer, St. Louis 121 Mo. App. 201 2, 568 Cantrell v State 29 S. \\'. (Tex.) 42 205 Cape V Plymouth Cong. Church. . 117 Wis. 150, 130 Wis. 174 185, 323, 516, 518, 525, 605, 830 Capital City Athletic Association V Police Commissioners, Green- bush 9 Misc. (N. Y'.) 189 749 Cargel v Grosvenor 2 Root (Conn.) 458 642 Cargill V Sewall 19 Me. 288 17. 395 Carnell's Estate, Re 9 Phila. (Pa.) 322 889 Carpenter v Crane 1 Root (Conn.) 98 776 Carpenter v Miller 3 W. Va. 174 404 Carrick V Canevin 55 Pa. Super. Ct. 233, 243 Pa. Super. Ct. 283 666 Carskadon v Torrev.''on 17 W. Va. 43 443, 837 Carter v Balfour Adm 19 Ala. (N. S.) 814 .885 Carter v Branson, et al 79 Ind. 14 267, 536 Carter v Green 3 Kay & J. (Eng.) 591 81 Carter v State 63 Ala. 52 896 Carter v Whitcomb 74 N. H. 482 616, 827, 905 Gary v Abbot 7 Ves. Jr. (Eng.) 490 670 Cat let t V Trustees, Meth. Epis. Ch., Sweetser Station 62 Ind. 365 739 Catlin V Trinity College 113 N. Y. 133 799 Cattron v First UniversaUst So- ciety, Manchester 46 Iowa 106 15, 818 Centenary Methodist Episcopal Chvu-rh V Parker 43 N. J. Eq. 307 842, 844 Central Military Tract R. R. Co. V Rockafellow 17 III. 541 903 Central Park Baptist Church v Patterson 9 Misc. (X. Y'.) 452 6 TABLE OF CASES xix Chambers v Calhoun 18 Pa. St. 13 3, 731 Chanibors v Higgins 49 S. W. (Ky.) 436 102 Charleston v Allen 6 Vt. 633 374, 387, 394 Charter Church of Mother of God, Czen.stocho\va, Re 5 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 128 613 Chase V Cheney 58 111. 509 140, 149, 222, 224, 393, 559, 619, 652 Chase v Merrimack Bank 19 Pick. (Mass.) 564 437 Chatard, Bishop v O'Donovan. . . SO Ind. 20 .535 Chatham v Brainerd 11 Conn. 60 81 Chestnut V Harbaugh 78 Pa. St. 473 757 Chevra Bnai Israel Aushe Yanove und Motal v Chevra Bikur Cho- liui Au.she Rodof Sholem 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 189 293, 633 Chevra Medrash Auschei Makaver V Makower Chevra Aucchi Po- land .....^ . 60 N. Y. Supp. 355 293, 601 Chicago V Baptist Theological Union 115 111. 245 794 Chick V Trevett 20 Me. 462 818 Chi.sholm v State 24 S. \V. (Tex. Crim. App.) 646. . .207 Chittenden v Chittenden 1 Am. L. Reg. (N. Y.) 538 349, 488, 604 Christ Church v PhiUips 5 Del. Ch. 429 155 Christ Church v Trustees of Dona- tions and Bequests for Church ])urpo.ses: Trustees of Donations and Bequests v Christ Church. . 67 Conn. 554 647 Cliristian Church v Carpenter. . . 108 la. 647 94, 700 Christian Church of Sand Creek v Church of Christ, Sand Creek. . 219 lU. 503 52, 53, 141, 699 Christian Church, Himtsville v Sommer 149 Ala. 145 112, 163, 286 Christian Society, Plymouth v Ma- comber 5 Mete. (Mass.) 155 96, 640 Church v Bullock 109 S. W. (Tex.) 115 675, 718 Church Extension of the Meth. Epis. Church v Smith 56 Md. 362 341, 885, 893 Church of Clu-ist v Christian Church, Hammond . 193 111. 144 94, 826 Church of St. Francis, Pointe Coupee V Martin 4 Rob. (La.) 62 162, 674 Church of the Epiphany v Raine. . 10 Ohio Dec. 449 543 Church V Seibert 3 Pa. St. 282 226, 275, 309. 319 C^hurch V Well's Executors 24 Pa. 249 462 Cicotte V Anciaux 53 Mich. 227 157. 684 Cilley V C^avford Smith (N. II.) 1.50 802 Cincinnati v Babb 29 Wkly. Law. Bui. (Ohio) 284. . . .536 Cincinnati Board of Education v Minor 23 Ohio St. 211 45 City Bank, New Orleans v Mc- Intyre 8 Rob Re. (La.) 467 454 City Council, Charleston v Ben- jamin 2 Strobh. L. (S. C.) 508 769 Clap V Smith 16 Pick. (Mass.) 246 746 Clapp v Hale 112 Mass. 368 783 XX iwi'.u: OF ("Asi:s (MiirU V Kniwii lOS S. \V. (Toxtv^) 421 r.n, 1 .',(•), 222. :il8. r,28, 846 Clark V E v an kc 1 i (r a 1 So<;i('ty, (^iiincy 12 Gray (Mjush.) 17 841 Clark V O'Rourke Ill Mifh. 108 845 Clark V Stalo 78 S. W. (Tex.) 1078 208 Claunhton v IMacnauKhton 2 Munf. (Va.) fjl-'J .551 Clayton v Carcv 4 Md. 2«) 312 Clinc V State. .' 130 Pac. (Okl.) 510 201 (2) Clinton v State 53 Fla. 98 • 898 Coates V New York 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 585 63 Cobb V Denton 6 Baxter (Tenn.) 235 893 Cochran v Camden 15 Mass. 206 12 Coekreham v State 7 Hump. (Tenn.) 11 208 Coek.s V Manners. . 12 L. R. Eq. (Eng.) 574 89 Cohen v Congregation Shearith Israel 114 App. Div. (N. Y.) 117. . . .60, 232 Coit V Comstock 51 Conn. 352 827 Colby V Northfield and Tilton Congi'egational So(;iety 63 N. H. 63 451, 463 Coleman v O'Leary 114 Ky. 388 313, 474, 672, 887 Collier v BaptLst Education So- ciety 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 68 737 Combe v Brazier 2 Desaas. (S. C.) 431 517 Commissioners of Charitable Do- nations and Bequests v Walsh. . 7 Ir. Eq. Re. 34 n 474 Conmiittee of Missions v Pacific S>Tiod 157 Cal. 105 226, 512 Commonwealth v Alexander 185 Mass. 551 787 Commonwealth v Barnard Thach. Crim. Cases (Mass.) 431. .898 Commonwealth v Batchelder Thac. Cr. Cas. (Mass.) 191 . . .624, 898 Commonwealth v Bearse 132 IMass. 542 57 Commonwealth v Bm-ke 16 Gray (Mass.) 33 897 Commonwealth v Burry 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 481 762 Commonwealth v Buzzell 16 Pick. (Mass.) 153 387, 901, 902, 903 Commonweahh v Cain 5 Ser. & R. (Pa.) 510 234, 870 Commonwealth ex rel Miller v ComLsh 13 Pa. St. 288 21 Commonwealth v Cuyler 5 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 275 393; 796 Commonwealth v Davis 140 Mass. 485 421 Commonwealth v Dupuv Brightly N. P. (Pa.) 44. . .211, 595, 772 Commonwealth v Ellenger 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 352 896 Commonwealth v Fields 4 Pa. Co. Ct. 434 769 Commonwealth v Fletcher 12 Mass. 441 266 Commonwealth v Foster 28 Pa. Sup. Ct. 400 781 Commonwealth v Fuller 4 Pa. Co. Ct. 429 652, 770, 786 Conmionwealth ex rel Gordon v Graham 64 Pa. St. 339 574, 820 Commonwealth v Green 4 \Miart. (Pa.) 531 . .483, 490, 503, 507 Commonwealth v Hagan 140 Mass. 289 763 Commonwealth v Herr 229 Pa. 132 626 Conmionwealth v Houston 3 Pa. Dist. Re. 686, 14 Pa. Co. Ct. 395 771 Commonwealth v Jeandell 2 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 506 772, 777 Commonwealth v Jennings 3 Gratt. (Va.) 624 213 TABLE OF CASES xxi Commonwealth v Kauffman 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 410 897 Commonwealth v Keithan 1 Monag. Pa. Sup. Ct. Cas. 368. . .761 Commonwealth v Kendig 2 Barr. (Pa.) 448 750 Commonwealth v Kneeland 20 Pick. (Mass.) 206 49 Commonwealth v Kno.x 6 Mas.s 76 768 Commonwealth v Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co 80 Ky. 291 777 Commonwealth v Lyne.s 142 Mas.s. 577 .896 Commonwealth v Marzynski 149 Mas.s. 68 752 Commonwealth v Matthews 2 Pa. Dist Re. 13 771 Commonwealth by Barth v Mc- Cann 123 Ky. 247 783 Commonwealth v McDole 2 Pa. Dist. Re. 370 214 Commonwealth v Meyers 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 435 749 Commonwealth ex rel Scull v Morrison 13 Phila. (Pa.) 135 870 Commonwealth v Mullins 2 Allen (Mass.) 295 896 Commonwealth v Nesbit 34 Pa. 398 786 Commonwealth v Robb 3 Pa. Dist. Re. 701, 14 Pa. Co. Ct. Re. 473 771 Commonwealth v Rosseter 2 Bin. (Pa.) 360 457, 460 Commonwealth v Sampson 97 Mass. 407 781 Commonwealth v Sigman 2 Clark (Pa.) 36 100, 209, 213, 622, 650 Commonwealth v Smith 9 Mass. 107 265 Commonwealth v Spooner 1 Pick. (Mass.) 235 391 Commonwealth v Teamann 1 Phila. (Pa.) 460 771 Commonwealth v Thomas 26 Ky. Law. Re 1128 84 Commonwealth v Trickey 13 Allen (Mass.) 559 763 Commonwealth v Underkoflfer. ... 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 589 211 Commonwealth v Waldraan 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 449 748 Commonwealth v Weidncr 4 Pa. Co. Ct. 437 55, 751 Commonwealth v Winnemore. ... 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 356 899 Commonwealth v Woelper 3 Ser. & R. (Pa.) 29 234, 870 Commonwealth v Wolf 3 Ser. & R. (Pa.) 48 763 Commonwealth v Young Men's Christian Association ..... 25 Ky. Law Rep. 940 653, 799 Concord Society, Strykcrsvillc v Stanton 38 Hun (N. V.) 1 237, 574, 820 (\mdonv Church of St. Augustine. 112 App. Div. (N. Y.) 168 684 Congregation Beth Klohini v Cen- tral Presbyterian Church 10 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 484. . .537 Congiegat ion of the Children of Israel v Peres 2 Coldw. (Tcnn.) 620 294, 379 Congi-egat ional Home Miss. So- ciety V Van Arsdale 58 N. J. Eq. 293 184 Congregat ional Society Dubuque v Fleming 11 Li. 533 39 Congregational Society, Troy v Perry. 6 N. IL 164 734 Congregational Society, Bethany v Sperry. 10 Conn. 2(X) 432 Congregational Unitarian Society v Hale 29 A. D. (N. Y.) 396 76, 847 Congi-egation of Roman Catholic Church v Texas P. Co 41 Fvr v First Universalist Church, Pierceton 45 Ind. 275 865 Druiy V Defontaine 1 Taunt. (Eng.) 135 780 Dubs V Esher 6 Ohio Cir. Ct. 312 247 Duessel v Proch 78 Conn. 343 300, 303 Dulany v Middleton Ex'rs 72 Md. 67 78 DuUes Estate 218 Pa. 162 833 Dutch Church in Garden St. v Mott 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 77.. . .77,586,634 Dwenger v Geary 113 Ind. 106 47, 60, 62, 64, 667, 669, 827 Eager v Marlborough 10 Mass. 430 434 Eai-le V Wood. 8 Cush. (Mass.) 431 158 East Carolina Diocese v Trustees North Carolina Diocese 102 N. C. 442 550, 555 Easterbrooks v Tillinghast 5 Gray (Mass.) 17 879 Eastman's Estate 60 Cal. 308 39 East Norway Lake Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Church v Froislie 37 Minn. 447 442 Ebaugh V Hendel 5 Watts. (Pa.) 43 576 Ebbinghaus v Ivillian 1 Mackey (Dis. of C.) 247 276,547,575,576,831 Ecclesiastical Society of South Farms v Beckwith Kii-by (Conn.) 91 376 Eggleston v Doohttle 33 Conn. 396 291 Eis V Croze 149 Mich. 62 673 Eliot's Appeal 74 Conn. 586 554, ooo Ellis V State 65 So. (Ala.) 412, 10 Ala. App. 252 . .20) Ellis V State 5 Ga. App. 615 773 Elmsley v Madden 18 Grant's Ch. (Can.) 386 473 Elsas V Bro^-ne 68 Ga. 117 727 Emerson v Wiley 10 Pick. (Mass.) 317 443 Emonds v Termehr 60 la. 92 685 England v Vestry Prince George's Parish 53 Md. 466 886 Enos V Chestnut 88 111. 590 16 Episcopal Academy v Philadelphia 150 Pa. 565 556 Erwin v Hurd 13 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 91 453 TABLE OF CASES xxv ]]urcka Stone Company v First Christian Ch 86 Ark. 212 8 Eutaw Place Baptist Church v Shively 67 Md. 493 789 Evangelical Association's Appeal. 35 Pa. St. 316 245 Everett v First Presbyterian Church 53 N. J. Eq. .500 443, 496, 510, 822 Ewing v Bailey 36 111. App. 191 898 Fadness v Braunborg 73 Wis. 257. . 164, 426, 427, 706, 840; 841 Fairbanks v Lanison 99 Mass. 533 79 Fairfield v Lawson 50 Conn. 501 87 Farnsworth v Storrs 5 Cush. (Mass.) 412 109, 115, 116 Fanell v Warren 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 254 214 Fassett v First Parish, Boylston. . 19 Pick. (Mass.) 361 459 Faulkner v National Sailor's Home 155 Mass. 4.58 887 Faxon v Folvey 110 Mass. 392 787 Fay, Matter of 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 532 616 Fearns^Will, Re 27 Wkly. Rep. (Eng.) 392 881 Feiner v Reiss 98 A. D. (N. Y.) 40 722 Feital v Middlesex Raih-oad Com- pany 109 Mass. 398 787 Feizel v Trustees of the first Ger- man Society of M. E. Church . . 9 Kan. 592 384, 655 Fennell v Ridler 5 Barn. & Cres. (Eng.) 406 780 Fernald v Lewis 6 Me. 264 324 I'Vrnstler v Seibert 114 Pa. 196 307 Ferraria v Vasconcellos 31 111. 1, 23 111. 456. . 139, 487, 533, 698 Festorazzi's v St. Joseph's Cath- olic Church 104 Ala. 327 475, 479 Fetter v Wilt 46 Pa. St. 457 210 Field V Drew Theological Seminary 41 Fed. 371 (Cir. Ct. Del.) . . 69, 344, 380 Field V Field 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 394 . . 151, 266, 641, 830 Field V Park 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 140 765 Fifield V Van Wyek's Executors. . 94 Va. 557 792 Fink V Fink E.xec^utors 12 La. Ann. 301 546 Fmk V Umscheid 40 Kan. 271 664, 841, 846 Finley, Matter of 58 Misc. (N. Y.) 639 114 Finley v Brent 87 Va. 103 371 First African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church v HiUery 51 Cal. 155 811,823 First Baptist Church, Ithaca v Bigelow 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 28 461 First Baptist Church of San Jose V Branhan 90 Cal. 22 15 First Baptist Church, Erie v Caughey 85 Pa. St. 271 808 First Baptist Church, Paris v Fort. 93 Tex. 215 147 First Baptist Church in Franklin- dale V Prvor 23 Hun (N. Y.) 271 117, 541 First Baptist Church v llapele(>. . 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 605 607,733 First Baptist Church v Rohherson. 71 Mo. 326 878 First Baptist Ch. and Cong, v Rouse 21 Conn. ItiO 5 First Baptist Ch. in Schenectady v The Utica * Schenectady R.R. Co ■ 6 Barb. (N. V.) 313 4, 202, 429 xxvi TAIMJ-: (H' CASliS I'lrst Huplist C;ii. in Schcncrtiuly V Troy & Schonccliuly 11. R. Co 5 Harb. (N. Y.) 79 . 4, 429 FirKt, Baptist Society of Leeds v (;r:in» 59 Mc. 245 449, 449, 453, 543 I'irst ( 'h. of Christ Scientist, Appli- cal ion of 6 Pa. Dist. 745 105 Fir.st ('}). of Christ Scientist, Ap- plicMt ion of 205 Pa. 543 105 First CliuiTh f)f Christ Scientist in Huffalo, N. Y. V Schreck 70 Misc. (N. Y.) VAo, 127 N. Y. Supp. 174 10.5, 789 First ConRregational Church, N(!\v Orleans v Ilc-ndorson 4 Rob. (La.) 211 877 First ConKrc^at ional Society Woodstock V Swan 2 Vt. 222 742 First Congi^'gat ional Church, Ionia V W(>bb(T 54 Mich. 571 Gil First Constitutional Presby. Ch. v Congregational Society .' 23 la. 567 161, 162, 8:36 First Evangehcal Lutheran Church V Gardner 28 Pa. Sup. Ct. 82 732 Fust Meth. Epis. Ch., Chicago v Dixon 178 111. 260 599 Fiist Methodist Epis. Chui'ch. Ft. Madison v Donnell 110 la. 5 739 Fii-st Methodist Epis. Church, At- tica V Filkins 3 T. & C. (N. Y'.) 279. .4, 342, 615, 817 First Methodist Epis. Society v Brayton 9 Allen (Mass.) 248 464 First Methodist Protestant Church, Scranton, Appeal of 16 Wkly. Cas. N. (Pa.) 245 370 First National Bank, Bai- Harbor V Kingsley 84 Me. Ill 777 Fii-st National Bank, Plattsmouth V Rector 59 Neb. 77 325 First Pari.sh, Shapleigh, v Oilman. 13 Mass. 190 442 First Parish, Medford v Pratt .... 4 Pick. (Mass.) 222 436 First Parish, Quincv v Spear 15 Pick. (Mass.) 144 454 First Parish, Sudbury, v Steams. . 21 Pick. (Mass.) 148 238, 437 First Parish, Winthrop v TowTi of \Vinthrop 1 Me. 208 435 First Presbyterian Chiu"ch, Bloom- field, Re 107 Pa. St. ^3 640 First Presbyterian Ch. Wagoner v Cumberland Pres. Ch., Wagoner. 126 P. 197 195 First Presbyterian Church, Chi- cago Heights V McCoUy 126 111. App. 333 814 First Presbyterian Church of Perry y Meyers 5 Okl. 809. .224. 376, 395, 395, 494, 630 First Presbyterian Chu. v New (Orleans . ." 30 La. Ann. 259 797 First Presbyterian Church, Louis- yille y Wilson 14 Bush. (Ky.) 252 . . 108, 141, 324, 509 First Presbyterian Society of An- trim V Bass 68 N. H. 333 449 TABLK OF CASES xxvii First Presbyterian Society, Chili V Bowen 21 Hun (N. Y.) 389 844 First Presby. Society, Buffalo, Matter of . . . 106 N. Y. 251 539 First Presbyterian Society, Gal- lipolis V Smithers 12 Ohio St. 248 574, 820 First Reformed Presby. Church v Bowden 14 Abb.N. C. (N. Y.) 356. . . .526, 810 First Religious Society of Whites- town V Stone 7 John (N. Y.) 112 736 First Society v Brownell 5 Hun (N. Y.) 464 641 First Unitarian Society, H.'U'tford V Hartford ' 06 (^onn. 368 799, 851 First Ihiiversalist Society, Salem v Bradford 185 Mass. 310 799, 866 First Universalist Society, New- buryport v Currier. 3 Mete. (Mass.) 417 735 First Universalist Society, North Adams & others v Fitch 8 Gray (Ma.ss.) 421 865, 882 Fitzgerald v Robinson 112 Mass. 371 685 Fitzimmons, Matter of 29 Mis. (N. Y.) 731 . . .689, 886, 888 (2) Fitzpatrick v Pltzgerald 13 Gray (Mass.) 400 663 Flagg V Millburv 4 Cush. (Mass.) 243 770 Flood V Ryan 220 Pa. 450 826 Flynn v Columbus Club 21 R. I. 534 745 Folds V State 123 Ga. 167 204 Foley Estate, Re . 27 MLsc. (N. Y.) 77 881 Follett V Badeau 26 Hun (N. Y.) 253 837 Foote V West 1 Denio (N. Y.) 544 460 Foster v Wooten 67 Mi.ss. 540 750 Foundling Hospital v Garrett 47 L. T. (Eng.) 230 120 Fourth Universalist Parish v Wenslev 5 Wkly. Note Cas. (Pa.) 273 867 Fox V Abel 2 Conn. 541 760 Fox V Mensch . 3 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 444 750 Foxcroft V Piscataquis Valley Camp Meeting Association .... 86 Me. 78 55 Fralick v Lyford 107 A. D. (N. Y.) 543 730 Franch v Old South Society, Boston 106 Mass. 479 455 Franke v Mann 100 Wis. 118 272, 525 Franklin Street Society v Man- ^ Chester 60 N. H. 342 796 Franta v Bohemian Roman Cath- olics Central Union 164 Mo. 304 670 Frazee, Matter of 63 Mich. 390 620, 691 Frodenbvug v Lyon Lake Methoil- ist Ei)is. Ciiunh 37 Mich. 476 84t) Fredericks v Hubcr ISO Pa. 572 284 Freeland v Neale 1 Robt . Eccles. (Eng.) 648 177 Fre<'i)()rt Bank v Egan 140 Pa. 106 14 Freligh v Piatt 5 Cowan (N. Y.) 494 464 French Adni'r. v Trustees, Gris- wold College 60 Li. 482 553 Friedlander v State 7 Tex. i'\. App. 204 206 F. V. F. (1) (1902) 1 L. R. Ch. (Eng.) OSS 2S1 xwiii TAIMJ': ()!•' <'ASi:s I'ricnsoii v (Icncriil AsHctnblv of rrcsbylcrian ( ;h ". . . . 7 Hcisk. (Tcnn.J 68:i 498, 790 F r y (• b u r g I' ii r s o n ;i g c Kund V Riplov 6 Mo. 442 732 l''urhs V IVIciscl 102 Mich. 3.57 137, 244, 382, 833 l'"ull)iight V lliKgenbotham 133 Mo. ()()8 130, 190, 528 FasKcll V Hail 233 III. 73 143, 191, 195 Gable v MiUer 10 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 627 {wan rt- versed) 144,586 Gaff V Greer 88 Ind. 122 138, 492, .508 Gage V Currier 4 Piek. fMas.s.) 399 437, 440 ".allies V State 7 Lea (Tenn.) 410 519 laiiible, Sueee.ssion of 23 La. Ann. 9 4.57 lairel t v Naee 5 Pa. Sup. Ct . 475 246 lartin v Peniek 5 Bash. (Ky.) 110. . . 101, 116, 490, 511 Jarvey v Coleock 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 138 819 Gasely v Separatists Society of Zoar 13 Ohio St. 144 175 Gass Appeal 73 Pa. 39 6.55 Gass and Bonta v Wilhite 2 Dana (Ky.) 170 80, 721, 724, 791 Gay V Baker 17 Mass. 435 455, 457 General Asscnnbly, Free Chui-eh of Scotland v Overtoun (1904) Law Rep. App. Cases (Eng.) 515 108, 252, 253, 254, 864 German Evangelical Cong. V Pressler 17 La. Ann. 127 289 German Evangelical Lutheran Church, Newark v Maschop ... 10 N. J. Eq. .57 164, 270 German Ref. Ch. v Busche 5 Sandf. Sup. Ct. 666 815 (Jerman Roman Catholic Church v Kaus 6 Ohio Dec. 1028 14 CJewin v Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church 166 Ala. 345 324, 845 Gibbs v Gilead Ecclesiastical So- ciety 38 Conn. 153 9, 183, 186 Gibson V Armstrong 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 481 3.59, 361 Gilchrist v Corliss 1.55 Mich. 126 185 Oilman v HamUton 16 111. 225 83 Oilman v McArdle 99N. Y.451, 12Abb.N.C.414. .475,476 ( lilmer v Stone 120 U. S. 586 .497 Oihnore v Lee 237 111. 402 471 Gip.son V Morris 36 Te.x. Civ. App. .593, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 645, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 555. ..701 Gladstone Baptist Church v Scott. 25 Ky. L. Rep. 237 819 Olendale Union Cluistian Society V Brown 109 Mass. 163 604 Globe Furniture Co. v Trustees .lerusalem Bapt. Church 103 Va. 559 17, 117 Goddard v Smithett 3 Gray (Mass.) 116 639 Godfrev v Walker 42 Ga. 562 368 Godwin v Lunan Jeff. (Va.) 96 228 Goesele v Bimeler 14 How. (U. S.) 589 175 Going V Emery 16 Pick. (Mass.) 107 78 Good V Zook 116 Ln. 582 892 Goodell V l^nion Association of the Children's Home 29 N. J. Eq. 32 827, 893 TABLE OF CASES xxix Gorman v Lowell 117 Mass. 65 785 Gortemiller v Rosengarn 103 Ind. 414 8 Gorton v Hadsell 9 Gush. (Mass.) 508 455, 458 Gouldins v State 82 Ala. 48 209 Gowan v Smith 157 Mich. 443 781 Gram v Prussia Emigi-ated Evan- gelical Lutheran German Society 36 N. Y. 161 .. . .289, 382, 610, 817, 835 Grant v State 141 Ala. 96 727 Gray v Christian Society 137 M:uss. 329 318, 322 Gray v Good 44 Ind. App. C. Rep. 476 13, 638 Greater Newburgh Amusement Company, Inc., v Sayer 81 Misc. (N. Y.) 307 749 Greek ('atholic Church v Orthodox Greek Church 195 Pa. St. 425 278, 279, 656 Green v Allen 5 Hump. (Tenn.) 170 358 Green v Cady 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 414 16, 20, 806 Greene v Dennis 6 Conn. 293 267, 886 Greenland Ch. & Cong. Society v Hatch 48 N. H. 393 107 Gregg V Wyman 4 Cush. (Mass.) 323 755 Gregg's Estate, Re 213 Pa. 260 890 Gridley v Clark 2 Pick. (Mass.) 403 400 Griffith V Matthews 5 Durnf. & East. (Eng.) 296 461 Griffiths V Reed 1 Hagg. Ecc. Re. (Eng.) 79 126 Griggs V Middaugh 10 Ohio Dec. 643 135, 165, 707, 853, 862 Grimes Executors v Harmon and others 35 Ind. 198 69, 139, 158, 883 Grimes v State 105 Ala. 86 895 Grissom v Hill 17 Ark. 483 8 Groesbeeck v Dunscomb 41 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 302 123, 565 Grosvenor v United Society of Be- lievers . 118 Mass. 78 722 Grove v Trustees of the (yong. of the Disciples of Jesus Christ ... 33 Md. 451 218 Gudmundson v Thingvalla Lu- theran Church 150 N. W. (N. D.) 750. . . .41, 301, 302 Guild V Richards 16 Gray (Mass.) 309 335 Gumbleton, Ex Parte 2 Atk. (ICng.) 70 265 Gump V Sibley 79 Md. 165 59 Guthrie v Guthrie 10. S. E. (Sup. Ct. Apj). Va.) 327. .489 Haacke v Knights of Libei-(v So- cial and Literary Clul) ...... 76 Md. 429 782 Haas v Missionary Society of the Most Holy Redeemer 6 Misc. (N. Y.) 281 608 Hackett v Brooksville Graded School District 27 Ky. L. 1021 41, 716 Hackncv v Vawter 39 Kan. 615 653 Hadden v CJhorn 8 B. Mon. (Kv.) 70 702, 703 Haddcn v Dandy 51 N. J. Kq. 154 874 Hadlev v Forsee 203 Mo. 418, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 96. .479 Hagenmeyer v Haaselman 2 Dem. (N. Y.) 87 313, 471 Hagenmeyer's Will, Re 12 Abb. N. C. 432 470 Hale v Everett 53 N. H. 1 98, 147, 187, 546, 632, 697, 700, 840. 851 Hall v Corcoran 107 Ma.ss. 251 758 xxx 'iwiuj: oi' casks IImII V Planner 1 Lcvinz (Eng.) 196 654 llalscv V Convonlion of the Prot^ est ant lOpiscopal Church, Mary- land Diocosp 75 Md. 275 572 llatnnicl v ( Icrnian Cong 1 Wkly. Notes Caa. (Pa.) 411 286 llainslicr v Ilanishrr •.• •; l-'i2 111. 273 905 Hancock v Supn iiic Council Cath- olic Benevolent Legion 67 N. J. Law 614 676 Hanson v Lit t le Si.ster.s of the Poor. 79 Md. 434 531, 600 llai)pv V Morton 33 111. 398 72 ll.nihison v Finst Pres. Society. . . 46 Conn. 529 321, 631 llanl V Wiley 87 Va. 125 292 Hardin v Trustees of Second Bap- ti.st Church of City of Detroit. 51 Mich. 137 321 HarKTavo & Taylor (Hill. 13 W, 111) Fort (Eng.) 375. .765 Harlem Presbyterian Church v New York 5 Hun (N. Y.) 442 613 Harmon v Dreher 1 Speer's Eq. (S. C.) 87 137, 298, 390, 705 Harper v Straws 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 48 116, 541, 542 Harrel v State . 38 Term. 125 901 Harriman v First Bryan Baptist Church 63 Ga. 186 602 Harris v American Baptist Home Mission Society 33 Hun (N. Y\) 411 890 Harris v (^ro.sbv .' 55 So. (Ala.) 231 195 Harris v Pounds 64 Ga. 121 56 Harrisburg Lumber Co. v Wash- burn 29 Ore. 150 8 Harrison v Brophy 59 Kan. 1 471 Hai-rison v Hoyle 24 Ohio 2.54 163, 256, 262 Harrison v Marshall 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y'.) 271 755 Harrison v Powers 76 Ga. 218 753 Harrison v St. Mark's Church. . . 12 Phila. (Pa.) 259 40 Harrison v State 37 Ala. (N. S.) 154 211 Hart V School Dist., Throopsville . 2 Lancaster Law Re. (Pa.) 347. .44, 231 Hartt V Harvey 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 55 235, 872 Hatchett et al v Mt. Pleasant Bap- tist Chu. et al 46 Ark. 291 287 Hatfield v De Long 156 Ind. 207 .229 Hauck V Ingles 148 N. W. (Minn.) 100 768 Hayden v Mitchell 103 Ga. 431 768 Haves, et al v Brubaker 65 Ind. 27 818 Haves v Franklin 141 N. C. 599 286 HaVes v Manning 172 S. W. (Mo.) 897 195, 326 Havnes v Sledge and Maxy 11 Ala. (2 Port.) 530 774 Healy v Reed 153 Mass. 197 897 Heath v Chapman .....; 2 Drew. Ch. Re. (Eng.) 417 478 Hebrew Cong. Benai Berith Jacob V United States 6 Ct. CI. (Ga.) 241 645 Heckman v Mees 16 Ohio 583 301 Heoney v St. Peter's Ch 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y'.) 608 451 Heseinan's Executors v Roome ... 70 N. J. Eq. 562 882 Heisler v Methodist Protestant Church of Mapleton 147 N. W. (Iowa) 750 544 Heiss V Vosburg 59 Wis. 532 664 TABLE OF CASES xxxi Helbig V Rosenberg 86 la. 159 10, 304 Hellslern v Katzer 103 Wis. 391 162, 727 Helm V Zarecor 213 Fed. (Tenn.) 648 195 Henderson v Erskine Smith's N. H. Rep. 36 866 Henderson v Hunter 59 Pa. St. 335 348, 537 Hendrick.son v Decow 1 Sax. (N. J.) 577 .. . .261 (2), 264, 627 Hendrickson v Shotwell 1 N. J. Eq. 577 223, 261, 264 Hendryx v People's United Church 42 Wash. 336 150, 151, 533 Hennessey v Walsh 55 N. H. 515 664 Henry v Deitrich 84 Pa. St. 286 114 Hewitt V Wheeler 22 Conn. 557 629 Hewitt's Estate, Re 94 Cal. 376 497 Hicock V Ho.skine 4 Day's Rep. (Conn.) 63 639 Hill Estate Company v Whittlesey. 21 Wash. 142 418 Hilton V Houghton 35 Me. 143 776 Hilton V Roylance 25 Utah 129 407, 412 (2) Hinde v Chorlton 15 Law Times N. S. (Eng.) 472 .. . .451 Hoare v Osborne L. R. 1 Eq. (Eng.) 585, 35 L. J. Ch. 345 71 Hodges V Nalty 104 Wis. 464, 113 Wis. 567. .734, 739 Hodges V O'Brien 113 Wis. 97 732, 733 Hodnett's Estate, Re; O'Reilly Appeal '. 154 Pa. 485 892 Hoeffer v Clogan 171 111. 462 471 Hofer V Cowan, McClung Co ... . 55 Cent. Law Journal (Ct. App. Ky.) 290 774 Hoffner's Estate, Re 161 Pa. 331 891 Holbrook v Holbrook 1 Pick. (Mass.) 248 795 Holcombe v Leavitt 124 N. Y. S. 980 103, 285, 320 Holland y Alcock 108 N. Y. 312 475 Holland v Peck 2 Iredell Eq. (N. C.) 255 884 Hollingsworth y State. . 5 Sneed. (Tenn.) 518 201 Hollis V Drew Theological Sem- inary 95 N. Y. 166 890 Hollis St. Meeting House y Pier- pont 7 Mete. (Mass.) 495 226 Hollywood V First Parish, Brock- ton 192 Mass. 269 436 Holm V Holm 81 Wis. 374 161, 428 Holmes v Mead 52 N. Y. 332 77 Holt y Downs 58 N. H. 170 108, 111, 182 Holt y State 1 Baxter (Tenn.) 192 203 Hornbeck v American Bible So- ciety 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 133 81, 585 Horsman y Allen 129 Cal. 131 157, 695, 860, 862 Horton v Baptist Ch. & Society of Chester 34 Vt. 309 3 Horton y Norwalk Tramway Com- pany 66 Conn. 272 777 Hosford, etc. y Lord 1 Root (Conn.) 325 634 Hoskinson y Pusey, (White v King) 32 Gratt. (Va.) 428 362, 364 Houck y Ingles 148 N. W. (Minn.) 100 900 Houliston y Parsons 9 Up. Can. Q. B. 681 775 Howard, Estate of 5 Misc. (N. Y.) 295 472 Howard v First Parish 7 Pick. (Mass.) 138 456 xxxii TA I'.Li; ( H" fASIlS llnwani SuikImv ScIiodI AssrxMii- lion Ai)nc:il .' 70 I'ii. :{14 798 ll.nsr i{r 1 Viiw Ch. L\. Y.) 213 614,828 M(Av<- V Sicv.-ns 47 VI. '2i\2 456 Huhbiinl V Clniiiiin Ciilh. Cong. . M la. 31 315,418 lluIxT V (imnan ("onf-; Hi Ohio Si. :i71 599 Jlunhcs V North C'lint.oii liaplist Church, Eiwt Orange 67 Atl. 66 (Sup. Ct. N. J.) 310 Hull V State 120 Iml. 153 213 Humbert v St. Stephen's Church, NY 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 308. .290, 373, 563 Hunii)hrcy v Buniside 4 Bush. (Ky.) 215 344, ^365 Huniphrevs v Little Sisters of the Poor ' 7 Ohio Dec. 194 596 Hundley v Collins 131 Ala. 234 . . . .107, 310, 610, 638, 846 Hunt V State 3 Te.x. Ct. App. 116 205 Hunter v Attorney General 80 Law Times Rep. (N. S.) (Eng.) 732 825 Huntington v Carpenter Kirby (Conn.) 45 800 Hussey v Georgia 69 Ga. 54 784 Hvsong V Gallitzin Borough School District 164 Pa. 629 626, 715 Iglehart v Rowe 20 Kv. L. Re. 821, 47 S. W. 575. . . 35, 150, 318 Immanuel Presbyterian Church v Riedy 104 La. 314 803 Income Tax Commissioners v Pemsel 61 L. J. Q. B. 265 (N. S.) 405 Inglec V Bosworth 5 Pick. (Mass.) 501 795 Inhabitants of Bucksport v Spof- ford 12 Me. 487 439 Irvine v EUiot 206 Pa. St. 152 15, 132 Isham V Fullager 14 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 363 378, 493, 494, 632, 640, 809 (2) Isham V Trustees of the First Presbv. Ch. of Dunkirk 63 How. Pr. (N. Y'.) 465. .288, 388, 811 Itter V Howe 23 Ont. App. Rep. 256. . . 146, 854, 862 Jackson v Gridley 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 98 900, 901 Jackson v Hopkins 78 A. (Md.) 4 324 Jackson v Phillips 14 Allen (Mass.) 539 .69, 84 Jackson v Rounsevillo 5 Mete. (Mass.) 127 447,457 Jacob V Dallow 2 Salk. (Eng.) 551 229. 449 Jacquet, Re 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 575, 82 N. Y. S. 986 281,590 James it Parsons (Hill. 2 Anne) Forts. (Eng.) 374. . .787 Jameson v Carpenter 68 N. H. 62 773 Jarrell v Si)roles 20 Tex. Civ. App. 387 33, 703 .lefts V York 12 Cush. (Mass.) 196 2 Jenkins v Cook L. R. 1 Probate Div. (Eng.) 80. ... 121 Jennings v Scarborough 56 N. J. Law 401 136, 560 Jentzsch, Ex Parte 112 Cal. 4(58 748 Jewett V Burroughs 15 Mass. 464 438 Jewett V Thames Bank 16 Conn. 511 639 John.son v Corbett 11 Paige Ch. (X. Y.) 265 462 Johnson v Day 17 Pick. (Mass.) 106 747 Johnson v State 1 Tex. Ct. App. 609 897 TABLK OF CASES xxxiii Johnson V State 92 Ala. 82 211 Johnson v Welsh 42 W. Va. IS 2 Johnston v Commonwealth 22 Pa. 8(. 102 772 Johnston v Hughes 187 N. Y. 440 472 Johnston v People 31 111. 469 770 Jones V Brooklyn B. & W. E. R.Co. 21 St. Re. (N. Y.) 169 896 Jones V Gary 6 Me. 448 314, 328 Jones V Harris 1 Strobh. Law (S. Car.) 160 902 Jones V Sacramento Ave. Method- ist l':piscopal Church 198 111. 626 315 Jones V State 28 Neb. 495 323 Jones V Towne 58 N. H. 462 453, 462 Jones V Trustees of Mt. Zion Church 30 La. Ann. 711 11 Jones V Wadsworth 11 Phila. (Pa.) 227 585 Jones V Watford. 62 N. J. Eq. 339 730 Joidon V Universalist Central Con- vent ion Trustees 107 Va. 79 865 Judefind v State 78 Md. 510 782 Juker V Commonwealth ex rel Fisher 20 Pa. St. 484 238, 871 Karoly v Hungarian Ref. Church. 83 N. J. Eq. 514 698 Karwisch v Mayor, etc., Atlanta. 44 Ga. 205 767 Katzer v Milwaukee 104 Wis. 16 659 Kaufman v Hamm 30 Mo. 387 775 Kavanagh's Will, Matter of 125 N. Y. 418 891 Kehoe v Kehoe 12 Abb. N. C. 427n, 476 Keiper's Estate 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 568 576, 882 Keith V Congregational Parish, Easton 21 Pick. (Mass.) 261 437 Keith V Tuttle 28 Me. 327 774 Kellogg V Dickinson 18 Vt. 266 451 Kelly V Nichols 18 R. I. 62 74 Kemnierer v Kemmerer 233 111. 327 491 Kemp V Wickes 3 Phill. (Eng.) 276 122 Kennedy v Le Movne 188 111. 255 556 Kenrick v Cole . .' 61 Mo. 572 878 Kepner v Keefer 6 Watts (Pa.) 231 775 Ken-igan v Conelly 46 Atl. (\. J.) 227 689 Kerrigan v Tabb ." 39 Atl. 701 472 Kerr's Appeal 89 Pa. 97 588 Keys V Kevs' Estate 217 Mo. 48 765 Kevser v Stansifer 6 Ohio 363 31 Kil)l)c V .\ntiain 4 Conn. 134 391 Kidder v French Smith N. H. 155 401 Kill)a1rick v Graves 51 Miss. 432 3()4 Kiiiihall v Second Congregational Parish, Rowley 24 Pick. (Mass.) 347 463 Kincaid's Appeal 66 Pa. St. 420 63, 458 KinK V Taylor 1 Peake's N. P. (Eng.) 11 900 Kingsl)urv v Brandegee 113 App. Div.(N. Y.) 606.. .550, 832, 880 Kinkead v McKee 9 Bush. (Ky.) 535 134, 484 Kinney v Kinney 86 Ky. 610 365 Kinney v State 38 Ala. 224 204 Kisor Appeal 62 Pa. 428 530 Kisor v Stansifer, Wright N. P. (Ohio) 323 161 xwiv TAinj; (H' CASIOK Klix V St. Stanislaus Climcli Hi? Mo. App. TMT 113, «(Xi, ()<)7, 009, Oi:i, 659 Klopp V Moore (\ Kan. 27 810 Knapp V FarishionerH of St. Mary VVillesdon " 2 RobertHon Ecr. Rp. (Eng.) 365, 3(J9 461 Knight V ProsH Co 227 Fa. 185 772 Kninht's Estate 159 Pa. 5(X) 268, 590 Knights V Brown 93 Me. 557 779 Kniskern v Lutheran Ch 1 Sandf. Ch. CS. Y.) 439 215,307,526,811 Kramer v Marks 64 Pa. 8t. 151 57 Krauezuna.s y Hoban 221 Pa. 213 666, 681 Krecker v Shirey 163 Pa. 534 110, 178, 226, 243, 247 (2), 540, 636 Kreglo V Fulk 3 W. Va. 74 357, 807 Kulinski v Dambrowski 29 Wi.s. 109 822 Kuns V Robertson 154 111. 394 142, 862 Kupfer V South Parish, Augusta. . 12 M:i.ss. 185 434 Ladd V Clements 4 Cush. (Mass.) 476 235, 639 Laight St. Church v Noe 12 How. Pr. (X. Y.) 497 806 Lamb v Cain 129 Ind. 486 139, 152, 157, 523, 852, 859 Re Lampson 161 N. Y. 511 891 Lancaster v State 53 Ala. 398 2a5 Landers v Frank St. Church, Rochester 97 N. Y. 119, 114 N. Y. 626 10, 349. 602 Landis Appeal 102 Pa. St. 467 329, 330 Landis v Campbell 79 Mo. 433 133, 295 Landrith v Hudgins 121 Tenn. 556 111, 161, 191, 192, 193, 194 (2), 195 Lane v Calvary Church of Sum- mit, N. J 59 N. J. Eq. 409 565 Lane v Eaton 69 Minn. 141 690 (2) Langolf V Seiberlitch 2 Parsons Equity Cases (Pa.) 64. . 19.608 Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v U. S 136 U. S. 1, 140 U. S. 665. .89, 409, 648 LawTence v Fletcher 8 Mete. (Mass.) 153 722, 725 Law.son v Kolbenson 61 III. 405 820 Lawyer v Cipperly 7 Paige Ch. (X. Y.) 281 614 Layne v State 72 Tenn. 199 201 Leahey v Williams 141 Mass. 345 662, 680 Leblanc v Lemaire 105 La. 539 13 Leete v Pilgrim Cong. Society. . . 14 Mo. App. 590 40 Left wig t*c Barton, for the Method- ist Epis. Ch. V Thornton 18 la. 56 19 Leicester v Fitchburg 7 Allen (Mass.) 90 37 Lemp V Raven 113 Mich. 375 853 Lempke v State 171 S. W. (Tex. Cr. App.) 217 768 Re Lennon's Estate 92 Pac. 870 474 Leonard v Manard 1 Hall's Sup. Ct. (X. Y.) 200 895 Lepage v McXamara 5 la. 124 884 Lova.s.seur v Martin 11 La. Ann. 684 417 TABLE OF CASES xxxv Lewis V Voliva 154 111. App. 48 148, 21«j Liggod V Ladd 17 Or. 89 364, 623 I.igonia v Buxton 2 Mo. 102 391 Lindcnmuller v People 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 548 99, 596, 648, 766 (2) Linn v Carson 32 Gratt. (Va.) 170 5 Littl(> V Bailey 87 111. 239 819 Livingston v Trinity Ch. Trenton. 45 N. J. Law 230. . . 149, 454, 551, 569 Logan V Mathew.s 6 Pa. St. 417 784 Londoner v Lichten 11 Mo. App. 385 898 Long V Harvov 177 Pa. St. 473 198 (2) Lord V Marvin 1 Root (Conn.) 330 794 Lord Cornwallis and Hoylo (Mich. 6 Geo. 1) Fort. (Eng.) 373 774 Love V State 35 Tex. Cr. Re. 27 204 Love V WelLs 25 Ind. 503 760 Lovejoy v Whipple 18 \'t. 379 775 L o V o t t v C! o r m a n Reformed Church 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 67 418 Luca-s V Case 9 Bush. (Ky.) 297 296, 323 Ludlow V Rector, etc., of St. Johns Ch 68 Misc. (N. Y.) 400 543 Lunsford and Withi'ow Company V Wren 64 W. Va. 458 18 Lutheran Congiegation Pine Hill V St. Michael's Evangelical Church 48 Pa. St. 20 697, 702 Lynch v Pfeiffer 110 N. Y. 33 873 Lynd v Menzios 33 N. J. Law 162 386, 563, 564 Lyon V Strong 6 Vt. 219 779 Lvons V Planters Loan and Sav- 'ings Bank 86 Ga. 485 535 Mace V Putnam 71 Me. 238 752, 754 Mack Appeal 71 Conn. 122 78, 80 Mack V Kime 129 Ga. 1 145, 191, 192, 193, 195, 225, 323 (2), 521, 524, 625 MacKenzio v Trustees of Pres- bytery of .Jersey City 67 N. J. Eq. 652 505 Madison Avenue Baptist C'hurch v Baptist Ch. in Oliver St 46 N. Y. 131, 73 N. Y. 82. . .537, 538 Magie v German Evang. Dut(^h Church 13 N. .J. Eq. 77 418 Magill v Brown Fed. Cas. No. S, 952 (U. S. Cir. Ct. Pa.) (Brightly N. P. 347) 71,2()4, 267, 644, 676, 879 Maine Baptist Missionary Con- vention V Portland ....'. 65 Mo. 92 36 Males V Murray 7 0. Nisi Prius Re. 614 846 Malone et al Trustees v Lacroix . . 144 Ala. 648 534 Mancini, Matter of 89 Misc. (N. Y.) 83 281 Mann v MuUin 84 Pa. St. 297 829 Manning v Moscow Presbyterian Soc 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 52 416 Manning v Shoemaker 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 375 248, 328 Mannix v County Commissioners. 9 Oiiio Dec. 18 795 Mannix v Pureed 40 Ohio St. 102 6(>4, 682 xxxvi tabu: of caheh Mapes V Home Misaionary Society 33 Hun (N. Y) 360 22 Marie M. E. Church of Chicago. . 253 111. 21 130, 224 Marion v Evangelical Creed Cong. Milwaukee 1.32 Wi.s. 6.50 139, 245, 298, 526 Martin v Board of Directors of Cennan Reformed Church of Wasliin^ton County 149 Wi.s. 19 605 Martin v State 6 Baxter (Tenn.) 234 214 Marx V McGlynn 88 N. Y. 357 888 Mason V Lee 96 Mis-s. ISG 387 Mavberrv v Mead 80 Me. 27 611 Mayer v Temple Beth El 52 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 638 459 Mazaika v Krauczunas 233 Pa. 138 666 McAdoo V State 35 S. W. (Tex. Ct. of Crim. .4pp.) 966 207 McAlister v Burgess 161 Mass. 269 36 McAllister v McAllister 46 Vt. 272 350 McAuley's Appeal 77 Pa. 397 502, 524, 588 McAuley v Billenger 20 John. (N. Y.) 89 7-33 McAvoy, Matter of 112 A. D. (N. Y.) 377 479, 795 McBride v Porter 17 la. 204 28, 532, 864 McCabe v Father Matthews 24 Hun. (N. Y.) 149 751 McCall, Little v Presbyterian Church, Florence, Ex Parte 68 S. C. 489 62, 284 McCartee v Orphan Asylum So- ciety 9 Cowan (N. Y.) 437 84 McClary v Lowell 44 Vt. 116 786 McCusker, Matter of 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 113. . . .114, 795 McDaniel v State 63 S. E. 919 652 McDonald v Fernald 68 N. H. 171 758 McDonald v Gray 11 la. 508 741 McDonald v Massachusetts Gen- eral Hospital 120 Mass. 432 608 McEh-oy V State 25 Tex. 507 208 McEntee v Bonacum 66 Neb. 651 440 McEvov, Re 6 Dem. Sur. (X. Y.) 71 475 McGatrick v Wason 4 Ohio St. 566 767, 769 McGhee v Lose 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 371 813 McGinnis v Watson 41 Pa. St. 9 527, 623, 637 McGlade'.s Appeal 99 Pa. St. 338 . .891 McGrath v Merw^in 112 Mass. 467 769 McHugh V McCole 97 Wis. 166 475 M'llvain v Christ Church, Read- ing 8 Phila. (Pa.) 507 870 Mcintosh V Lee .57 la. 356 764 McKee v Jones 67 Miss. 405 779 McKinney v Griggs 5 Bush. (Kv.) 401 366, 693 McLain v Matlock 7 Ind. 525 641. 654 McMillen's Appeal, Re 11 Wklv. Notes of Cas. (Pa.) 440. .889 McNabb v Pond 4 Brad.' (N . Y.) 7 455 McNair, Ex Parte 13 Neb. 195 54 McQuire v St. Patricks Cathedral . .54 Hun (N. Y.) 207 668 McRoberts v Moudy 19 Mo. App. 26 33, 83 McVea v State 35 Tex. Crim. 1 208 Meader v White 66 Me. 90 768 Melvin v Easley 7 Jones Law Rep. (N. C.) 356 780 TABLE OF CASES xxxvii Mercer Home for Disabled Clergy- men of the Presbyterian Faith, Re 162 Pa. St. 232 493 Meriwether v Smith 44 Ga. o41 756 Morriam v Stearns 10 Cush. (Mass.) 2.57 764 Merrill v Downs 41 N. H. 72 755 Menitt V Earle 29 N. Y. 115, Aff'g. 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 38 753 Methodist Episcopal Ch., Newark V Clark 41 Mich. 730 807 Methodist Episcopal Ch., South v Clifton 34 Tex. Civ. App. 248 364 Methodist Episcopal Ch., South v Hinton 92 Tenn. 188 369 Methodist Episcopal Chiu*ch, Sun Prairie v Sherman . 36 Wis. 404 737 Methodist Episcopal Church, Cin- cinnati V Wood 5 Ohio 283 699 M.E. Society, Matter of, v Perry... 51 Hun (N. Y.) 104 601,634,821 Methodist Protestant Church v Bennett 39 Conn. 293 371 Meyers v Baker 120 111. 567 57 MicheLs v Rustemeyer 20 Wash. 597 737 Miller v Ahrens .' 150 Fed. 644 729 Miller v Childs 120 Mich. 639 570 MiUer v Church 4 Phila. (Pa.) 48 818 Miller v EngUsh 21 N. J. Law 317 612, 639, 812 Miller v Eschbach 43 Md. 1 236 Miller v Gable 10 Paige (N. Y.) 627 147, 273 MiUer v Gable 2 Denio (N. Y.) 492 274, 597, 585 Miller v Milligan 6 Ohio Dec. 1000 37 Miller v Porter 53 Pa. St. 292 69 Miller v Roessler 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 234 779 Miller v Teachout 24 Ohio St. 525 887 Miller v Trustees of Mariner's Church 7 Me. 51 899 MiUiard v Board of Education. . . 121 111. 297 712 Minter v State 104 Ga. 743 246 Missionary Society Meth. Epis. Ch. V Calvert 32 Gratt. (Va.) 357 350 Missionarv Society Meth. Epis. Ch. V Chapman 128 Mass. 265 350 Mohney v Clark 26 Pa. 342 99, 773 Montague v Inhabitants First Parish in Dedhani 4 Mass. 269 440 Montgomery v Johnson 9 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 232 453 Montgomery v Wahon Ill Ga. 840 814 Moore v xMonroe 64 Ga. 367 713 Moore v Rector St. Thomas 4 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 51 . .569, 615. 820 Moore v Tavlor 147 Pa. 481 866 Moran v Moran 104 la. 216 472 Morasse v Brochu 151 Mass. 567 679 Morgan v Gabard 58 So. (Ala.) 902 195, 285 Morris Executors v Morris Devi- sees 48 W. Va. 430 892 Morris Street Baptist Church v Dart 67 S. C. 338 32, 132,289 xx.wiii TAHU: Ol" ("ASEH Morris v State 84 Ala. 457 llo Morion V Olostcr 46 Me. 520 755 Morvillf V Fowlc 144 Mass. W.i 90, 840 MoHclcv V Hatch U)H Miiss. ol? 745 Moss V Stntc I7:i S. W. ClVnn.) 859 758 Mount V 'l\iltl(' 1H;j N. V. :i.'>8 836 Mount ("alvarv Churcli v Alhcrs . . 174 Mo. :«! 803 Mt. Helm Hap'tist Church v Jones. 79 Mi.ss. 488 36, 133 Mt. Zion Baptist Church v Whit- morc 83 la. 138 35, 284, 636 Muck V Hitdicock 212 N. V. 2H;{ rA() Muck V Hitchcock 149 A. I). (\. Y.) 323 r,-22 Muckcnfuss V State .').'■) Tex. (V. Re. 229 7C.(> Mueller v State 70 Ind. 310 7.'>2 Mulrov V Churchman 52 la. 238 iHWt, 794 Murphy v DalUun 1 Bland. Ch. (Md.) 529 $93 Murray v Commonwealth 24 Pa. 270 751 Mussey v Bulfinch Street Society 1 Cush. (Ma.ss.) 148 866 Muzzy V Wilkins Smith's N. H. Rep. 1 109, 185, 197, 282, 482, .590, .593, 617, 795 Myers v Baptist Society of Jamaica ' 38 Vt. 614 10 Myers v First Presbyterian Chui-ch, Perry 5 Okla. 809 499 Also 11 Okla. 544 13, 396 Nace Appeal 11 Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 41 246 Nance v Bushby 91 Tenn. 303 149, 164, 319, 323, 326, 327, 515, 532, 533 Nash V Sutton 117 N. Car. 231 821 Neale v Vestry of St. Paul's Church 8 GUI. (Md.) 116 638 Neely v Hoskins 84 Me. 386 826 Neill V Spencer 5 111. App. 461 9 NeiLson's Appeal 105 Pa. 180 558 Nelson v Benson 69 111. 27 428, 693 Neuendorflf v Duryea 69 N. Y. 557 765 New Ebenezer A.ssociation v Gress Lumber Company 89 Ga. 125 634, 808 Newman v Proctor 73 Ky. 318 368 Newman, Ex Parte 9 Cal. 502 .783 New Market Savings Bank v Gillet 100 111. 2.54 819 New South Meeting House, Bos- ton. Re 13 Allen (Mass.) 497 636 New Thought Church v Chapin . . 1.59 A. D. 723 424 Xiccolls V Rugg 47 111. 47 485, 527, 870 Xiebuhr v Piersdorff 24 Wis. 316 457 Noble V People 1 111. 54 (Breese, Beecher) 899 Nobili y Redman 6 Cal. 325 667 Noftsker y Commonwealth 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 559 760 Northampton County v St. Peter's Church. . 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 416 797 North Baptist Church v Parker & others . 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 171 823 North Carolina Christian Confer- ence y Allen 156 N. C. 524 182 North V Dick.son 1 Hagg. Eccles. Rep. (Eng.) 310. .202 tabu: of ( asi:s xxxLv North Presbyterian Church, Chi- cago V Jevne, et al 32 III. 214 417 Northrup v Foot 14 W^end. (N. Y.) 248 780 North 8t. Louis Christian Church V McGowan 62 Mo. 279 96, 606 Northwaite v Bennett 2Crompt.&MeesonsRc.(Eng.)316. 126 Norton y Ladd 4 N. H. 444 898 Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Bethlehem Cong, v U. S. Fidel- ity & Guaranty Co 81 Minn. 32 3 Novickv V Krauczunius 245 Pa. 86 ti66 Nye V Whit teinore 193 Mass. 208 729 Oakes v Hill 10 Pick. (Mass.) 333 .591, .S72 O'Connor v CiifToni 117 N. Y. 275 475 O'Connor v Hendrick 184 N. Y. 421 ()2t) Odell V Odell 10 Allen (Mass.) 1 833 O'Donnell's Estate 209 Pa. 63 478 O'Donnell v Sweeney 5 Ala. 467 774 O'Donovan v Chatard 97 Ind. 421 681 O'Hara v Stack 90 Pa. St. 477, Appeal 98 Pa. SI . 213 145,396,680 O'Hear v De Goesbriand 33 Vt. 593 447, 448, 739 Olcott V Gabert 86 Tex. 121 663 Order of St. Benedict of New Jer- sey V Steinhauser 179 Fed. (Minn.) 137, 34 S. Ct. (U.S. Sup.) 932 173 Ormichund v Barker 1 Wilson K. B. (Eng.) 84 899 Ornstein v ^ ahr * Langc Drug Co. 119 Wis. 429 781 O'Rourkc V O'Rourke 43 Mich. 58 776 Orthodo.x Congregational Chiu^ch, Union Village, Matter of 6 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 398 823, 888 Owen V Henman 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 548 202 (2) Owen V Missionary Society 14 N. Y. 384 77 Pack V Shanklin 43 W. Va. 304 497 Paddock v Brown 6 Hill (N. Y.) 530 373, 813 Page V O'Sullivan 159 Ky. 703 771 Page V Symmonds 63 N. H. 17 59 Palmer v Mayor, N. Y 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 318 764 Papaliou v Manusas 113 111. App. 316 279 Parish of the Immaculate Concep- tion V Murphy 87 Neb. 524 386 Park V Chaplin 96 la. 55 32, 133, 250 (2) Parker v Latner 60 Mv. 528 762 Parker v Leach 12 Jur. N. S. (Eng.) 911 110 Parker v State 16 Lea (Tenn.) 476 750 Parmalec v Wilks 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 539 774 Parshley v Third Meth. Church. . 147 N. V. 583 812 Parsonsfield y Dalton 5 Me. 217 328 Partridge v First Independent Church 39 Md. 637 61 Pattee v Greely 13 Mete. (Mass.) 284 750 PauLson Will, Re 127 Wis. 612 619 Payne v Crawford 97 Ala. 604 23 Peabody's E.state, Re 154 Cal. 173 496 Peabody v Eastern Meth. Society, Lynn ! . 5 Allen (Mass.) 540 7 xl TAliLi: Ol^ ("ASIOK Peace v Firnt Christian Church, McGrcRor 20 Toxjw Civ. App. 85 93, 96, 146 Pearce v Atwood 13 Mush. 324 787 Peckham v North Parish, Haver- hill 16 Pick. (Mass.) 274, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 559 184, 643 Peiffer v Board of Education, Detroit 118 Mich. 560 44 Peirce v Hill 9 Port. (Ala.) 151 768 Pendleton v Waterloo Bapt. Ch. . 49 Hun. (N. Y.) 596 11 Penniman v Cole 8 Mete. (Mass.) 496 761 Penny v Central Coal and Coke Company 138 Fed. 769 17, 521, 807 People ex rel Wilson v African W. M. E. Church 156 A. D. (N. Y.) 386 240 Peoi)le ex rel Swigert v Anderson . . 1 17 111. 50 796 People ex rel Meister v Anshei Chesed Hebrew Cong. Bay City. 37 Mich. 542 309 People ex rel the rector v Black- hurst 60 Hun (X. Y.) 63 431 People ex rel the Roman CathoUc Orphan Asylum v Board of Education 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 400 676 People V Brown 1 Wheelers Cr. Cases (N. Y.) 124. . 653 654 People V Busse 141 111. App. 218 '.781 People V Church of Atonement. . . 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 603 568 People V Cole 163 A. D. (N. Y.) 292 103 People ex rel Hutchinson v Col- lison 22 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 52 798 People ex rel Peck v Conley 42 Hun (N. Y.) 98, 3 N. Y. S. 373. .385 People V Crowley 23 Hun (N. Y.) 412 202 People V Degey 2 Wheeler Cr. C. (N. Y.) 135 202 People V Dennis 35 Hun (N. Y'.) 327 749 People V Dohhng 6 App. Div. (N. Y\) 86 553 People V Dunford 207 N. Y\ 17, 20 766 People V Erste Ulaszkoweer Kran- ken Unterstutzungs Verein 56 Misc. (N. Y.) 304, 57 Misc. 62. .151 People V Farrington 22 How Pr. (N. Y.) 294 26 People ex rel Thompson v First Congregational Church 232 111. 158 797 People ex rel Cock v Fleming. ... 13 N. Y. Supp. 715, 59 Hun (N. Y.) 518 813,816 People ex rel Burke v Fox 205 N. Y'. 490 759 People ex rel Fulton v Fulton. ... 11 N. Y. 94 6, 813, 817 People ex rel Dilcher v German United Evang. Church 53 N. Y. 103 112, 309, 610 People ex rel Fleming v Hart. ... 13 N. Y. Supp. 903, 36 St. Reporter 874, 21 N. Y. Supp. 673 6,235,237,311 People V Haynor 149 N. Y. 195 749 People V Hoym 20 How. Pr. 76 (Sp. T.) 745 People ex rel Sturges v Keese. ... 27 Hun (N. Y.) 483 870 People V La Coste 37 N. Y. 192 237, 551 People ex rel Kielev v Lent (Yon- kers) .' 166 A. D. (N. Y.) 550 768 TABLE OF CASKS xli People V Mayor 63 N. Y. 291 823 People V McGarren 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 460 899 People V Moses 140 N. Y. 215 766 People ex rel Bloomquist v Nappa. 80 Mich. 484 148 People ex rel Smith v Peck 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 604 236 People V Peirson 176 N. Y. 201 649 People V Peterson 31 Hun (N. Y.) 421 400 People V. Rochester 44 Hun (N. Y.) 166 691 People V Ruggles 8 John. (N. Y.) 290 50 People V Runkle 9 John. (N. Y.) 147. . . .6, 544, 812, 816 People V St. Patrick's Cathedral. . 21 Hun (N. Y.) 184 308 People V Schottey 116 Mich. 1 781 People ex rel Bobach V Sheriff .. . 13 iMisc. (N. Y.) 587, 35 N. Y. Supp. 19 749 People V Steele 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 397 145, 385 People ex rel Coppers v Trustees, St. Patrick's Cathedral, N. Y. . . 21 Hun (N. Y.) 184 64, 668 People V Tuthill 31 N. Y. 550 868, 872 People V Utter 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 170 763 People ex rel Breymeyer v Wat- seka Camp Meeting A.ssociation. 160 111. 576 55 People ex rel Kenney v Winans. . 29 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 651 312, 814 People ex rel Gore v Young Men's Christian Association 157 111. 403 799 Peoples Bank v St. Anthony's Ro- man Catholic Church ......... 109 N. Y. 512 61 1 , 676, 813, 815 Permanent Committee of Missions V Pacific Synod 157 Cal. 105 195 Perrin v (h-anger 33 Vt. 101 448 Perry v Commonwealth 3 Gratt. (Va.) 632 897 Perry v McEwen 22 Ind. 440 292 Perry v ^^'hccler 75 Ky. 541 564 Perry's Adm. v Stewart 2 Har. (Del.) 37 901 Peterson v Christianson 18 S. D. 470 530 Peterson v Samuelson 42 Neb. 161 706 Petty V State 58 Ark. 1 768 Petty V Tooker 21 N. Y. 271 605 Philadelphia, Wilmington & Balti- more R. R. Co. V Lehman 56 Md. 209 753 Phillips V Harrow 93 la. 92 883 Philomath College v Wyatt 27 Or. 390 142, 166, 859, 862 Phipps V Jones 20 Pa. 260 738 Phoenix Insurance Company v Burkett 72 Mo. App. 1 194 Pinke v Bornhold 8 Ont. L. Re. 575 320 Plaisted v Pahner 63 Me. 576' 775 Plattsmouth First National Bank V Rector 59 Neb. 77 845 Pleasant Grove Cong, v Riley 248 111. 604 195 Ponce V Roman Catholic Church . 210 U. S. 296 669, 677, 678, 678, 683, 686 Pope V Linn 50 Me. 83 774 Porter v Pierce 120 N. Y. 217 778 Pounder v Ashe 44 Nebr. Re . 672 .. . 131, 155, 534, 647 Powers V Bundy 45 Neb. 208 131, 155 Poynter v Phelps 129 Ky. 381 34 xlii TAIiU: OK <"ASIOK Pratt V Iloiniin (.'atholii- ()r|)h:iri Asylum 20 App. Div. (N. Y.) 352 844 PreachorH Aid Society v England . . KMi ill. 12r, 345 Prcachrrs Aid Society v Rich 45 Mo. 552 76, 346 Prcshytorian ('hurch v AndrusH. . 21 N. J. Law 325 466 Prt'-sbytfrian Church of Albany v C'oopor 112 N. Y. 517 734 Presbyterian Church v Cumber- land Church 245 111. 74 136, 191, 195 Presl)ytcrian Church v Montgom- ery'County 3 Grant's Gas. (Pa.) 245 794 Presbyterian Congregation, Erie v Colt's Executors 2 Grant's Caa. (Pa.) 75 529 Presbyterian Cong, v Johnston. . . 1 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 9 501 Presbyterian Society v Beach. ... 74 N. Y. 72 735, 740 Prickett v Wells 117 Mo. Re. 502 93, 139, 642 Princeton v Adams 10 Cush. (Mass.) 129 885 Proprietors v Pierpont 48 Mass. 496 128 Proprietors Union Meeting House V Rowell 66 Me. 400 453 Prosser v Secor 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 607 400 Protestant Episcopal Education Society v Churchman's Reports. 80 Va. 718 571 Provenchee v Piper 68 N. H. 31 751 Puckctt V Commonwealth 107 Va. 844 761 Pulis V Iserman 71 N. J. Law 408 581 Rainey v Capps 22 Ala. 288 764 Ramsey Appeal 88 Pa. St. 60 513 Ramsey v Hicks 44 Ind. App. 490 195 Read v Boston & Albany R. R. Company 140 Mass. 199 777 Read v Hodgens 7 Ir. Eq. 17 470 Read v St. Ambrose Ch 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 76 553 Rector, etc., v Blackhurst 11 N. Y. Supp. 669 16 Rector, Church of the Redeemer v Crawford 43 N. Y. 476 542, 739, 804 Rector, St. James Ch. v Hunt- ington 82 Hun (N. Y.) 125 140, 559 Rector, etc., Christ Church v Rec- tor, etc., Church of the Holy Communion 14 Phila. (Pa.) 61 631 Rector, etc., Church of the Redemp- tion V Rector, etc., Grace Church 68 N. Y. 570 841 Reeves v Walker 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 277 256 Reformed Church, Gallupville v Schoolcraft 65 N. Y. 134 522, 581 Reformed Methodist Society Doug- las V Draper 97 Mass. 349 818 Reformed Presbyterian Church v Brown ' 24 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 76 741 Reformed Presbyterian Church of the City of N. Y., Re 7 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 476 61, 6:i Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of Albany v Bradford. . 8 Cowan (N. Y.) 457 12. l.")ti Reformed Protestant Dutch Ch. V Veeder 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 497 544 tabu: of (ASKS xliii lleR. V Haslrhurst 13 Q. B. D. (Knu.) 253 618 Rdnkc V (W'rniaii I'^vang. Lutheran Trinity Church 17 S. Dak. 262 609, 609 Reis V Rohdc 34 Hun (N. Y.) 161 820 ReHgious Congregational Society, Bakersfield v Baker 15 Vt. 119 17 R e o r g a n i z ed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v Church of Christ 60 Fed. Rep. 937 411, 415, 527 Revere v Gannett 1 Pick. (Mass.) 169 535 Rex V Bosworth 2 Str. (Eng.) 1113 41, 42, 98, 430 Rex V Brotherton 1 Str. (Eng.) 702 750 Rex V Cox 2 Burr. (Eng.) 785 747 Rex V Jotham 3 T. Rop. (Eng.) 577 311 Rex V Mayor of Lincoln 5 Mod. (Eng.) 400 265 Rex V Wasyl Kapij 15 Manitoba Re. 121 389, 700 Rex V Whitnash 1 Man. & Ry. (Eng.) 452 764 Rex V WooLston 2 Str. (Eng.) 834 50, 98 Rex V Younger 5 T. Rep. (Eng.) 449 747 Reynolds v Bristow 37 Ga. 283 892 Reynolds v Monkton 2 M. & Rob. (Eng.) 384 447 Reynolds v U. S 98 U. S. 145 625 Rhymer's Appeal 93 Pa. St. 142 479, 889 Rice V Commonwealth 3 Bush. (Ky.) 14 762 Richards v The Northwest Prot- estant Dutch Church 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 42 59, 61 Richardson v Butterfield 60 Mass. 191 603, 609 Richard.son v Freeman 6 Me. 57 720 Richardson v Kimball 28 Me. 463 750 Richardson v State 5 Texas Ct. of App. 470 202 Richardson v Union Cong. Society. 58 N. H. 187 314 Richter v Kabat 114 Mich. 575 286 Riffe V Proctor 99 Mo. App. 601 13 Rigney v White 4 Daly (N. Y.) 400 760 Rittenhouse Estate, Re 140 Pa. 172 567 Ritter v Bausman 2 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 248 65 Roberta v State Treasurer 2 Root (Conn.) 381 391 Robertson v Bullions 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 64, aff'd. 11 N. Y. 243 378, 637, 809, 823, 835 Robeson v French 12 Met. (Mass.) 24 779 Robinson v Cochim 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 325 386, 398 Rodgers v Burnett 108 Tenn. 173 149, 249, 700 Rogers v l^liot f 146 Mass. 349 40 Rose V Vert in 46 Mich. 457 661 Rosenberg v Arrowsmith 89 A. (N. J.) 524 768 Roshi's Appeal 69 Pa. 462 273, 642, 698 Ross V Crockett 14 La. Ann. 811 806, 814 Roth V Hax 68 Mo. App. 283 772 RotLschild V Darien 69 Ga. 503 769 Rottman v liartling 22 Nebr. 375 163 Rouser's Estate, Re 8 Pa. Sup. Ct. 188 351 Roy V Rowzie 25 Gratt. (Va.) 599 886 Rucker v State 67 Miss. 328 762 Ruggles V Kimball 12 Mass. 337 401 Russie V Brazzell 128 Mo. 93 861 Ryan v Cudahy 157 111. 108 322 xliv TM'AA-: Ol' ("ASi:S Ryjin V Duiizilhi 8(5 At 1. (Pa.) 1089 110 St. Andrews Ch. v S(;huunosHy . . . 63 Nob. 792 107, 534, 675 St. Ann's Church, Matter of 23 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 285 539 St. James Church v Church of the Redeemer 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 356 .5fJ7 St. Louis Inst, of Christian Sci- (>nc(>, Re 27 Mo. App. 633 104, 1 19 St. Patricks v Abst 76 111. 252 117, 684 St. Paul's Church, Re 30 Pa. St. I.'i2 531, 555 St. Paul's Ch. V Ford 34 Barb. (\. Y.) 16 465 St. Paul's Ref. Ch. v Hower 191 Pa. St. 306 274, 527 St. Vincents Parish v Murphy 83 Neb. 630 387, 679 Sage, etc. Committee of the First Society, Chatham v White. .... 2 Root (Conn.) Ill 869 Sale V First Regular Baptist Church 62 Iowa 26 310, 610 Salter v Burt 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 205 747 Saltman v Nesson 201 Mass. 534 308 Saltraarsh v Tuthill 13 Ala. 390 750 Samuels v Cong. Kol. Israel Anshi Poland 52 App. Div. (N. Y.) 287 459 Sanders v Baggerly 131 S. W. 49 (Ark.) 195 Sanders v Johnson 29 Ga. 526 776 Sandiman v Breach 7 Barn. & Cres. 96 782 Sanger v Inhabitants in Roxbury . 8 Mass. 265 556 Santos V Roman Catholic Church. 212 U. S. 463 677 Sargent B'd of Education (Roch- ester) 177 N. Y. 317 676, 708 Satterlo v U. S 20 App. D. C. 393 226, 229, 232, 394, 552 Saugerties Reformed Dutch Church, Matter of 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 239 450, 458 Saxton V Mit(;hell 78 Pa. St. 479 54 Sayles v Smith 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 57 761 Scanlan, Matter of 57 L. J. Ch. (Eng.) 718 281 Schilstra v Van Den Heuvel 82 N. J. Eq. 612 574 Schlichter v Keiter 156 Pa. St. 119 862 Schnorr's Appeal 67 Pa. 138 699 Schoonmaker v Ref. Dutch Church of Kingston 5 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 265 59 Schradi v Dornfcld 52 Minn. 46.') 301, 525 Sclniber v Rapp 5 Watts (Pa.) 351 169 Schwartz v Bruder 6 Dem. (N. Y.) 169 475 Schwartz v Duss 93 Fed. 529, 187 U. S. 8 170 Schweiker v Hus.ser 146 111. 399 11, 247, 397 Scofield V Eighth School District . 27 Conn. 499 694 Scott V Hooper 14 Vt. 535 902 Scott V Thompson 21 la. 599 411 Sears v Attorney General 193 Mass. 551 573 Second Baptist Society, Canaan, N. Y., Matter of 20 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 324 464,535,538,540 Second Congregational Society, Northbridgewater v Waring. ... 24 Pick. (Mass.) 304. 466 Second Meth. Episcopal Church of Greenwich v Humphrey 10 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 167 6.38 TABLE OF CASES xlv Seda V Ruble 75 la. 429 76, 689 Sedgwick, etc. v Pierce 2 Root (Conn.) 431 801 Seiberts Appeal 18 W. N. C. (Pa.) 276 473 SeUers Chapel Meth. Church, Re. . 139 Pa. St. 61 540 Sentinel Co. v Motor Wagon Co. . 144 Wis. 224 772 Sexton V B'd. Excise Com'rs., As- bury Park 76 N. J. L. 102 55 Shaeffer v Klee 100 Md. 264 166, 302 Shannon v Frost 42 Ky. 253 149, 151, 319, 532 Shapleigh v PiLsbury 1 Me. 271 468 Sharp V Benton 23 Ky. Law Rep. 876 530 Sharp V Bonham 213 F. (Tenn.) 660 195 Shaw V Beveridge 3 HiU (N. Y.) 26 466 Shaw V Dodge 5 N. H. 462 760 Shaw V Moore 49 N. C. 25 (4 Jones) 902 Sheldon v Cong. Parish, Easton . . 24 Pick. (Mass.) 281. ..219, 378, 393, 401 Sheldon v Vail 28 Hun (N. Y.) 354 448, 822 Sherman v Baker 20 R. I. 446 474, 790 Sherman v Roberts 1 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 261 784 ShotweU V Mott 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 46 834, 838 Shoup, Ex parte 9 Ohio Dec. 648 697 Shreveport v Levy 26 La. Ann. 671 620 Shuman v Shuman 27 Pa. St. 90 758 Silsby V Barlow 16 Gray (Mass.) 329 109, 435 Simmons v Burrell 8 Misc. (N. Y.) 388 890 Simpson v Welcome 72 Me. 496 77 Skilton V Webster Brightly N. P. (Pa.) 203.. .226, 508, 705 Skinner v Grace Church, Mt. Clemens. . 54 Mich. 543 567 Skinner v Richardson, Boynton & Co 76 Wis. 464 20 Smith V Bonhoof 2 Mich. 115 464 Smith V Bowers 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 252, Aff'd. 171 N. Y. 669 327,875(2) Smith V Charles 24 So. 968 153 Smith V Erb 4 GiU. (Md.) 437 236, 239, 312 Smith V Foster 41 N. H. 215 757 Smith V Nelson 18 Vt. 511 142, 222, 223 (2), 226, 230 (2), 231, 375, 513, 634, 705 Smith et al V Pedigo et al 145 Ind. 361 32, 135, 528, 636 Smith V Swormstedt 16 How. (U. S.) 288 363 Smith V Wilcox 24 N. Y. 353 771 Snell V Trustees, Meth. Epis. Chu., CUnton 58 111. 290 741 Snyder v Nations. 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 295 899 Society for the VLsitation of the Sick V Commonwealth 52 Pa. 125 763 Society of the Most Precious Blood V Moll 51 Minn. 277 884 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v Town of New Haven 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 464 71 Society of Shakers at Pleasant Hill V Watson 68 Fed. 730 726 Sohier v Trinitv Church 109 Miuss. 1 66, 450, 565 Solomon v Cong. B'nai Jesurun. . 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 263. .291, 447, 462 xlvi TABLK OF (ASKS Soltau V De H(!ld 9 Eng. L. & Eg. 104 39 South l^iii)tiHt Society v C;ia|)p, . . 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 35 417,418 South New Market Methodist SeiniiKiry v Peaslee 15 N. H. 317 881 Southwick V New York Christian Missioiuiry Society 151 A. D. 116; afT'd.211 N. Y.515. .370 Sparhawk v Union Passenger Rjiil- way Company 54 T'a. St . 401 777 Sparrow v Wood 16 Ma.ss. 457 868 Spead V Toudinson 73 N. H. 46 ia3 Speoht V CJommon wealth 8 Pa. Sf . 312 781 Speidel v Ilenrici 120 I'. S. 377 170 Spencer v Joint School District. . . 15 Kan. 259 694 Spiller V Woburn 12 Allen (Mass.) 127 714 Spiritual & Philosophical Temple V Vincent 105 N. W. (Sup. Ct. Wis.) 1026, 127 Wis. 93 327,728 Splane v Commonwealth 9 Sad. (Sup. Ct. Cas. Pa.) 201 . . . .782 Spooner v Brewster 10 Moores Rep. (Eng.) 494 66 Stack V O'Hara 98 Pa. 213 679, 680 Stackpole v Symonds 23 N. H. 229 756 Stafford v State 154 Ala. 71 201 Stanley v Colt 5 Wall. (U. S.) 119 543 Stanton v Camp 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 274 2 Stanton v Metropolitan R. R. Co. 14 Allen (Mass.) 485 786 Stark V Backus 140 Wis. 557 748 State e.x rel Hay v Alderson 49 Mont. 387, 142 P. 210 772 State of Iowa v Amana Society. . . 132 la. 304 142, 168 State, Church of the Redeemer v AxteU 41 N. J. L. 117 797 State V Belton 24 S. Car. 185 897 State e.x rel McNeill v Bibb St. Church 84 Ala. 23. . 156, 228, 311, 381, 383, 625 State ex rel Baker v Bird 253 Mo. 569 281, 623 State ex rel Morris v Board of Trus- tees of Westminster College. . . . 175 Mo. 52 514 State V Branner 149 N. C. 559 214 State V Bray 35 N. C. 289 391 State V Cate 58 N. H. 240 214 State V Chandler 2 Harr. (Del.) 553 . 50 State V Chenoweth 163 Ind. 94 103, 216, 579 State V Collett 79 S. W. (.\rk.) 791 769 State V Crowell 9 N. J. L. 391 868 State ex rel v Cummins 171 Ind. 112 310, 397 State V Dilley 145 N. \\'. (Neb.) 999 694 State ex rel Weiss v Edgerton District School 76 Wis. 177, 7 L. R. A. 330. . . .45, 71S State of Missouri ex rel Watson v Farris, et al 45 Mo. 183 131, 489 State V Getty 69 Conn. 286 822 State V Hallock 16 Nev. 373 714 State ex rel Soares v Hebrew Cong. 31 La. Ann. 205 285, 309, 310 State V Jasper 15 N. C. 323 202 State V Jones 77 S. C. 385 213 State V Kirby 108 X. C. 772 209 State V Krech 10 Wa.sh. 166 748 TABLE OF CASES xlvii State V Linkhaw 69 N. C. 215 214 State V Lorry 66 Tenn. 95 748 State, First Reformed Dutch Church V Lyon 32 N. J. L. 360 585, 798 State V Marble 72 Ohio 21 103 State V McDonogh Estate 8 La. .\nn. 171 467 State V Norris 59 N. H. 536 56 State V Powers 51 N. J. L. 432 627, 900 State V Ramsay 78 N. C. 448 :209 State V Rogers 128 N. C. 576 320 State V Schevc 05 Neb. 853 43, 46, 46, 46, 592, 595, 654, 714 State V Sherwood 90 la. 550 776 State V Snyder 14 Ind. 429 203 State V Stewart 6 Houst. (Del.) 359 574 State V Townsend 2 Harr. (Del.) 543 903 State V Trustees 7 Ohio St. 58 635 State ex rel Povser v Trustees of Salem Church 114 Ind. 389 309 State V White 64 N. H. 48 620 State V Wright 41 Ark. 410 208 State Capital Bank v Thompson. . 42 N. H. 369 775 Stearns v Bedford 21 Pick. (Mass.) 125 219 Stebbins v Jennings 10 Pick. (Mass.) 171 117, 118, 181, 402, 637, 703, 801 Stebbins v Leowolf 3 Cush. (Mass.) 137 750 Stephenson v Short 92 N. Y. 433 889 Stern's Appeal 64 Pa. St. 447 761 Stewart v Lee 5 Del. Ch. 573 133 Stewart v Trustees of Hamilton College 2 Denio (N. Y.) 403 733 Stewart V White 128 Ala. 202 283 Stocks V Booth 1 D. & E. (Eng.) 225 460 Stogner v Laird 145 S. W. 644 114 Stokes V Phelps Mission 47 Hun (N. Y.) 570 484, 634 Story V Elliot 8 Cowan (N. Y.) 27 746, 758 (2) Stoughton V Reynolds 2 Strange (Eng.) 1045 234 Stratman v Commonwealth 137 Ky. 5()0 747 Straus V Goldsmith 8 Sim. (Eng.) 614 468 Straw V East Maine Conf. M. E. Church 67 Me. 493 349 Stryker v Vanderbilt 27 N. J. Law Rep. 68 756 Stubbs V Vestry of St. John's Church 96 Md. 267 563, 564, 615 Sumner v First Parish Dorchester. 4 Pick. (Mass.) 361 437 Sunnier v Jones 24 Vt . 317 776 Suter V Spangler 4 Phila. (Pa.) 331 584 Sutter V Ref. Dutch Ch 6 Wright (Pa.) 503 143, 580, 645 Sutter V Trustees First Ref. Dutch Church 42 Pa. 503 639 Swann v Broome 3 Bur. (Eng.) 1597 758, 759 Swedesborough Ch. v Shivers .... 16 N. J. Eq. 453 830 Swoyer v Schaeffer 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 346 445 Synod v State 2 S. Dak. 366, (14 L. R. A. 418) . . .716 Tabernacle Bapt. Church v Fifth Ave. Baptist Church 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 446 542 xlviii TAIMJ': Ol" ("ASKS Tanner v Stale 12() (;:i. 77 211 Tarter v CJibbs 24 Md. :i2:i 18, :i2r), 422, 61.5 Tavlor V Edscjn 4 Cush. (Maas.) 522 318, 439 Taylor v Morley 1 (Uirteis fEnR.) 380 223 Taylor v Youpk <)1 Win. 314 787 Tcelo V Derry 1G8 Mass. 341 73 Terrctt v Taylor QCranch (U. S.) 43. .552, 571, 595, 625 'i'cshmaker v Hundred de Ed- mington 1 Str. (Eng.) 4()6 785 Tharp v Fleming 1 Houston (Del.) 580 834 Thaxter v Jones. 4 Mass. 570 328 Thayer v Felt 4 Pick. (Mass.) 3.54 765 Third Meth. Epis. Church in the City of Brooklyn, Re 67 Hun (N. Y.) 86 110, 605, 636 Thompson v Cath. Con. Soc 5 Pick. (Mass.) 469 12 Thomjison v Swoope 24 Pa. 474 347, .349 Thompson v West .59 Neb. 677 814 Thicnfoldt's Appeal 101 Pa. St. 186 289 Thurmond v Cedar Spring Bap- tist Ch 110 Ga. 816 8,845 Thurston v Whitney 2 Cash. (Mass.) 104 •. 902 Tillock V Webb .56 Me. 100 7.54 Tobev V Wareham Bank 13 Met. (Mass.) 440 434 Tomlin v Bhmt 31 lU. App. 234 531 Towle V Larrabee 26 Me. 464 774 Town of LondondeiTy v Chester. . 2 N. H. 268 392 Town of Pawlet v Clark, and others 9 Cranch (U. S.) 291 123 Town Council, Cohmibia v Duke. 2 Strobh. L. (S. C.) .530 768 Tracv v Jenks 32 Mass. 465 784 Travers v Abbey 104 Teun. 665 12, 285, 398 Trinitarian Congregational So- ciety, Francestown v Union Congi-egational Society, Fran- cestown 61 N. H. 384 453, 637 Trinity Ch. v HaU, et al 22 Conn. 132 572 Trinity Methodist Epis. Chiu-ch, Norwich v Harris 73 Conn. 216 129, 339 True Reformed Dutch Ch. v Iserman 64 N. J. L. 506 583, 642 Trustees of M. E. Prot. Church V Adams 4 Ore. 76 16 Trustees First Meth. Epis. Church, South V Atlanta 76 Ga. 181 651. 794 Trustees St. Jacobs Lutheran Church V Bly 73 N. Y. 323 606, 637 Trustees of Christian Church V Cox 78 111. App. 219 603 Trustees of Methodist Epi.s. Church V Ellis 38 Ind. 3 797 Trustees v Garvey 53 111. 401 733, 734 Trustees, East Norway Lake Nor- wegian Evang. Lutheran Ch. ct others v Halvorson 42 Minn. 503 147, 148, 154, 307, 327. 431, 602, 810 Trustees of Trinity M. E. Church V Harris ' 73 Conn. 216 132, 142, 342 TABLE OF CASES xlix Trustees, Philadelphia Baptist As- sociation V Hart's Exe 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 1 75, 91 Trustees of Auburn Theological Seminary v Kellogg 16 N. Y. 83 876 Trustees Phillips Academy v King. 12 Mass. 546 837 Trustees, Catholic Church Tay- lorsville v Offutt's Adm 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 535 885 Trustees First Presby. Cong. Heb- ron V Quakenbush 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 217 447, 465 Trustees, Independent Pres. Church & Society of Buffalo Grove & Polo v Proctor 66 111. 11 290 Trustees of First Baptist Church m Syracuse v Robinson 21 N. Y. 234 738 Trustees of the Organ Meet. House V Seaford 1 Dev. Eq. (N. C.) 453 161 Trustees, Hanson Church v Stetson 5 Pick. (Mass.) 506 739 Trustees, First Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Pultney v Stewart 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 553 814 Trustees of the First Cong. Ch. V Stewart 43 111. 81 288 Trustees v Sturgeon 9 Pa. St. 321 399, 490 Trustees Associate Ref. Ch. v Trustees Theol. Seminary 4 N. J. Eq. 77 27, 27, 29, 642 Trustees South Bapt. Church v Yates 1 Hoffman Ch. (N. Y.) 141 809 Tubbs V Lynch 4 Harr. (Del.) 521 341 Tucker v Mowry 12 Mich. 378 779 Tucker v St. Clement's Church. . . 3 Sandf. Sup. Ct. (N. Y.) 242, aff'd. 8 N. Y. 558n 468, 563, 828 Tuckerman v Hinkley 9 Allen (Mass.) 452 754 (2) Tuigg V Sheehan 101 Pa. St. 363 399, 659, 681 Tuigg V Treacy 104 Pa. 493 434, 660 Turner v Ogden 1 Cox Re. (Eng.) 316 80 Turpin v Bagby 138 Mo. 7 34 Twenty Third St. Church v Cornell 117 N. Y. 601 733, 738 Twin Valley Telephone Co. v Mitchell . ' 27 Okl. 388 784 Uhlcr V Applegate 26 Pa. St. 140 757 Union Baptist Society v Town of Candia 2 N. H. 20 468 Union Church v Sanders 1 Houston (Del.) 100 311, 397 United Presbyterian Ch. v Baird .. 60 la. 237 733 University v Tucker 31 W. Va. 621 86 U. S. v BVooks 4 Cranch C. C. (U. S.) 427 902 U. S. v {^hurch 8 Utah 310 76, 406, 499 U. S. V Kennedy 3 Mcl.ean (U. S.) 175 903 U. S. V Lee 4 Cranch (U. S.) 446 203 Updegraph v Commonwealth .... 1 1 S. & R. (Pa.) 394 100 Vail v Owen 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 22 400 Van Buren v Reformed Church of Gansevoort, N. Y 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 495 422 Vanderveer v McKane 11 N. Y. Supp. 808 478 Van Deuzen v Presby. Cong 3 Keyes (\. Y.) 550 5 1 tabu: of casks Van Horn v Talmago 8 N. J. Ecj. 108 449 Viin I lout en v First Rf'f. Dutch Ch. 17 N. J. Eq. 130 449 Vunziinl's Kst:it(> f> Pa. Co. Ct. 625 67, 71 ViusconccUos, (>t al v Korraria, et al. 27 111. 2.'i7 706 Venahlo v ( 'offtnan 2 W.\'a. ;J10. .83, 338, 356, 357, 357, .541 Vonablc v Khcnczcr Rapt. Church. 25 Kan. 177 116, 765 Vestry it Wardens of Epis. (.h. of Christ Cliurch Parish v Barks- dalc 1 Strobhart 's Eq. (S. C.) 199 158 Vidal V Girards Executors 2 How. (U. S.) 127 594 Vinz V Beatty 61 Wis. 645 764 Vorhees v Presbyterian Chu. of Amsterdam 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 135, 17 Barb. (N. V.) 103 4.50 Waite V Merrill, et al 4 Me. 90 188, 719 Wakefield v Ross 5 Mason (U. 8.) 16 901 Walker, Re 200 I U. .566 652 Walker v State 146 S. W. 862 208 Walker v Wainright 16 Barb. (X. Y.) 486 140 Wall V Lee 34 N. Y. 141 212, 655, 680 Wallace v Hughes 131 Ky. 445 195 Wallace v Snodgrass 34 Pa. Super. Ct. .551 13 Waller v Childs Ambl. (Eng.) 524 86, 199 Waller v Howell 20 Misc. Re. (N. Y.) 237 1.34, 285 Wallis V State 78 S. W. (Texas) 231 76:^ Walnut St. Pres. Ch 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 277 422 Ward V Green 11 Conn. 455 785 Wardens of the Church of St. Louis V Blanc 8 Rob. (La.) 51 126,-5.50,621,661,662,666,688 Wardens, Christ Ch. v Pope 8 Gray (Mass.) 140 235, 235, 236, 568, 569 Washburn v Parish, West Spring- field 1 Mass. 32 11 Washburn v Sewall 50 Mass. 280 832 Watson, Re 171 X. Y. 256 349, 616 Watson V Avery 2 Bush. (Kv.) 332 482, 491, 504 Watson V Garvin 54 Mo. 3.53 153, 486, 502, 514 W' atson V Jones 13 Wall. 679-726 (U.S.) 136, 199, 509, 513, 516, 618, 633, 638 Watson V State 46 Tex. Cr. Re. 138 773 Watts V Van Ness 1 HiU (N. Y.) 76 747 W'ay V Foster 1 Allen (Mass.) 408 762 Weaver v Devendorf 3 Denio (X. Y.) 116 399 Webster v Sughrow 69 X. H. 380 313, 471 Wcckerlv v Gever 11 S. & R. (Pa.) 35 871 Wehmer v Fokenga 57 Xeb. 510 146, 249, 300, 619 Weinbrenner v Colder 7 Wright (Pa.) 244 125, 645 Welch V CaldweU 226 Illinois 488 74 W' eld V May 9 Cush. (Mass.) 181 182 Wells V Commonwealth 107 Va. 834 787 Went V Methodist Protestant Church 80 Hun (N. Y.) 266 61 Went worth v Jefferson 60 N. H. 158 786 West v First Presbv. Ch. of St. Paul * 41 Minn. 94 494 TABLE OF CASES li West Koshkonong Cong, v Otteson 80 Wis. 62 322, 611 West V Shuttleworth 2 Myl. ui|K)i-liig lo he llie iiole of llic society, bill wiiicli i( li;i«l no powci* to exeenti;. It was liel cci'ljiiii }^i";int N. V. Sii|»|». JJ03, 36 St. Rep. 874, the coni-1 sustniiicd ;iti action involving' the validity of the elertion of chnrcli wardens and veslrv- men of St. Serty under a mechanic's lien uecessarilv dclcalcd the object of the char- s 'riii; (IN iL LAW A.\h 'iiii; (iii itm ilv. ;iii(I tli;il llic Inislccs i-cccix iii^ tlic deed IkhI no power to (•rente any iiKMinihrjuice which wouhl liavo thiw etfcft. They couM neither jilienato ilu* i)i*()p(;rty voluntarily, nor subject it; to a lien which niiyht ripen into a judgment and sale, but they were rotjuired to hold the jjroperty for the perpetual purpose of the trust. Grissom v Hill, 17 Ark. 483. In this case the rule was laid down that in Arkansas a church building was not subject to a mechanic's lien. ICureka Stone Company v First Christian Church, 8fi Ark, 212. In an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien for labor and materials furnished in making rej)airs to a church edifice, it aj)peared that the congregation apjiointed a building com- mittee to take charge of the improvements. This committee contracted with the plaintiff. The work was performed and materials furnished, and a mechanic's lien was filed in the proper office. The trustees defended on the ground that neither the congregation nor the trustees should be liable for the indebtedness created b}' the improvements, which were to be paid for by voluntary contributions. It was hehl that the contractor was entitled to enforce his lien. Gorte- miller v Rosengarn, 103 Ind. 414. In an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien on the church edifice owned by an unincorporated society, it was held that the action could not be maintained against an unincorpor- ated society, but that the members of the church, as joint promissors or partners, were liable for the debt. Thurmond V Cedar Sjiring Baptist Church, 110 Ga. 810. A church edifice was held to be a building within the mechanic's lien law, and therefore subject to be sold in pro- ceedings for foreclosure of such a lien. Harrlsburg Lumber Company v Washburn, 29 Ore. 150. In Beam v First Methodist Episcopal Church, 3 Pa. L. J. Rep. 343, it was held that a mechanic's lien on a church edifice could not be enforced against an adjoining grave- yard used by the society. Minister's Salary. A minister brought an action against ACTIONS « the sot'iely for an alleg^ed balance of a year's salary. The salary was fixed in connection with his settlenient as pastor. The pastoral relation had at least in form been dissolved by the action of the association, but the severance was on the ex parte application of the local church without the minister's consent. Whether such a dissolution of the pas- toral relation was regular under the law of the church was held to be a proper question for the jury. Gibbs v Gilead Ecclesiastical Society, 38 Conn. 153. In an action by a minister for his salary after he had l)eeu dismissed, it was held that the parish could not give evidence of previous immorality on his part not stated in the vote of dismissal. Whitmore v Fourth Congregational Society, 2 Gray (Mass.) 306. The elders and deacons called a minister as pastor of the church. The call was not accepted, but the minister occu- I)ied the pulpit and performed service as pastor for one year. In an action against the elders and deacons for his salary, it was held that not having accepted the call, he was not the regular pastor, and was therefore not entitled to the emolu- ments of the office, and the elders and deacons were not liable. Neill v Spencer, 5 111. Ai)p. 4()1. The pastor was emi)loyed by tlie congregation in Decem- ber, ISSG, and entered on his duties in January, 1887, anastor was not entitled to recover the salary claimed, llelbij^ v Kosenberg, SO la. 159. A person employed as pastor was to receive a stated salary and the use of the parsonage. The ]>astor agreed to perform the service for such amount as could be raised by subscrip- tions, which were to be collected by the society, anle for that pui-pose, llie cliurrii was held liable, although the call and Ilic agreement Tor the pastor's service did not conCoi m lo llic provisions <»r llic statute. Pendleton v \\'nt('i-loo \\.i\ • . Cli. I!) Ilnii. (N. V.) 590. 12 TIIK ('l\'II> l-AW AM> THi; CIIIKCH WluMl :i l(»\\ii li;is sclllrd ;i iiiiiiislcr ;iii ;nlioii will lie lor liis sahirv ;ijj;;iiiisl llic town, iiolwilliHtJindiiij; there in;iy Ik; scvenil uiiiiicoi-poriilcd rclij^ions societies or associations witliin the town, the nieinbeis of which may l)e exempted by law from contributing to the support ol" such minister. Cochran v Camden, 15 Mass. 2Wl The pastor has no ]»roperty rij^hl in his sahiiy as against the church. That is a matter of voluntary contribution by the membershii), except so far as individuals may bind them- selves therefor. Tlie pastor is not an emj)loyee of the church. Pecuniary considerations are not controlling in such relations. Travers v Abbey, 104 Tenn. GG5. The society, by ex parte proceedings, dissolved its relations with the pastor aud prevented him from occupying the meet- ing house and pulpit. Nevertheless, he preached at private houses to such as chose to hear him. In an action by the pastor for his salary it was held that his dismission by an ex j)arte council was invalid, and that he was entitled to recover his salary. Thompson v Cath. Con. Soc. 5 Pick. (Mass.) 469. The parish and the minister made an agreement by which the salary was to be regulated according to the price of the necessaries of life, increasing the salary if the prices rose, and diminishing it if the prices were reduced. The salary was to be fixed by the parish committee. This committee having determined the salary, it was held that such deter- mination was conclusive, and the minister could not, in an action to recover additional salary, show that the committee' had been mistaken in estimating the prices of necessaries. The committee having acted fairly and honestly, its deter- mination was conclusive. Burr v Sandwich, 9 Mass. 277. In Reformed Dutch Church of Albany v Bradford, S Cowan (N. Y.) 457, it was held t^^r.t the minister was not entitled to his salary for the during which he was under suspension for miscondut. as determined by the church judicatories. The i^resbytery having jurisdiction of this church dis- ACTIONS 18 solved the ijastui-al relaliuii belweeu llie minister and the cougregatiou, but without any action on the part of the congregation. It was liehl that the etlect of (lie dissolution was to suspend the right of the minister to render pastoral services, and the liability of the congregation to the min- ister for compensation pending a final Mo. Ai»p. (UH, it was held that the nuMubers of the local society were not individually liable for the i)astor's salary. Minister, Statute of Limitations. The six-year statute of limitations ajqilies to an account of a minister for services IK'i-formed for a church. Cray v (Jood, 44 Ind. A()i>. C. Ilej). 4T(;. Partition. In Leblanc v Lemaire, 105 La. 5:>!), it was held that a niinoritv of the members of the society could not U Til 10 (M\'ll. LAW A\l> Tin: (III IK 11 iii;iiiil:iiii ;iii ndioii I'oi' tli<' pii rt i I ion of the < liiii'cji prDpcct y, consist iiiju,' of ;i imrial . Personal Judgment, When Not Proper. An action w;is coni- nienced by a iiieiiibei' of the society, which was not iiu'orpor- ated, against his associates to recover a personal judgment. It was held that he could not recover, and that his only remedy was in equity" against the church property. German Eoman Catholic Church v Kaus, C> Ohio. Dec. 1028. Promissory Note. An action was brought against several persons to recover the amount of a promissory note given by the pastor for money borrowed, to be used in the erection of a church editice. The defendants were called a building committee, but they were not parties to the note. The com- mittee did not handle any funds, and their only authority was advisory. The pastor had charge of the building of the church, raised the money, and supervised the erection of the building. It was held that there was no evidence of liability on the part of the so-called building committee, and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover against them on the note. Freeport Bank v Egan, UG Pa. lOG. In Brockway v Allen, 17 Wend. (N. Y. ) 40, the court sus- tained the validity ot a jiromissory note given by tnistees of the society for a preexisting debt for materials furnished. They acted as the agents of the corporation. A promissory note was given for material and labor fur- nished in the erection of a church. The note was signed by the senior warden and by the junior warden. In an action against the church it was held that the note had been ratified by the vestry, and that the church was therefore liable thereon. Donnelly v St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, LM; La. Ann. 7;i^. ACTIONS 15 In Cattron v First Universalist Society, Maiuliestoi-, 40 Iowa 10(5, it Avas hold that an action conhl not be maintained on a promissory note given by the president and secretary of the board of trnstees without any authority from the l)oa]'(l. Quieting Title. It was held that the corpoi*atiou was at least a de facto corpoi'ation and that its trustees could maintain an action involving the property interests, until their ]>owers were questioned in an action by the attorney general. Tht^refore the society a> as held entitled to main- tain an action to quiet title and protect the property. First Baptist Church of San Jose v Branhan, 90 Cal. 22. The society, acting on permission granted by school trustees, erected a house of worshij* and established a cem- etery on school lands, but encroached on other lands which had been included in the school lot by mistake, and which had subsequenth' been conveyeartly because suiUcient time had not elapsed since the original occupancy and partly because the occupancy was liy mistake. Such an occui)ancy could not rii)en into a2. Reforming Deed. The ]in»]»i-i('tor of laml set it apart for K; Tin: (M\ IL LAW AM) Till; (III KCH llie use and hciiclit. ol' (lie JMctliodisl J'rcdcslaiit (Jliurcli of the town of Jeirerson as a site for tlio erection of a houKc of public worship, inleudiiifij to «;iv(* the same to the cliui-cli for that i)uri>osc, and accord in jjly executed a deed to a thinl person, who suhseipicntly conveyed the title to the society. A house of worsliij) was erected on tlie land. Tlie transfer was valid, but the title was defective by reason of a mistake; in the description. It was held that the society could main- tain an action to reform the deed, and correct the deeing and removing coal there- from. Penny v Central Coal and Coke Comi)any, lr',8 Fed. 769. Where the fee of the clnii-cli projx'ity is in one society, but anotlier society has a right to use the same for religions pnri)Oses, the second society cannot maintain an action of trespass; such a riglit of action is ])Ossessed only by the owner of the fee, or by some person or society entitled to the exclusive possession. Religious Congregational Society, Bakersfield v Baker, 15 Yi. 1 U). A minister of a parish, who, by virtue of his settlement, had a freehold estate in a ministerial land, was entitled (o maintain an action of tresi)ass thereon. The action was j)ersonal and, therefore, did not abate by a dissolution of the parochial relation. Cargill v Scwall, 1!> ]\[e. 2SS. Trustees. Vcrsons who rurnishcd pews ;mi<1 other rnrnitnre for the church brought an action against the trustees and recovered judgment foi- the amount of the debt. This did not create a lien on tiic i)i*o]K'rty, but was a claim against the trustees, and was vali(\. All acluMi on a contract was broiip;])! bv the trustees of the society. Tlie defendant objected that the action should have been bronchi in the name of the society itself, but this cbiini was overruled, and the action was held <;ood in f(»nii. It was also held that the action was ])ioi)erly brought by the successors of the trustees who made the contract. Skinner V Kichardson, P>oynton & Co., 70 Wis. 4(U. Trustees' Title to Office. Trustees must show title to ollice in actions relating to church property. Antones et al v Eslava's Heirs. !► Tort. (Ala.) T)!'!. Unincorporated Associations. An unincorporated associa- tion is not a person, and has not the power to sue or to be sued. But in the case of religious and eleemosynary associa- tions, the members and managing committee who incur the liability, assent to it, or subseros])ered. Remove the cliurch from it, and it ceases to be Mctliodistic. Commonwealth ex rel Miller v Cornish, i:; Pa. St. 2SR. Amending Charter, fleeting cannot amend charter with- out i»revioiis notice that amendment would be proposed. Ke African Methodist Ioj)iscoi»al Union Church, 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 11);5. Dismissing Pastor. By its charter the right to dismiss a pastor is vested in the incor])orators. African Methodist Episcopal Church v Clark, 25 La. Ann. 282. Municipal Ordinance Against Meetings. Action to prevent city from interfering with as.semblies of colored }>ersons for religious worship. City ordinance prohibiting such assem- blage sustained. African Methodist Episcoi)al Church v New Orleans, 15 La. Ann. 441. 21 AMERICAN HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY li('(lU('.st, siistainod, 22. Bequest, Sustained. This was an association of jxmsoiis for clijirilahlc and rcli^^ions inirposes, hnt was not incorporated at the death of the testator, who resided in Connecticut. Tlie New York law was held to ai>i»ly in this case. The law of the domicile of the legatee governs the validity of the bequest. A voluntary association for charitable jdirposes cannot take a legacy, and the defect is not cured by its s\d»- sequent incorporation. Mapes v Home Missionary Society, 33 Hun. (N. Y.) 300. 22 ARBITRATION Church rule, 23. Church Rule. Au arbitration and award are none the less biiidinj; because made pursuant to the regulations of a church to which the parties belong. In this case the arbitra- tion was according to the regulation contained in the Dis- cipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the persons interested Avere members of that denomination. Payne v Crawford, 1)7 Ala. G04. '^ ARTICLES OF RELIGION Description, 24. Description. In Eislioj) v Stone, 1 lltigg. iUm. Ko. (Eng. ) 424, cousidoring the complaint against a clergyman for preaching doctrines contrai-y or repugnant to the articles of religion, it is said that "these articles are not the work of a dark age; they are the ]>rodiictioii of men eminent for their erudition and attachment to the jnirity of true religion. They were framed by the chief luminaries of the reformehts, etc., belonged to the original First Church, which they alleged consisted of themselves and their associates. It was held tiiat a religious society does not necessarily lose its proj^ert}' by ceasing to entertain certain opinions. A Baptist Church is in itself wholly separate and indojiendcnt, and at liberly to form its own creed and looking to others for counsel and social inier- course only. The majority luid the riglit to establisli and alter, at i)leasure, tlieir articles of faith, and an alteration of such articles, or even an a]>parent abandonment of doc- trines formerly entertained, did not affect their riglit to con- trol the projterty, es]tecially, as in this case, where the prop- erty was not acquired under any trust imposing specilic articles of faith. Keyser v Stansifer, (> Ohio 3(>3. Baptist Association. The society at Mt. Tabor, Indiana, having become divided into two factions, a controversy' arose as to the title to church jiroperty. The local society had, on its organization, ado])ted articles of faith, and subse- quently adojited certain so-called rules of decorum regulat- iug procedure in various details. This local society was connected with another Bai)tist organization known as the association, and described as the Association and Council of the Regular Baptist Churches, which is described as an annual meeting com])osed of messengers carrying a letter from each church belonging to the association, which letter generally gives some expression of the continued adherence of the chui'ch to their articles of faith, and a detailed account of the condition of the church. On this letter mes- sengers are admitted or refused membersliii> in the associa- tion. Tliis st)ciety was a member of the Danville Association, composed of twenty-two churches. A council organized on tlie recpicst of llie mine majority did not appear before this council. Afterwaid another council was called in the same manner, with the same attendance and result. Subsequently both factions sent :V2 Tin-: CI NIL LAW AM) 'I'HI': CIIIKCII ic'ltcrs iiiid iiu'Nseii}j;c'rs to (lie next nieotiiig of llu," l>;iiivill(.* Associat ion. The letter from the minority was receiveurely advisory to aid by tlieir advice and counsel, l)erhaps in bringing about settlements and reconciliations when dissensions arise, but their decisions are not binding on the churclies. The association and conventions have the right to determine their own membership, and this is all they assumed in this instance to do. They are shown not to have any power, under tlie organization of the church, to bind the actions or conscience of the churches and their members. N(me of tliese bodies, therefore, fall within the class of church judicatories such as are provided in the organiza- tion of the churches of some of the denominations to finally and authoritatively settle such disputes, and the decisions of which on questions of tlieology and ecclesiastical govern- ment are received as binding bj' the civil courts. Jarrell v Sproles, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 387. Tliere is no federal head to Bai)tist organizations. Each church society manages absolutely its affairs, temporal, S])iritual, and doctrinal. It is an unqualilied democracy in wliich tlie majority is supreme. And this majorily consists, not of the actual membership of the local body, but the majority that may chance to be ])resent at any of tlie regular or stated meetings of the churcli. McKobei-ts v Cloudy, 1!) Mo. App. 2(1. Windley v McCliney, KJl N. C. 318. The Ba])tist Church does not as a religious sect, or de- iionnnation, j)ossess a constitution or creed, like the Presby- terian, Methodist, and many other diurches. Its form of church government is congregational, and therefore purely democratic. Each clinrcli is a distinct organization, inde- pendent of all otiiers. Tiiere are no internHMJiatc jndirato- :u Tin: cixii. law and tiii; < hi i;* ii ries, or ju(Iic;il;i|)tisl i^'ovcrii- inent. ('oiisctnicnl ly, llic ri;;lit of ;i|»|»c;il docs not cxisl, I'^vcry liaplisl cliiii-cli is, llM'rcroi'c, n l;i\v unto il.M'lf in nijittcrs c((l('si;isli(;il. W'liilo what ar(i known as HaiMisl; Associa lions, bolli ai»tist cinnc li llie majority of tlie (•on<>rejiation is ordinarily entitled to rnle, and it is but doing justice to the sect to say that the majority rarely abuses its power. To this fact and the simplicity of its gov- ernment much of the evangelistic success of the Ba]>tist Church is manifestly due. Poynter v Phel])S, 12!J Ky. o81. Majority May Control Property. The seizure of the church edifice by a minority of the congregation against the wishes of the nuijority was condemned, and the majority was put in possession of tlie property. Bates v Houston, (JO Ga. 198. A small minority of the society met and elected trustees who claimed the right to the church property'. It was held that the nuijority who adhered to the faith and practice of the Ba])tist Church was entitled to tlie custody and control of the property. Turpiu v Bagby, 1:38 Mo. 7. The withdrawal by one part of a church congregation from the original body of it, and the uniting with another church or denomination is a relinquishment of all rights in the church abandoned. The mere assemblage in a church where a congregational form of government prevails of a majority of a congregation forcibly and illegally excluded by a minority from a church editice in which as part of the congregation they had been rightfully worsliiping, in an- other place, the majority thus excluded maintaining still the old church organization, the same trustees and the same deacons, is not such a relinquishment ; and the majority thus excluded may assert, through the civil courts, their rights to the church ]>roi)erty. Bouldin v Alexander, 15 Wall. (U.S.) 131. Differences arose in this i5;ocietv over the selection of a BAPTIST CHURCH :)5 j)astor and some associalioii (luestions. Oue of tlie iiiem- bers who made charges against the i)astor was tried and expelled from membership by the local church. The court declined to consider the question of regularity of the exjud- sion. The conveyance of the church property was to the parties appellant, who had claimed title to it under the original deed. A small fraction, six or eight persons out of about two hundred and thirty members, assumed the pos- session and control of the property, but it was hebl that they were not entitled to it as against the majority. Igle- hart V Kowe, 20 Ky. L. Re. 821, 47 S. W. 575. Minority, Right to Control Property. The society i>ur- chased land and erected thereon a house of worship in 1852, and adopted articles of faith as published in the minutes of the Des Moines Baptist Association in 1848. In 1885 the pastor of the chuich and some of the members adopted the principle of "sanctiftcation by a second experience," and cer- tain members who op])osed this principle were expelled from the church. The excluded mend)ers, and others synii>atliiz- ing with them, called the pastor and sought to obtain pos- session of the church ])roperty, which was refused. The dif- ferences on the question of sanctilication were, by agree- ment between the parties, submitted to a council of Baptist ministers, which decided that said doctrine was not in har- mony with the teachings of the Ba[)tist denomination. It was held that the adherents of said doctrine of sanctifica- tion, though constituting a majority of the whole lunnber of mendiers of said churdi, could not divert the use of its property to the promulgation of doctrines different from the faith for the aa]itist" and ado[»ted in its stead "Tlie Cinirch of Cod"; repudiated :u; Tiir: cixii. law and tiii: (in i;* ii Hit' iiiiiiic "Ml. Ilrliii"' ;iii*l ;i(Io|ilc1 Mass. 2(i0. Officers. The only oflScers of a Baptist church are the jtastor and the deacons. A Baptist church is distinct from and independent of all others, having no ecclesiastical con- nection with any, though maintaining a friendly intercourse with all. The government is administered by the body of the members, where no one enjoys a preeminence, but all enjoy BAI'TIST CHlKCIl 37 an equality of rights. Calvary Baptist Church v Dart, 08 S. C. 221. Pastor, How Settled. In New England, aet-ording to Dr. Wayland, the couii»any of Baptist worshipers is divided into two organizations, the church and the society, and these two organizations have coordinate jurisdiction in the settle- ment of a minister. Leicester v Fitchburg, 7 Allen (Mass.) !)0. Property, Control of. Laud was conveyed, for a nominal consideration, to persons described as trustees of the Ger- man Baptist church to be erected thereon., which church should be known and designated as the Walhonding Union Church, and the same to be held by said trustees and their successors in office so long as said premises should be occu- [tied as a place of religious worship for said church. It was held that the language of the deed did not justify a claim that the parties intended a union of persons of different reli- gious beliefs, conferring on them the right to the use of the church. The trustees of the Gernuni Baptist Church there- fore had the right to exclude others from the use of the church edifice. Miller v Milligau, (; Ohio, Dec. 1000. It seems that under the form of government ajtplicable to Baptist churches, the control of the church i>roperty is lodged in the congregation and trustees of the church, and not in the deacons. Di-cw v Hogan, 2(> App. I). C. 55. Texas General Convention. This convention, composed of many local churches, was incorporated under the laws of Texas. The constitution declared that "the object of this convention shall be missionary and cMhicatioual, tlie promo- lion of harmony of feeling and concert of action anu^ng Baptists and a system of operative measures for the promo- tion of the interests of the Kedeemer's kingdom." A boar7 his rij^ht to a seat was clialleiiged on the {ground of personal unfitness. The challenge was sustained by the convention and tlie plaintiff was excluded from nienibershii*. The cliallenge Avas imhlislied in (he minutes, and in a newspaper ]Mil)lis]ie8. Injunction against Ringing. In Sol tan v De Held, i> I'^-ng. L. and Kq. 104, it was liehl that tlie ringing of church bells might in some instances be a i>rivate and also a jtnblic nui- sance, and an injunction was granted on the ajtplication of a nearby resident against the ringing of church bells, so far as they occasioned an annoyance to the plaintilV and his family. The eviected as the Bible. No other that has been Iraiis- liited into as many tongues. No other that has h;id such marked influence u])Ou the Imbits and life of the world. It is not the least of its marvelous attribnies that it is so ciitholic lli;il every seeming |»h;ise <)r belief linds coiiiroiM in its compi-ehensive ]>recepls. M;iny trjinslalions of it, and of parts of it, have been made from lime lo lime since two il ujion api>lication of his jiarent or guardian, is not a violation of the Michigan constitution, article 4, s. 41, i)rohibiting the Legislature from diminishing or enlarging the civil or political rights. ]irivileges and ca- pacities of any person on account of his opinion or belief con- cerning nmtters of religion. I*eitfer v Board of Education, Detroit, 118 Mich. 500. The school committee in charge of the public schools in BIBLE 45 Ellsworth, Maiue, made an order directing that the English Protestant version of the Bible should be used in all the public schools of that town, and that all the scholars in the schools who were of sufficient capacity to read therein, should be required to read that version in schools. The plaintiff's daugi)ter refused to read the Bible, as required, and was expelled from school. The father brought an action for damages, but it was held that he could not maintain an action. Donahoe v Richards, .38 Me. 37G. In Curran v White, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. Ee. 201, it was held that mandamus was not the proper remedy to prevent the reading of the Bible in public schools. Incidentally, the court cited authorities to show that the reading of the Bible in schools, either the King James or the Douay version, was not in contravention of any constitutional provision. The constitution of Ohio does not enjoin or require reli- gious instruction, or the reading of religious books, in the public schools. Cincinnati Board of Education v Minor, 23 Ohio St. 211. The Wisconsin constitution prohibits sectarian instruc- tion in public schools. In State ex rel Weiss v Edgerton District School, TO Wis. 177, 7 L. R. A. 330, it was held that the reading of the Bible in schools is a violation of this pro- vision. It was also held that the reading of the Bible in public schools made the schools a place of worship, as pro- inbited by the constitution, it appearing that no one should be compelled to attend a place of worship against his will ; also that such reading of tlie Bible made the school a reli- gious seminary within the constitutional provision prohib- iting puldic aid to such a seminary. The Iliad may be read in the schools without inculcating a belief in the 01ym[)ic divinities, and the Koran may be read without teaching the Moslem faith. Why may not the Bible also be read without indoctrinating children in the creed or dogma of any sect? Its contents are largely his- torical and moral ; its language is nnequaled in ])urity and elegance; its style has never been surpassed. Among the 40 Till: ossible or probable that those who are privileged to use it will misuse the jirivilege by attenii>ting to i)roi)agate their own peculiar theological or ecclesiastical views or oi)inions. State v Scheve, 05 Neb. 85:5. Whether it is ])rudent or ]>olitic to j)ermit Bible reading in the i)ublic schools is a question for the school authorities to determine; but whether the ]»ractice of Bible reading has taken the form of sectarian instruction in a particular case is a question for the courts to determine upon evidence. It cannot be presumed that the law has been violated; the alleged violation must in every instance be established by competent ])roof. If the use of the Bible in schools is an irritant element, the question whether its legitimate use shall be continued or discontinued is an administrative and not a ju. Versions, King James and Douay Compared. Tt has been suggested that the English Bible is, in a special and limited sense, a sectarian book. To be sure, there are, according to the Catholic claim, vital jioints of ditference with respect to faith and morals between it and the Douay version. In a l*ennsylvania case, cited by counsel for respondents, the author of the opinion says that he noted over fifty points of difference between the two versions — some of them im- jwrtant and others trivial. These differences constitute the basis of some of the i>eculiarities of faith and jiractice that distinguish Catholicism from I'rote.stantism and make the adherents of each a distinct Christian sect. State v Scheve. (15 Neb. 85.*>. BISHOP First Protestant Episcopal in America, 47. Legacy to establish in America, 47. Office not a corporation, 47. Witness, meaning of canon, 48. First Protestant Episcopal in America. There was no bishop of tlie rrotestaiit Ki)is(opal (.'hurch in America until after the Kevolutiou, Bishop Seabury of Connecticut, consecrated in 1784, being the first American bishop. Bartlett v Hip- kins, 7() M(l. 5. Legacy to Establish in America. An English legacy for the )>uip()se of establishing a bishop in America, a bishop not liaving yet been appointed, was sustained, but the chancellor said the money must remain in court until the appointment of a bishop. Attorney General v Bishop of Chester, 1 Bro. C. Cases (Kng. i 444. The case does not show the date of the will, nor the date of testator's death. Office Not a Corporation. The office of bishop in the Roman Catholic Church is not a coritoration, and there is no perpet- ual succession if property is conveyed to him in trust; sucli trust on his decease vests in the court and not in a suc- cessor nominated by tlie bi.shop. Dwenger v Geary, 1K{ hid. 10(5. The law of Ireland does not recognize the corporate char- acter of a Koman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel or of a Koman Catholic Bishop of Waterford and Lismore, and a bequest to them and to their successors was, therefore, hebl void, but the bequest was sustained to the extent tliat the bishops might, under the direction of the court, administer the trust during their joint lives. Attorney General v Tower, 1 Ball & B. Kep. (Ir.) 145. 47 48 Till'] ("i\ iL \..\\y AM) 'I'lir; cmiicn Witness, Meaning of Canon. A l)islH>[» in the I'l'olcstant lCl>lK('()i)al Clmrch is a ('oinpclcnt wilncss to piovc llic mean- ing of tlic woi'ds ''pai'ish" ami "rector" as iiiidcisfood by llio canons of the church. Bird v St. Mark's Church, Water- loo, (12 la. ~)(u. BLASPHEMY Described, 49. Historical sketch, 50. Described. In a ca.se under the Massachusetts act of 1782, which i)rohibite(l any ])ers<)n from wilfully blaspheniinjjj the holy uanie of God, by denying, cursing, or contumeiionsly reproaching God, his creation, government, or final judg- ing of the world, the coiirt said that "in general, blasphemy may be described as consisting in si)eaking evil of the Deity with an impious purpose to derogate from the Divine Majesty, and to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. It is i)urposely using words con- cerning God calculated and designed to inii»air and destroy the reverence, respect, and confidence due to him as the intel- ligent creator, governor, and judge of the world. It embraces the idea of detraction, when u.sed toward the Sui)reme Being; as 'calumny' usually carries the same idea when api»lie(l to an individual." The court also said that the statute did not prohibit the fullest inquiry and the freest discussion, for all honest and fair i)urj»oses, one of which is Ihe discovery of truth. It admits the freest inquiry, when the general pur])ose is the discovery of truth, to whatever result such in(iuiries may lead. It does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in (he existence and attributes of a supreme, intelligent being, ui>on suitable and jiroper occasions. The statute ju-ohibiling Idasphenn' was not rei)Ugnant to the constitutional i»rovision guaranteeing religious toleration. Commonwealth v Knecland, 20 Tick. (Mass.) 200. The free, equal, and undisturbed, enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussion on any religious subject is granted and secured, but to revile, 49 50 TIFi: ('l\II. LAW AM) Till; ("IIIIMMI w itii iii;ilici(»us ;iihI l»l;is|ili('in(tiis con tciii|»t , llic i-cli;xi*>ii |»i"<>- Ccsscd l»y ;iliii<»sl tlic whole (■oiiiimiiii ty, is :iii ;il»iisc of tli;it rij^lit, and it was held thai the use of indecent lan<;ua{;e concerning; .lesus Christ was l)lasj»heiny ami ])nnishal)lo by the common law. People v Rnfjgles, 8 John. ( .\. Y. ) 2I>0. ^^'rit in<; against Diristianity by discourses on the miracles of (Mir Saviour. Hex v Woolston, 2 Str. (Kni;. ) S;U. Historical Sketch, l'^>r a histoi-y of the crime of blasjtiiemy see Slate v Chandler. 2 Ilarr. (hel.) 553. CAMPBELLITES Congregation, powers, 51. Majority, control of property, 52. Congregation, Powers. The several church organizalions formed by the followers of Alexander Campbell — and they are numerous — at tlie time of their organization were, and now are, purely congregational in their government; that is, there is no general conference, synod, presbytery, or other similar body which exercises supervision over said church congregations, but each organization in matters of practice, in church government and otherwise, is sovereign, and the congregations so organized have no creed except the Bible, the view of the followers of the said Alexander Campbell being that where the Bible speaks of the congregation its several mend)ers are authorized to speak, but where it is silent, the congregation and the mend)ers thereof .should also remain silent. In 1849 there sprang up among the mem- bers of said religious sect different views upon subjects of practice to be adopted by the congregations with reference to matters upon which the Bible was silent, one view being that in matters u])on which the Bible is silent such silence should be construed as a positive ])rohil)ition ; the other view being that if the Bible is silent uj»on a given subject pertain- ing to church government, then the congregation may form- ulate a rule in that particular for the government of the congregation. The division along the lines above suggesteractices in the church, such as to the piopriety of having instrumental music in the church during church services; the employment by the congregation of ministers of the gosi)el for a fixed time and 51 52 TUE (MVJL LAW AM) Tlli: CiilKCll for a fixod salary; the orf^anizatioii of missionary sorietieH and Sunday schools as scitarate organizations outside the regular church congregations; the raising of funds for the support of the gospel by holding church fairs and festivals, and perhaj)s in otiier matters of a similar character. The division resulted in the formation of two parties in the church : those entertaining the liberal views were called Progressives, and those entertaining the more (Conservative view were called Antis. The liberal [)arty had usually taken the name of the (Christian Church, while the conservative party used the name of the Church of Christ. Christian Church of Sand Creek v Church of Christ, Sand Creek, 21U 111. 50:{. Majority, Control of Property. There was a division in this society, one party taking the name of Christian Church, and the other party taking the name of the Church of Christ. The two parties met as one congregation prior to 1!)04, and communed together as one congregation in apparent har- mony. There were, however, some differences of opinion among members of the congregation with reference to the powers exercised by the officers of the church, and especially in 1903, whether the church building should be used for a singing school. The ollicers refu.sed to permit the building to be used for that purpose. It was then discovered that the incorporation of the society was defective by reason of failure to comply with certain legal requirements. Each party then hastened to form a corporation. The minority was incorporated as the Christian Church, and the majority as the Church of Christ. The majority were in possession of the property, and refused its use to the minority'. The question in this case involved the right of possession of the property. It was held that it was not within the i)rovince of the court to "pronounce judgment upon the doctrines taught by Alexander Campbell, and believed and practiced by his followers, or to determine which faction of the Sand Creek Congregation, in their practices in their church con- gregation, from an ecclesiastical standpoint is correct, as llie CAMPBELLITES 53 courts have uo couceru with the question whether a religious coiigregatiou is progressive or couservative." The original deed of the property was to the trustees of the Christian Church, but a large part of the business of the church was done under the name of the Church of Christ. It appeared that the Sand Creek Congregation, from the incep- tion of its organization to the time of the division in 1904, as a congregation, was opposed to any innovations in the practices of the church ; that is, the congregation only acted in matters of practice in accordance with what tliey believed to be the i)ositive commands of God as found in the Old and New Testaments, and the party known as the Church of Christ have since 1004 maintained that position, and appear to have maintained from the beginning, and now maintain, the tenets and doctrines which w^ere taught in the Sand Creek Congregation at its organization, and which have been maintained and taught in that congregation all through its history. The party known as the Christian Church had, since their separation, tauglit and practiced what were known and characterized as the innovations. The court held that the majority were the successors to the original founders of the congregation, and as such were owners of the property and entitled to its possession. The minority, having seceded from the congregation, and effected a new organization, teaching and practicing the innovations objected to by the majority, must be deemed to have abandoned the property. It was further held that the societies organized by the fol- lowers of Alexander Campbell were congregational and inde- jtendent, and, therefore, that the Sand Creek congregation was not bound by the action of other congregations in adopt- ing innovations in faith and i)ractice; also that the majority party having been incorporated under the name of the Churdi of Christ, immediately became entitled to the property of the Sand Creek church, and their right was not affected by the incorporation of the minority party under tbe name of the Christian Church. Christian Churdi of Sand Creek v Church of Christ, Sand Creek, 210 111. 50:5. CAMP MEETINGS By-laws, 54. Ea.scmrnt, 54. MiiniciiKil ordinance, 54. Ocean Grove Association, 54. Sunday admission fee, 55. Taxation of property, 55. Temperance, 56. Title to property, 56. Traffic, limitation, 56. By-Laws. A camp meeting association was authorized to make by-laws aiul to i)iircliase, hold, and convey real prop- erty for its purposes. In Winnepesaukee v Gordon, 07 N. H. 98, it was held that property conveyed by the association subject to rules and regulations which mioht afterward be adojtted by it was bound by reasonable alterations or amend- ments or by additional rules and regulations subsequently ado])ted by the association. Easement. Testator by his will gave the use of 20 acres of land to the Methodist Episcopal Church for camp meeting purposes. It was held that the title to the land passed to the testator's heirs subject to a perpetual easement to be enjoyed by the church for camp meeting. 8axton v Mitchell, 7ST*a. St. 4 70. Municipal Ordinance. When a camp meeting is located within the limits of a city or village it is subject to the ordi- nances of such city or village, and a person duly licensed by siu-h village to sell articles of food or drink within the limits of the corporation is not required to take out a permit from the managers of such meetings to sell such articles. Ex Parte :M(Xair, i:! Neb. 11)."'). Ocean Grove Association. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of Ocean Grove. New Jersey, was incorporated in 1S7() by an act of the Legislature of that State. Its 54 CAMr MKET]N(iS 55 jj;ioiiii(Is are contiguous to the city of Asbury Park. lu ISiJG tiie Isaw Jersey Li^^islature passed an a<-t wliicli, auiong other things, prohibited tlie granting of a new license to sell intoxicating liquors within one mile in any direction from the outside limits or boundaries of the lands of the camp meeting association. In lUOG the excise commissioners of Asbury Park granted a hotel license, the business of which was to be carried on within one mile from the limits of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Orounds. The license was held invalid under the act of ISIJCJ, and that act was held not unconstitutional or local on the ground that it was special legislation. Sexton v B'd. Excise Coni'rs., Asbury Park, 70 N. J. L. 102. Sunday Admission Fee. A compulsory admission fee to a cam}) meeting on Sunday was held to constitute worldly business under the statute of Pennsj'lvania. Commonwealth V Weidner, 4 Pa. Co. Ct. 437. Taxation of Property. In New Hamj)shire the real and per- sonal estate of a camp meeting association was exempted from taxation by the act of 1874, but this exemption was held not to apply to a stock of groceries and food supplies owned by the association and exposed for sale on the asso- ciation ground. Alton Bay Camp Meeting Association v Alton, G9N.H. 311. I'art of camp meeting grounds were used for stabling horses for hire, and let for victualing pur]>oses, and for the use of cottagers. In Foxcroft v Piscataquis Valley Camp Meeting Association, S(i Me. 78, it was held that the part so used was liable to taxation. Sixteen acres of land used for religious camp meetings, owned by a corjioi-ation organized under the statute for the formation of corporations not for pecuniary i)rotit, and not un. 120, sec. 2) which exem])ts certain church i)ro])erty. Peoi)le ex rel Breymeyer v Watseka Camp Meeting Association, 1(10 111. 57G. 56 Tin: ('i\ iL LAW AM) Tni: ciinicii Temperance. II \s;is licid in Stnlc v N(»i-i'is, ,")!» N. H. ."»:',(;. tliiil wlicllicr ;i State teiiiperjiiicc caini) mccliii;^ \\;is ;i jiljicc of r('li<;i()us worsliip under tlie New llaiiipsliii-c sl;ilnt(t was a (luestioii of lacf lor llic jnrv. It appeared Ili;it the exer- cises were opened each sessi.m by reading the Sniptures and ])rayer. That there were lectures, addi-esses on temper- ance, with sin<;inj^ of tenijtei'ance and religious hymns. Tlie (piestion arose on a complaint apiinst a person for s(dlin^ beer, cigars, and other goods within two miles of the place of meetinji'. Title to Property. Where each of two parties claimed to be entitled to the possession of camj) meetinj^ ]»roperty, and to hold anur])ose was not stated in the deed. "NVliile the deed was ose, it was held that uninterrupted occupancy of it for twenty years created a title by adverse possession. At the time of the action, tlie pro]>erty had, in fact, been occupied sixty years. In 1840 the trtistees of the St. .Tohn's Society conveyed the 5S CIOMIOTintY 5!) land to the Aiclibishop of Baltimore. Tlie Maryland act of lS'i'2 authorize*! the trustees of the Kouuui Catholic Church to convey it to the archbishop. The conveyance in 1840, based on this statute, was held" to be a ratilication of the original conveyance to the trustees. A subsequent con- veyance by the archbishop was held to transfer a good title to tlie burial lot. Gump v Sibley, 7!) Md. 1(15. Churchyard. The right of burial when confined to a churchyard, as distinguished from a separate independent cemeter}^, ulthougli conveyed wiUi the common formrda "heirs and assigns forever," must stand upon the same foot- ing as the right of i)ublic vv^orship in a j)articular pew of the consecrated edifice. It is an easement in. and not a title to, the freehold, and must be understood as granted and taken, subject (with compensation, of course) to such changes as the altered circumstances of the congregation or the neigh- borhood may render necessary. The selection of a i)la('e of burial in the ground forming the site of a chnrch is always made with reference to its religious associations, and with an eye to their continuance. The sale of a chnrch vault gives a mere right of interment in the i)articular ])lot of ground, so long as that and the contiguous ground continues to be occujjiod as a churchyard. Kichards v The Northwest Protestant Dutch (Miurch, :>2 Barb. (N. Y. i 42. See also Schoonmaker v the Keformed Church of Kingston, 5 How. 1*. (X. Y. i 2(55; same rule as to town cemeteries, l*age v Symmonds, (j.) N. H. 17; see also Windt V. (lerman Beformed Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. Kep. (N. Y.) 502. Disinterment, State Control. An interment having been maerly depos- ited in a new place of sepulture. Windt v German Reformed Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 502. The certificate to purchasers of lots in the burying ground CEMKTIOKV (\:i of the church was "to have and to liold the saiuri)ose, and subject to the conditions and regula- tions mentioned in the deed of trust to the trustees of said church." This was not evidence of a grant of any interest in the soil. The certificate was the grant of a license or priv- ilege to make interments in the lots described exclusive of others, so long as the ground should remain the l)nrying ground of the church. Whenever, by lawful authority, the ground should cease to be a burying ground, the lot-owner's right and pi-operty ceastMl. When it became necessary to vacate the ground for burial, all the lot-owner could claim, was to have notice and an opportunity of removing the bodies and monuments; on his failure to do so thej' could be removed bj'^ others. Kiucaid's appeal, 00 Pa. 8t. 120. A deed of a burial lot is a grant of the use of the lot as a place of burial in subordination to the right of the corpora- tion in the soil or freehold, and the trustees have a right, upon complying with the provisions of the statute, to sell the i)roperty and remove the remains of the dead, if the court shall deem it proper. Re Reformed I'resbj terian Church, 7 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 47G. Mechanic's Lien. In Beam v First Methodist Ejjiscopal Church, Lancaster, Pa., o Pa. L. J. Rej). ol;>, it was held that a mechanic's lien filed against a church edifice could not be enforced against the graveyard attached to the church and used by the society. Municipal Ordinance. The city of New Yoi-k under the act of 1S1:{ (!' K. L. 44."), s. 2(17) had i)ower to enact the by-law of 182;) ])rohibiting intermenls in a certain ])art of the city under prescribed ])enalties. hiUMiiicuts were afterward made in the )»roscribed disti-ici (indnding Trinity Church) 1)3' jiersons having a right of inlciiiicnl inuk-r gi-ants of land for cemetery i>urj)oses. The l»y hiw was valid as to these intei-ments, and the act under which it was ])assed was not void as impairing the obligation of a contract. The by-law was valid as a police regulation. Coates v New York. 7 Cow. (N. Y.i 585. 04 TIN': CINIL LAW AM) 'I'lli: ('\\\\H'\l Park, Taking for. In M;itlcr of JJojird of Sire*'! ()|)«Mniig, ]Xi N. Y. :{LM), il \v;.s held that a (ciiM'U'ry owned by Trin- ity Chuicli, but in ^\lli(•h interniciils liad been discontinued since 1S.'>!>, nii^lit be taken by cily antlioi-ilies for i)ark pur- I)oses. (\)ndenmali<»n proceed inj^s were sustained. Roman Catholic, Religious Test. A cemetery established on land (onveyed to tlie ])isliop to be used as a cenieten,' for the burial of Catholics, and which had been consecrated for that i)urpose by the church authorities, could not be used as a ])lace of burial of a ])erson who was not a Catholic, and who, accordin<>; to the rules and regulations of the church, was not entitled to burial in such cemetery. Dwenger v Geary, 113 Ind. 100. A person received from the authorities in control of a Catholic cemetery a certificate or paper acknowledging the receipt of a specified sum. being the amount of i)urchase money of a plot of ground, describing it. No deed was given, and it w^as held that no title or interest passed by virtue of the receipt. The receipt did not amount to a contract of sale. Under the rules of the church, the burial of uon- Catholics or Freemasons in the cemetery was forbidden. The cemetery was consecrated ground. An ajjplicant for permis- sion to bury in such cemetery is bound by the rules and regulations of the church, and is presumed to make his application with reference thereto. The person who paid the money and took the receipt was a Freemason, and upon his decease the cemetery authorities refused to permit him to be buried in the lot. It was held that the cemetery author- ities would not be compelled by mandamus to open the grave and permit the burial. People ex rel Coppers v Trustees, St. Patrick's Cathedral, N. Y., 21 Hun. (N. Y.) 184. Sale, Application of Proceeds, Reinterment. The congrega- tion acquired land in the city of Reading, which was used as a burying ground, in which the mend)ers, by virtue of their membership, had the right to and did bury their dead. An act passed in 1809 authorized the removal and reinter- ment of the bodies, the sale of the property, and after pay- CEMETERY 65 iiij; certain expenses, the proceeds were to be devoted to the erection of a new church edifice. The act was declared valid and constitutional. Where real estate has been dedicated in the hands of the grantee to certain purposes, with an expressed restriction upon alienation, it is witlnn the power of the Legislature to authorize a conversion of the realty into money, and an ajiplication of the latter to the original purposes of the grant. Ritter v Bausman, 2 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 248. Suicide. See Roman Catholic Church, subtitle Cemeteries. Title, Lease or Fee. AVhere a religious corporation has re- ceived a fee of the ground on which the church stands and of the gravej'ard adjoining, subject only to the keeping the whole to i>ious uses, such religious corporation can grant any length of lease, or a fee of portion of the ground for vaults. The grantees will thereby get a fee, and the property cannot be sold while they object to it. Matter of Brick l»resby. Ch. ;i Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 155. See also Brick Presby- terian Church V New York, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 538 sustaining a by-law of the city of New York prohibiting further inter- ments in the cemetery owned by this church. Title of Grantee of Lot. Where vaults or burying lots have been conveyed by religious corporations, rights of property are conferred upon the purchasers. The right is like that to any other real estate, and is as perfect without sepulture as it is where the grantee has used it for that purpose. Windt v (Jennan Reformed Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 502. Tomb, English Rule. In Bardin v Calcott, 1 Hagg. Consist. Re. (Eng. ) 30!), proceedings were sustained against a per- son for erecting tombs in a churchyard without authority. The regulations of the l*]stablished Church on the subject of tombs and tombstones are here fully considered. Tomb Owner's Right. Owners of tond)s in the church build ing of a religious society have no title in the land, but only an interest in the structures and in their jirojjcr use, and cannot prevent a sale of the land and building by the society, nor the removal of the icmains from the tombs, when such <;(; Till: ("i\ ii. law am> tiiI': cm kcii rciiiovMl is ill other rcspccls ((MHliHtcfl acroidin;^ to i;i\v; as, for iiistiincc, when llu', Ic^isljituic; liiis dircrtcMl it in the exercise of its powci-s in relation to imblic health; and the tomb of one who devised real estate to the society in trust for keeping said tomb in iis societies, if w;is lield that societies of a relij^ioiis cliai-acter, whose; lieiielits were exclusively coiilincd to a pafticiilai- sect, were not excluded, tlie true const luctiou of the will heiiij^ that all sliouhl ]»ar- ticipate, he tlieir sect or relilying bread to the i)oor of the congregation of wliich testator was a member. He also gave to these churches ^.j,()(K), the inter- est to be used for the education of young students in the ministry of the congregation of which he was a member to be expended under the direction of tlie vestry of these two churches. These becjuests were sustained, the court holding that while the English statute of charitable uses (4:] Eliza- beth c. 4) had not been extended to Pennsylvania, the prin- ciples of it as applied by chancery in England obtained in that State by force of its common law. Whitman v Lex, 17 Serg. andR. (Pa.) 93. British Corporation, how Affected by American Revolution. The capacity of jjrivate individuals, British subjects, or of corporations, created by the Crown in this countrv, or in Great Britain, to hold lands or other property in this coun- try, was not att'ected by the Revolution. The property of British corporations in this country is protected by the sixth article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783, in the same nninner as those of native i)ersons; and their title, thus protected, is confirmed by the ninth article of the Treaty of 1704, so that it could not be forfeited by an inter- mediate legislative act, or other proceeding, for the defect of alienage. The act of the Legislature of Vermont of the 80th of October, 1704, granting the land in that State belonging to the Society for Propagating the (lospel in Foreigu Parts to the respective towns in which the lands lie, is void, and con- CHARITABLE USE 71 vers no title under it. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign I'arts v Town of New Ilaven, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 404. Chapel. Testatrix authorized her executor to ])ay a speci- fied amount for the erection of a chai)el to l)e built and con- trolled by the trustees of a designated (IuuhIu and to be called by her name. The bequest was sustained as a valid charitable use. Vanzant's Estate, Pa. Co. Ct. 025. A devise of the "chapel lot, to be retained and used when the growth of Ihe village ]»()]>ulation will justily the building of a chuich and more i»retentious village duipel," and a be- quest of a sum of money for the purpose ultimately of erect- ing upon the chapel lot a cha])el to be used by the inhabit- ants of the village for religious meetings and a Sunday school, are good public charitable gifts. Bartlett, Peti- tioner, ]0:i Mass. nOK. Churchyard, Repair of Vault. Testatrix bequeathed a fund to be used in keeping in good repair and condition forever the monument of her mother in a church; also the vault in which she was interred, and an ornamental window, wiiith she directed her trustees to place in the church in memory of her mother, and to apply any surplus of such dividends toward keeping in repair and ornamenting the chancel of said church. The gift for the repair of the vault was held void, for the reason that the vault was not within the church, but was in the churchyard. The gifts for the memorial window and foi* the repair of the monument were held valid lor the reason that they were a part of the chui-ch structure, lloare v Osborne, L. 1\. 1 Eq. (Eng. ) oS.'), :{.") L. .1. Cli. :>4."). Common Law. Though the English slatiile ol' cliaritable uses (4^> lOliz. c. 4) was not a(iopte 'I'lli: ('[II KMMI sciiiiiiiilioii (>r lK>«»ks ;iM(! n lit iii<;s ;i|>|»ii)\»'(l l»y such society; ;i jjill <() ;i rclijiioiis society toi- flu; rclid' of the poor ineinberH thereof; ji <;ift to a li-easni-er of a society, itrj^anized for the civili/alion and iiiipi-oveineiit of certain Indian tribes for the benefit of sucli Indians; a ^ift to a religious society for the relief of the i)oor thereof and toward enlarj^ing and iini)i()vinrovisions of a trust independent of the statute of 43 Elizabeth. IJeall v Surviving Executors of Fox, 4 Ga. 404. Hospitality Not a Charitable Use. Testator included the following provision in his w ill : "Inasmuch as my house has been open during niy lifetime (as well as for generations back in the lil'etinie of my an- cestors of the same name) for the reception and entertain- ment of ministers and others traveling in the service of truth, so it shall continue to be a ])lace for the reception and entertainment of such forever, and in c(»nloi-niity with the preamble of this my last will and testament and in the dis- cretion of my trustees. And my will further is, that my west front room chamber shall be kept in constant readiness 71 'llll': ('IN II. LAW AM) Tin; CI I IK* 11 lo lo(l;;(' siicli persons ;is sliiill cioss (i\ci' <»i- \isil lliis ishiinl in liic conisc of tlicii- labors in llic ^os|»('I of <'lii'isl, jmhI olIuTs who arc not minislcrs, l)ul who ai-e li-av«'lin;^ to nu'ct- ings or olluMwisc in tiu; service of truth, and that the said room be kept liirnislied with two good bedsteads, two beds, two bolsters, and two ]>air of ])illows and other necessary furniture." This was held to be u bequest for hospitality and not for a charitable use, and could not be sustaiiuMl. Kelly v Mchols, ISR. I. G2. Illinois. The statute of 43 Elizabeth is in force in Illinois. Welch V Caldwell, 22(; Illinois 4SS. Incorporated Society. A bequest to an incori)orated society for pious or charitable uses is valid. Banks v Phelan, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 80. Indefinite. A residuary devise to charitable and ]»io\is uses generally is not void, but the Crown may appoint. So also if the charitable object be uncertain. Attorney General V Herrick, Anib. <10ng. ) 712. Testator gave the residue of his estate to the people called Methodists, who worshiju'd at that place, such residue to be applied as directed by the trustees named in the will, and the officiating ministers of the congregation. The provision did not constitute a charitable use, and the trustees were held entitled to recover the land subject to such disposiiion of the proceeds as the court of chancery might direct. Doe v Copestake, Cy East (Eng. ) 828. A bequest of a sum of money to be divided equally between Indian missions and domestic missions in the United States, without naming any trustee or any direct beneficiary, was held to be too indelinite, but the trust was not void, and could be sui)ported and executed under tlie act of 181)3, chap. 701, as amended in 1001, chap. 201, which in case of an indefinite trustee, vested the i)roiierty in the supreme court and devolved on that court the duty of executing the trust by the ai)pointment of a proj^er trustee. In this case the court suggested that the Domestic and Foreign Missionary CHARITABLE USE 75 Society of the Protestant Episcopal Clmrcli niiglit properly be designated as the trustee, for the reason that it was the only society i)erlorniing general missionarj- service in the United States under the auspices of the Protestant Epis- copal Church, of which the testatrix was a lifelong and active member. Bowman v Domestic and Foreign Mission- ary Society, 182 N. Y. 4!)4. A gift to a religious society for the benefit of the "poor, lielpless, and dependent members and or})han children of said church" was sufficiently definite. The poor members could be readily identified, and the words "orphan children'' were intended to include children bai)tized into the church, whose i)arents are dead. The provision in the will that the distribution should be made by the church was construed to mean the trustees of the church, and not by the society as a body. Banner v Kolf, 43 Tex. Civ. Ai)p. 88. Charitable bequests, where no legal interest is vested, and which are too vague to be claimed bj' those for whom the beneficial interest was intended, cannot be established by a court of equity, exercising its ordinary jurisdiction, inde- pendent of the statute of -l.'J Elizabeth. Trustees, riiiladel- phia Baptist Association v Hart's Exe. 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 1. "In tlie case of a will making a charitable bequest, it is immaterial how vague, indclinite or uncertain the objects of the testator's bounly may be, piovidcd there is a discre- tionarj' i)ower vested in some one over its application to those objects.'- Domeslic and Foreign Missionary Society's Aj.peal, :{0 Pa. St. 41'."). Limitation, Cy Pres. Courts of eipiity in Hie exercise of their oi-dinary jurisdiction cannot devote any portion of a fund dedicated to charitable uses to any object not contem- plate«l by the donor; when pvo|>erly is given to a class of f>bjects in general terms, and also directed to be applied to one of them in sj>ecial terms, if its api)lication to that one becomes unlawful or iiiipijicticable, the doctrine of cy pres authorizes the court to dev(»te it to one or iiioic of tliose (Mubraced in the general intent iii(»st analogous to llie (uic 70 TH!-: ('I\ IL LAW AM) Till: riUKCIl especiiilly Uilinctl; llu; j^cnci'iil iiilciit iii;iy iiol he cxin-csscd in explicit terms if llie devise or (Icdicatioii in llic li^^lit of the circuiiistjimcs aullionze the coiirl to infer tli;it sndi was the donor's wish in lluit event. Tlie sjinie rnlcs iipply when the charity is the result of contributions by a large number of people. U. S. V Church, S Utah :M0. Maine. The statute of 4.'> Elizabeth c. 4 is considered to be in force in Maine. Preachers Aid Society v Kich, 45 Me. 552. Massachusetts. The l']n<;lish doctrine of charitable uses is in force in jNlassachusetts, and a tiust to a religious society for the support of the preaching of the gospel is a public and charitable trust, and is valid, although in j)eri)etuity, and is equally valid, although the society may be a voluntary body and not incorporated. Congregational Unitarian Society V Hale, 29 A. I). (N. Y.) aOO. Masses. The celebration of masses for a particular intent is not of itself a charitable object, even when the masses must be celebrated in public and so become an important part of public worship. A provision in a will was, therefore, held void as creating a perpetuity which required masses for the repose of the soul of the testator and members of his famil}' forever, for the reason that no one could definitely find when the testator and all his family shall have ceased to need the benefit of the nuisses. In this case it was found that the parish priest could not perform the obligation imposed on him in relation to masses w itliout neglecting his other official duties, and for this reason the performance of the obligation was impossible. A condition which is impos- sible without violation of duty is treated as .simply impos- sible; and if a condition subsequent be ini])ossible, the con- dition fails and the gift remains discharged from it. Bran- nigan v Murphy, 1 Ir. Rep. 418. A bequest of a sum of money to trustees for the benefit of a church on the testator's farm, with instructions to hold a service there yearly for his soul is a clearly defined chari- table use, although the church had not been and could not be incorporated. Seda v Huble. 75 la. 429. CHARITABLE USE 77 New York. The statute ol" Elizabetli on this subject was never in force in New York. Dutch Church in Garden St. V Mott, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 77. The system of charitable uses, as recognized in England prior to the Revolution, has no existence in this State. Holmes v Mead, 52 N. Y. ^32. It seems that the law as to charitable uses as it existed in lOngland at the time of the American Revolution is not in force in New York, and its courts have only such jurisdiction ovei' trusts for cliaritable and religious purposes as are exer- cised by the court of Chancery in England independently of the prerogatives of the Crown and the Statute. Owen v Missionary Society, U N. Y. 384. The English rule as to charitable uses is in force in New York. Williams v Williams, 8 N. Y. 525. Orphan Asylum. A bequest for the establishment of an orphan asylum and a hospital for sick and infirm persons is a iKHpiest to a charitable use. This charity was eleemosy- nary in character. The ])ropagation of religious doctrines was not the primary object of the foundation, and consider- ation of the religions faith of a testator should be excluded in ]»ntting a legal construction on his will. Attorney Gen- eral ex rel Bailey v Moore's Executors, 18 N. J. Eq. 250. Religious Reading. Testator bequeathed the residue of his estate to two pei-sons with directions that it be used "in the purchase and distribution of such religious books or reading as lliey shall deem best, and as fast as the fuinls shall come into their hands." The bequest was sustained, the court liolding that the word "religious" as descriptive of books and reading, meant such books or reading which tend to jtromote the religion taught by the Christian dispensation, unless the meaning is so limited by associate words or cir- cumstances as to show that the testator had reference to some other mode of worship. Simj)son v Welcome, 72 Me. 496. Religious Services. The maintenance of religious services in accordance with the views of any denomination of Chris- 7S Tin: ("l\IL LAW AM) Till; <'lll K<'ll tiniis is :i inildic clinrily williin llu' iiicniiiM'^ of the stnlutc of cliiiriliil)!!' usrs of Connocticnt. Miick A]>j>oal, 71 Coiiii. 122. Religious Trust. A ^ift of a sum of iiioiicy to he expeinlcMl by two (l;ni<;lil('rs aiul a j;ran(l(lau<;hter of the testator "to be ai)])lie(l by tlioiii in their best judgment, as my l)eqnest for charitable and relijiious ])ni'i)oses, say for the y)romotion of the Christian religion, witliout ])i'ejndice or regard to sect, and for and toward the relief of the poor," was declared to be too vagne and indefinite to be executed and tlierefore void. Dulany v Middleton Ex'rs. 72 Md. 07. A testator gave the residue of his estate "to the cause of Christ, for the benefit and promotion of true evangelical piety and religion," and the executor w^as required to sell the property and pay the proceeds to specified trustees, "to be by them sacredly appropriated to the cause of religion as above stated, to be distributed in such divisions and to such societies and religious charitable purposes as they may think fit and proper." In Going v Kniery, 10 Tick. (Mass.) 107, it was held that the trust was valid, that the donees were particularly designated, the trust was clear, its general objects sufficiently indicated to bind the consciences of the trustees, and that these objects were sufficiently certain and definite to be carried into effect by the proper judicial tri- bunal. A bequest for the promotion of religious and charitable uses and enterprises is valid, even though there be no trustee ai)pointed to carry the same into effect ; and in such a case, the heir at law or the executor, as the case may be. becomes the trustee, or one will be a])itointe(l by a court of equity. A residuary bequest for such charitable uses as might be desig- nated by a majority of the pastors composing tlie ^Middlesex Union Association was held to be sufficiently definite, and an appointment made by such pastors was deemed to be a substantial comi)liance with the terms of the bequest. Brown v Kelsey, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 243. A conveyance of property for the su]>port and propagati(ni CHARITABLE USE 71) of religiou is a charitable use, and this includes j;;iits tor the erection, maintenance and repair of church edifices, for the promotion of worship, and the su])port ol" tlie ministry. The rules governing the establishment and administration of charitable trusts are ditferent from those applicable to ])rivate trusts, in giving etiect to llie intention of the donor, and in establishing the charity. If the gift is made for a public charitable purpose, it is immaterial that the trustee is uncertain or incapable of taking, or that tlie ol)jects of the charity are uncertain and indefinite. Courts look with spe- cial favor on such trusts. Where the title to a certain lot was vested in tlie bishoj) of a diocese for the use of the church in a certain division, and the title to other lots was vested in him for the benefit of a parish in his diocese, upon the incorporation of such diocese and ]»arish the title was not divested from the bishoj) and vested in them. The trust did not attach to the person of the bishop, but to his office, and i)assed to his successor in office, and the property could not be mortgaged without consent of the trustee. Beckwith v Rector, etc., St. Philip's Parish, G9 Ga. 5G4. A trust for the su])port of religion is a charitable use; and where all sects of the Christian religion stand upon an equal footing there can be no question with respect to a supersti- tious use. Attorney General v Jolly, 1 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 99. A will directing the executor to invest the residue of the estate as he m;iy deem best, as a fund, the annual interest of which shall be apidie llie revi'ries of fanalicisni or enconi-a<;e and I»eri)etnale the ol)servances ()(■ a coniipt and Kay and J. (Eng.) 51)1. The charity could not be deieated by the fact that the trustees might use the fund for another purpose. The bequest was valid, unless i)y the rules of the organization the society was required to use the fund for a purpose not sanctioned by law. A mere possibility of an- other use could not defeat the testator's intention. Unincorporated Society. A devise to an unincorp<)rate-\\. Bequests for charitable juu-poses to unincorporated soci- eties are sustained where the object is coinpeleiit, ami is designated or may be clcnily ascerlMiiKMl. NMinc the dc scription of the legatee is uncertain, evidt'iicc is admissihlc to identify the legatee intendes('(|iM'iil iiicoi|»f)T";ili(ui. ('luillumi v Itr.-iiiH'i-d, I I ( 'oiiti. (10. Unitarian. A l<'j?Jicy to tlu^ iiiiiiistcr or iiiinistcrH of a speri- fu'd rnil;ifi;ni ilijipcl "to he jippliiMl in siicli iiiiiimcr uh he or (Im'v sliiill lliiiik lit touiiid llic .sii|ipuil of llic I'iiil;iri;ins" wns .snstiiiiHMl in lie r.nrnclt, 2!» L. J. <'Ii. ( lOnjf.) 871. Vault and Tomb, Repairs. A ;^r;nit of 1;iim1s in trust per- jd'hi.illy lo rcpjiii', :i!i. rebuild a vault and tomb standiiijj on the land, and peiniit the same to be used as a family vault, for the donor and her famiU, is not a charilable use within the statute of 1) (Jeo. 2, C. 'Mi. Doe v Pitcher, (5 Taunt. K. (iOnj,M :;(;::. CHARITY Alteration or diversion, invalid, 83. Beneficiaries, present or future, 84. Defined, 84. History, 84. Discretion of trustees, 84. Dissenters, 85. Donor's intention, 80. Foreign corporation, 80. Identifying beneficiary, 87. Indefinite, 87. Irving Society, 87. Parliamentary restriction, 88. Poor, 88. Principles universal, 88. Religious exercises and self-denial, 89. Religious instruction, 89. Trustees to account, 9(). Uncertainty, free churches, 90. Unincorporated society, 90. Alteration or Diversion, Invalid. Tlu* clKirily iimsl he ac- cepted upon the terms proposed. II taiinol be altered by any agreement between the heirs of the donor and the tiMistees or donees. iJnt it may be carried into elVect accord- ing to the intention of the donor, and in like manner llie mode of its execution will be |»nrsned when indicated, nnless the one or the other becomes im|»ract icable, and then only may it be altered cy pres. (iilman v llaniilimi, Ki III. l'IT). A diarit}^ given for a pai-ticniar jmrpose cannot be altered or diverted to any other. It mnsi be acceptt'd and retaineoses. .MciJoberts v M(MuIy, 1!» Mo. Ap|». -(». 83 SI 'I'm: <'i\ iL LAW .\.\i> 'I'lii: I0. Beneficiaries, Present or Future. A charity may be crcatiMl ii(»t only lor the hcndil (tf those who are in existence, or who may (imilily lhenisel\cs to heconie ohjecis of the bounty. Attorney deneral ex rel Independent or < 'onjii-egational Church of ^VaI»l•e1aw v (^'Icrjj^y Society, S Kich. Eci. (S. (.'.) 1!K). This case ajtjiears aj;ain in 10 Rich. Eq. (S. C. ) 004, where the court held that a "corporation for religious or eleeinrjsy- nary purposes may, without violation of the constitution, ajtply for, and obtain an amendment to their charter author- I'/Au*::; them to ap]>ly their siirjdus funds to other puri>oses than those for which the charity was originally established." Defined. A diarity, in the legal sense, may be more fully detined as a gift to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of any indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds or hearts under the intluence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from dis- ease, sulTering or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves in life, or by erecting or maintaining public buildings or works or otherwise lessening the burdens of government. It is immaterial whether the purpose is called charitable in the gift itself if it is so described as to show that it is charitable in its nature. Jackson v Phillips, 1 + Allen ( Mass. ) 5;i9 sustaining a legacy to trustees to be used in caring for fugitive slaves; see also Crerar v Williams, 145 111. (;l»."). A i)urely i)ublic charity may be defined as one which dis- charges, in whole or in ])art, a duty which the commonwealth owes to its indigent and helpless citizens. Commonwealth v Thomas, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1128. History. For a review of decisions relative to charities and charitable uses, see the chancellors' oi>inion in ^IcCartee V Or}>han Asylum Society, I) Cowen (X. Y. I 4:57. Discretion of Trustees. A becpiest of the residue of personal estate for such reliuious and charitable institutions and ( HARITY 85 purposes witliiu the kiuydoin <»t lOughuuJ Jis in the opiniou of the testator's trustees should be deemed fit and proper, is a good charitable bequest. Baker v Snlton, 1 Keen (Eng.) 224. Dissenters. In Attorney-General v Wilson, IG Sim. (Eng.) 210, constiiiiii^ two deeds by Lady ITewley, one in 1704 and the other in 1707, by which she convened certain property in trust "lor such poor and godly jireachers for the time being of Christ's Holy (losjiel, and of such j)oor and godly widows for the time being of such preachers, as the trustees for the time being shall think fit; and for promoting the preaching of Christ's Holy (losjtel in sucli manner and in such poor places as the trustees for the time being should think fit; for educating such young men designed for the ministry of Chrisl's Holy (Jospel as the trustees for the time being should think fit ; and for relieving such godly persons in distress, being fit objects of her own and the trustees charity, as the trustees for llie time being should think fit"; the court said that Lady Hewley, being an lOnglisli subject and the property being located in England, where her own church relations were eslablisiied, the charity must be lim- ited 1o English nonconformists. The term "godly preachers of Christ's Holy Gospel," or "godly preachers," meant those ]»ersons who answered the description of orthodox English dissenters at that time, and who resided in England; and this description was held to include those who, at the time of Lady Hewley's death or thereafter, were or should be "orthodox English dissenting ministers of Baptist churches, of Congregational or lndei)endent churches, and of Presby- terian churches in England, whicli are not in conneition with, or under the jurisdiction of tlie Kirk of Scothuid. or the Secession Church." The term "godly widows" was held to mean wiciows of dissenting ministers above descril)eort of a minister tends to the advancement of religion be- cause it contributes to the support of its minister; and the court, in such a case, does not inquire into the quantum of his former stipend, or the necessity for its increase. "By analogy, a gift to a clergyman because he publicly performs Divine service ought to be deemed charitable, whether the d(uiee was or was not previously subject to a moral, or even to a legal, obligation to perform it." Attorney-General v Hall, 2 Irish R. 291 , 309 ( 1896 ) . The court will not decree the execution of a trust of a charity in a manner difterent from that intended, excei)t so far as they see that the intention cannot be executed liter- ally, but another mode may be adopted consistent with his general intention, so as to execute it, though not in mode, in substance. If the mode becomes by subsequent circum- stances imjtossible, the general object is not to be defeated, if it can be attained. Attorney-General v Boultbee, 2 Ves. (Eng.) Jr. 380. Foreign Corporation, In University v Tucker, 31 W. Va. 021, it was held that foreign cor] (orations may take bequests CUAKITY 87 of cLarit}- uikK'T a will mack* in this Slate, when and to the extent aiilhoiiy.ed hv their charterss. Identifying Beneficiary. Testatrix becineathed a fund to any institution in I'hiladelphia that will give shelter to homeless people at night, irrespective of creed, color or con- dition. The Philadeli>hia Society for Organizing Charity W'as the only claimant of the fund. This society was organ- ized in 1878, and about tive years afterward Wayfarers' Lodges were created, and shelter lias been j)roviay o\er annually a certain por- tion of the income of his estate to the trustees of the llills- borough School, to be l>y them ajfplied towards feeding, clothing, and educating the ])ooi' children of ('ai-olim» county, which attends the jtoor Allen (Mass.) 474, Principles Universal. The principles of the law of charities are not confined to a particular i)eople or nation, but prevail in all civilized countries pervaded by the .spirit of (Chris- tianity. They are found imbedded in the civil law of Rome, in the laws of European nations, especially in the laws of that nation from which our institutions are derived. A leading and prominent principle prevailing in them all is that ])roperty devoted to a charitable and worthy object, promotive of the public good, shall be applied to the pur- CHARITY S9 ]M)ses of ils (Icdiiatiuii. ami iiiotci-U'd Ironi .spoliation and li-oiH (livc'isioii to other ((hjccts. Though ilevoted to a i»ar- ticuliir ii.se, it i« considoi-cd as j^iveii to the pidtlic, ainl is. therefore, taken under the <;iiardianshi)» ol' the hiws. 11 it cannot be ai)i)lied to the particular use lor winch it was intended, either because the objects to be sidjserved have failed or becau.se they have become unlawful and rei)Uj;nant to the public policT of the state, it will be api)lied to some object of kindred character so as to fultill in substance if not in manner and form the purpose of its con.secralion. The Late Corporation of the Church of .Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v T'nilcd Slates. i:!(; V. S. 1. Religious Exercises and Self-Denial. A volnnlary associa- tion of women loi- Ihc pui-pose of woiking out their own salvation by relij^^ions exercises anerformed acts of «levotion be charitable. Cocks v Manners, ll' L. K. Kq. (ICng. ) 574. Religious Instruction. A becpu'st to a widow for life, then to the church of which she might be a niendjer at her death, for such u.ses as the Conference might determine, "especially for the support of Sunday schools, for the jnircha.se of Bibles, and religious tracts, and the distribution of the same among the destitute,' and for the supjiort of missi(»n- aries," was sustained in Attorney-Cjieneral v Jolly, I Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 09. A conveyance of land "in trust for the uses of a Sabbath School and for the diffusion of Christian i»riiici])les as taught and i)racticed by Christian lOvangelical denomina- tions, with j)ower to erect, i-epair. and renew from time to !M» 'I'lii: ciNii. LAW AM) 'I'm: cnriMii lime :ill l»iiilart of the Christian world has any property', legal or equitable ; which no one has a right to manage or preserve, and in which the court would, perhaps, be daily called on to regulate the uses of the buildings, which the various sects would endeavor to concentrate, each one in itself.'' White v Attorney General. 44 Am. Dec. 92. Unincorporated Society. A bequest was made in 1700 by a resi«lent of Mrginia to the "Baptist Association that for ordinary meets at Philadelphia annually," "for the educa- tion of youths of the Baptist denomination who shall appear l)romising for the ministry, always giving a preference to the descendants of my father's family." The testator died in 170."). At that time the Baptist Society in IMiiladelphia was unincorporated, but became incorporated in 1707. It \\as held tliat the descrijttion of the association was sufli- ("IIAKITV 91 cieiitly definite, lnit uot beiiij; iiicoiiioiated, it was incapable of taking the tiutst, nor could the bequest be taken by the individuals conii)osing the society. They could not execute the trust which was to the association and not to the inct, 95. Officers constitute corporation, 96. Unincorporated society, 90. Organization. This is a bodj- of religious people calling themselves Disciples of Christ, or Christians, known in the aggregate as the Christian Church, and existing in inde- pendent local clinrches, and having no ecclesiastical trib\inal superior to tlie local church; said local churclies being con- gregational in form of government. Tliese churches have no formulated creed or articles of faith, but claim to be guided in their faith and practice by the Bible, and it is and always has been a fundamental principle with them, that nothing more or less than faith in Jesus Christ as the ^ro oi- con, can be made, l)ut re^ardini;- wliicli each hK-al chui-ch or con^i-e<;;it ion, and eacli iiidi\idual. isallo\\(' collections; the saerty was accpiired, and still a, au, when a majority voted to incorporate. It was, accordingly, incorporated under the laws of Missouri. I'rioi- to the in- corporation the treasurer had dei»()sited chnrch funds in a savings institution. After the incorporation the clinrcli brought an action to i-ecover the aiiioiiiil of the ^Icjiosil. The ]KM'sons com|»osing a minority of the congregation at I lie time of the vote for incor]»oral ion, and who had s:iviii;4s iiisl it nl inn, ;iii(| :i<-('(»r(liii;;l_v ili;it iIm- cliiirch \v;is cnlilloH lo i-ccovrr llic . I'TM. Officers Constitute Corporation. Tlie Ini.stecs, deacons, and clmicli wardfiis wi-rc held lo coiistllute a corporation for liic puiposc of takinj^ and lioldinji in succession all real and jHUsonal estate <;i\(Mi to their church. Bean v Christian Church, South Danhuiy, fil N. H. 200. Unincorporated Society. In 18-4, a society was formed con- loruiahle lo the rules and usages of the denomination called Christians. The society was not organized in the manner recpiired ItN' the statute but the associates agreed to main- tain religious worship. The society was received in fellow- ship with other societies of the same denomination, and maintained religious worship. It was held that while the society was not organized as required bj' the statute, it be- came an unincorporated religious society, under the rules of the denomination, and as such became entitled to take and hold real estate, and that it might maintain an action of trespass on its property. Christian Society, Plymouth v Macomber, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 155. CHRISTIANITY Christian defined, 97. Blasphemy, 98. England, 98. Law of the land, 98. Masaachusetts, 99. Nation, 99. Now York, 99. Ohio, 100. Pennsylvania, 100. Scope of influence, 100. Christian Defined. Tlic term "rin-istians," ;is nsoe of tiie Christian religion. The grand sidxlivisions among Clirislians are: 1. The Greek, or lOastern (Miurcli. 2. The Roman Catholics, who ackn(»\\ ledge tlic antlnn-ity of the Pope. ti. The Protestant, or rcrormcd rlimclics or sects, wlio reject the anlhoi-ity of iIm' Tope ( l{(>l»bins. lu-li^icMis of .ill Nations). A Ronuin Catindic is a Chi-islian wlio adiiiils tlie anllior- ity of the Pope; a Protestant is a ("iiiisiiau who (h-nics tiiat anthorit}'. Since the days of iaitlier, Iu»m;inists ami i'rutfstants have conslitnted, and still constitnlc. the t\v<» grc;il divisions cd" Christianity in western Mnropc :ind .Vmerit;i. The conri ([noted I'l-om llic laicycjoitcdi;! nf Ktdi^icius Know h-diic. tlic statement tiuit •MJic leiwu '( 'lirisi i;in.' when nsc<| in its more 97 08 TNI': (IN II. LAW A M » 'nil: cmHiMI Ntl'ict, Mcri|»hir;ii, :iiiei- nse of the woi'd. It mentions nnother nse of the \\n\(\ which it calls the ]M)iitic;il or <-oii- ventioniil use, which denotes one who assents to the doc- trines of the i'elijj;ion of Christ, ;ind who, beinji; born of (Miris- liiin piirents, or in a ("luistian count I'V, does not ]*roress any olhei- reli<;ion. or belon;; to any other of the divisions of men, sn«-h as .lews, Mohammedans, deists, pagans, and atheists; or, as is said in another i)art of the article, Chris- tians uKiy be consi Tin: CHIKCH Ohio. ( 'liiisliMiiil.v is it pail ol' llu' coiimiou law of Kiig- laiid, Imt niMlcr lli<- const ihil ion of Ohio neither Clirisliaii- ily nor any other systrni of iclijiion is a part ly because it is religions. The IK)wer to make the law rests in the legislative control over things temporal and not over things spiritual. No power over things merely spiritual has ever been delegated to the government. Bloom v Kichards, 2 Ohio St. 387. Pennsylvania. Christianity is and always has been a part of the ecnnmon law of Pennsylvania; Christianity without the sj)iritual artillery of European countries; for this Chri.s- tianitj' was one of the considerations of the royal charter and the very basis of its great founder, William I'enn ; not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, and tithes, and spiritual courls, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men. Updegra])h v Commonwealth, 11 S. and R. (Pa.) :iJ)4. Christianity, as it is inculcated in the Scriptures, is a part of our common law. It has at all times been so under- stood and believed not only by divines, but also by our statesmen and people. It has been so declared by our high- est judicial tribuimls. Commonwealth v Sigman, 2 Clark (Pa.) 3G. Scope of Influence. Christianity, though an essential ele- ment of the conservatism, and a great moral power in the State, should yet only work by love, and inscribe the laws of liberty and light on the heart; and the civil government has no just or lawful power over the conscience, or faith or forms of worship or church creeds or discipline as long as their fruits neither unhinge civil supremacy, demoralize society, nor disturb its j)eace or security. CHRISTIANITY 101 The political goverumeut is fouuded on the civil cousti- tution; the ecclesiastical on the Bible; but the Bible and the constitution harmonize in aim and in si)ii'it; and reli- gion and politics shuuhl go hand in hand togctlier, each equally free, and neither presuming to control the other in its legitimate sphere. This is the true, and only true, illus- tration of the moik'ni maxim that church and state should be kept separate. It is the vital principle of both civil and religious liberty, and its universal prevalence woidd secure liberty, purify religion, an\Mi as llie Kentucky Christian Missionary Convention, This h()«ly rejj^nlarly and annually met, and jtrovided means and plans to cai-ry on Cln-istian missionary work. A be- quest to the society was sustained in Chambers v Higgins, l!> S. W. (Ky.) 436. 102 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE Described, 103. Expulsion of members, 103. Healer, knowledge roquiied, 103. Medical attendance, religious belief, 103. Mis.souri constitution, 104. Pemisylvania consititution, 101. Sunday school treasurer, lOo. Described. Christian Science entirely excludes drugs and all material methods of treatment, and relies solely upon prayer as a means for the relief or cure of the sick. State V Marble, 72 Ohio 21 : It was held in this case that the giving of Christian Science treatment for a fee for the cure of disease was practicing medicine within the meaning of the Ohio statute, and that the statute nuiking it a mis'->'-'>, tlie coiirl denied an ai»plic;iti(>n for a charter on the ground lliat it would l»e a viohition of the j)rovision of tlu; const itui ion of Misso\iri, whicli dechired that no religious coi-|)oriitiou can be established in this State, except such as may be created under a general law for the jiurpose only of holding tlie title to such real estate as uuiy be ])res(i-ibed by hiw for church edilices; that the proi»osed inslituti(»n was intended to propagate a religious belief, and that it would, therefore, become a religious cor- poration witiiin the tei-ms of its intended charter; also that the proposed charter would erect a business corpora- tion for i)ecuniary profits contrary to certain statutory provisions. Pennsylvania Constitution. Considering an application for a charter by the First (Jhurch of Christ Scientist, it was held in J'ennsylvania that if the purpose of the proposed cor- poraticm were onlj' to inculcate a creed or to promulgate a form of worship, no question could arise, because under the constitution of J'ennsyivania private belief is beyond public control, and there can be no interference with the right of con.science. The maintenance of health and the cure of disease occupies a large si>ace in the faith of the society. The students of the book have patients who are to be treated according to the method taught. The treatment extends to the most serious and fatal of diseases — rheumatism, scro- fula, cancer, smallpox, and consumption. The patients, young and old, are to be treated for a compensation to be ]>aid to those who work the beneticent results. The court said that what was proposed was more than a church, since there is besides to be established a system for the treatment of disease, to be carried into effect by persons trained for the purpose, who may receive compensation for their serv- ices. The rennsylvania statute of 1S77 prohibited persons from ju'act icing medicine who had not received a regular CHKliSTlAN SCIENCE 105 diploma from a chartered medical school. To grant this charter would be to sanction a system of dealing with dis- ease totally at variance with any contcniplatod by tlie act of 1877, and dift'erent from any taught in a chartered medical school. The court declined to grant the charter. Applica- tion of First Cluircli of Christ Scientist, I'a. Dist. 7-1."'). A similar situation was presented by tlie a])plication of First Church of Christ Scientist, 205 I'a. 543, where the status of Christian Science was again considered on an application for a charter for the estal)lishnient of a phice for the support of public worship, and to ])reach the gospel according to the docti-ines of Christ .Jesus, as found in the Bible and the Cliristian Science textbook, Science and Health, with Key to tlie Scriptures : by Mary Baker G. Eddy. It apjieared that tlie method to be pursued by these healers in curing the sick is simply and solely by inaudible prayer, whether in the presence of the sick or at a distance, being immaterial. That to qualify for the practice of healing disease according to this method nothing was necessary except the study of the system taught in Mrs. Eddy's boolc, no knowledge of anatomy, ])liysiology, pathology or hygiene being require; 1l»7 N. Y. Supp. 174, it was held llial I lie Ireasurer of a Sunday school connected with a cor|»orat ion was res|»onsil)le to llie corporation for funds collected for the church organ. CHURCH Defined, lOG. DcfiiKHi, universal and i)articalar, 108. Autliority over nirnilx'r.s, 108. ( 'lunch i)urposo, 109. Cliurch, separate from society, 109. C'liissifiealion, 109. Con>a"egationaI, defined, 109. Consecration, 110. Creed and polity, 110. Discipline, subordinate to State law, 110. Division, 110. Doctrinal controversy. 111. Elements, 112. Expulsion of members, 112. Extinct, what constitutes, 112. House of worship, 112. Incorporation, effect, 113. Independence, 113. Lecture room, 113. Legislative power, 113. Liquor tax law, 114. Majority, power, 114. Merger, 115. Minister, liabihty for libel, 115. Organic law, 115. Property, beneficiaries, 116. Relation to congregation, 116. Rules and regulations, effect, 116. Service, 116. Sewing circle, 117. Temporalities defined, 117. Territorial limitation, 117. Union, 117. Virginia, cannot be incorporated, 117. Who constitute, 117. Defined. The Clnireh consists of an indefinite nnniber of peison.s, of one or both sexes, who have made a pnblic pro- 106 CHURCH 107 fession of religion ; and who are associated togetlier by a covenant of church fellowship, for the i)urpose of celebrat- ing the sacraments, and watching over the spiritual welfare of each other. Baptist Church, Hartford v WiHierell, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 2!)(>. "The church, in the ordinary acceptation of the word, is a voluntarj^ association of its members, united together by covenant or agreement, for the purpose of niaintaiuiiig the public worship of God, observing the ordinances of his house, the promotion of the s])ii'itualify of its mcmbershiji, and rlie spirit of divine truth among others as they understand and •teach it. It is purely voluntary, and is not a corporation nor a quasi corporation." Hundh\v v Collins, 131 Ala. 234; see also Re Douglass's Estate, 143 N. W. (Neb.) IMJI). The word "church" is understood to mean a number of Christian persons, agreeing in their faith, usually assem- bling together at one place, for purposes of worshij), submit- ting to its ordinances, and receiving its sacraments. This is entirely distinct from tlie meaning of the word "cliurcli" as applied to a corporation. In the forujer sense of the word, many persons are usually members of the church — and most commonly a large majority, ^^'llo neither are, nor can be members of the corporation — married women, in- fants, and slaves. When persons are incorporated by the name of diurch this can be regarded only as a name of designation — or at most, as indicated when proj)erty is given to them, the trusts ui)on which it is given. Wilson v Presbyterian Church, John's Island, - Rich. Eq. (S. (\) 192. See also St. Andrews Church, v Schaunessy, (l.'I Xeb. 792. It is a matter of common observation that the teinis "church" and "society" are popularly used to express the same thing, namely, a religious body organized to sustain public worshi]). Greenland Church and Congrt'gational Society v Hatch, 4S N. H. :{!>::. The term "church" imports an organization for religions purposes, and property given to it by name, in tiie absence lOS Tin: CINIL l-AW AMI THi: CIW \U'\l (»r iill (Ici hir.il ions oT liiisl oi- use. riinsi, l.y ixMcssjiiy iiiij)!!- ciilion. Im' iiil('iHlc(l In Im' ^i\('ii to pioiMolc llic ])iiri loses for which a chni-ih is insjilnlcd ; Ilic most ]>roiiiiiuMit of wliich is the i)ublic worship of God. Baker v Fales, IG Mass. 488, Any society claiming to be a church, and engaged in the l.iwfiil ]H'omolion or defense of religion, is a legal churcli. And, lliere being no law requiring in its fommtion or con- tinued existence any connection \\itli any other society, civil oi- ecclesiastical, incorporated or unincorporated, it m;iy be formeng. ) HI."). Defined, Universal and Particular. A universal church con- sists of those persons, in every nation, together with their children, who make profession of the holy religion of Christ, and of submission to his laws; and as this immense multi- tude cannot meet together in one place to hold communion or to worshij) God, it is reasonable, and warranted by Scrip- ture exam]»le, that they should be divided into many partic- ular churches. A particular church consists of a number of ])rofessing Christians, with their offspring, voluntarily asso- ciated together for divine wor.shi]) and godly living agree- ably to the Holy Scriptures and submitting to a certain form of government. First T*resby. Church, Louisville v Wil- son, 14 Bush. (Ky. I 252. Authority over Members. Churches have authority to deal with their members for immoral or scandalous conduct; and for that juirj^ose, to hear complaints, to take evidence, and to decide, and upon conviction, to administer proper })unishment by way of rebuke, censure. sus|>eusion, and ex- communication. To this jurisdiction, every member, by entering into the church covenant, submits and is bound by his consent. CHURCH 109 The proceediuj^s ol" the climcli aie (juasi judicial and theic- fore those who coinphiiii, or give testiinoii}', or act and vote, or pronounce tlie result, orally or in writing, acting in good faith, and within the scope of the authority conferred by this limited jurisdiction, and not falsely or colorably, mak- ing such proceedings a pretense for covering an intended scandal, are protected by law. FarnswoTth v Storrs. 5 Cush. (Mass.) 412. Church Purpose. A lot was conveyed to the society by deed containing a condition that the proi)erty should be used for the purjjose of erecting thereon a parsonage "or Church ])uri»ose." A parsonage was not erected, but the lot was used for hitching teams during service in the church, which was situated on an adjoining lot. This use was held to be a church purpose within the condition in llie deed. Bailey v Wells, S2 la. VM. Church, Separate from Society. "A cluucli. separate Ironi the society with which it is connected, has not the rights and privileges of a corjtoration. It is, liowever, a body having a distinct existence and cliaractcr, in our ecclesias- tical history and usages, and as such is recognized hy the law." Anderson v Brock, 8 Me. 24:'.. Classification. The Kpisc()i)al Churdi is uionar* hical, I lie Presbyterian aristocratical, ;ind the Congregational demo- cratical. Presbyterians and Congrcgationalists were dis- tinct sects and formed se})arate religious societies at the time the constitution was made. All tlie Protestant churches set out together, but they parted on the road. They fell out by the way. And yet, if we coolly and imi>artially examine the j)oinls on which they ditlVred and separatetl, they will be found lew in ninnber and trilling in anu)unt. Muzzy V Wilkins, Smith's N. 11. Kep. 1. Congregational, Defined. A church is understood among those whose polity is congregational or independent, lo be a body of persons associated t(>gether for the purpose of nuiin- taining Christian worship and ordinances. A religious body is a body of pejsoiis associated together for the purpose of Ill) Tin; (M\ll. LAW AND Till: CI IT KM "II in;iiiil;iiiiiii}i rcli^iioiis woi-sliip only, oiiiitliiiii tiic sjicra- iiM'iits. A clmi'cli :iim1 society iiic often niiilfd in niaiiilain- \\\y the Afassaclnisetts statutes their oftlcers have sufficient corporated powers to euiihle tlieni to ho]«l any i)roperty that ni;iy be jfiven to theii' cliiiicli. Silsl)y v l>;n-low, ]i\ (Ii-ay (Mass.) :?2!>. Consecration. If a church is repaired without being totally destroyed or i)ulled down, some i)arts being left undisturbed, it does not ueed to be reconsecrated; and this rule jjrobably a]ii)lied even if the church should be entirely rebuilt on the former foundations, especially if the re))airs or reconstruc- tion be ordered by the church authorities. Parker v Leach 12.1ur. N. S. (Eng.) <)11. Creed and Polity. The orgauizatiou of a denominational body or church involves the adoption of a religious creed and an ecclesiastical polity. Adherence to a particular body requires, therefore, adherence to both the creed and the polity. To abandon or repudiate either, is to abandon or secede from the body whose authority is thus disregarded. Krecker v Sliirey, 1(13 Pa. 58-1. Discipline, Subordinate to State Law. In the matter of the ]»etiti()n of tlie Thii churcli. witliout any parochial CHITKCH 111 condition, liniitjitioii, oi- tnisl. The dciicons of I lie society were a coi-itoration I'oi- llu- itiir]K)S(' of mkiiij; and iMtlding pi'ojterty, and lliev rcccMved tlic inoiicrly in (|uc'stir|M»i:ilc(| clnirrli is coinitoscd of two (listincl cIciiicMls. iiiiiiii'ly, tiic clmrrli projxT, us distiii- <,niisli('«| from IIm> ciifilv crenlrd hy I he act of incorporal ion ; the coriioi-alion itself, wliicli lias i-clation only io llic tcni- pornlitii's of llic institution, 'i'lic pniiiosf of llic incoi-pora- tioii of a rliiircli is to a< Ala. lir., also Disnnikcs v Stale, r.S So. (Ala.) 11)5. Expulsion of Members. A clnii-cli is coinjxjsed of tlio.se who have iiiiiteur- pose inten«leort.''' The fail- ure to maintain religious services therein mentioned does not mean an enforced failure due to the mandate of the presbytery it.self. It ini])lies, rather, the inability to carry on the ordinary services by reason of diminished income and attendance and similar causes. Westminster Church v rrcsbytciy of New Vmk. I'll X. V. L»14. House of Woi-ship. Chrislianity is held to be a part of CHL'Rf'H lin the toimnuu law, and Sir Kdwaiil (."uke desigiiales a build- ing intended for the celebration of its rites as the "man- sion house of (iod." In tliis lie had the authority of the Saviour, who designated the temple as "His Father's house." Beam v First Methodist Episcopal Church, Lancaster, Pa., 3 I*a. L. J. Kep. :u:\. Incorporation, Effect. When a churcli has been incorpor- ated the regulations and ( iistonis of the coninuinion to which it belongs regarding tlic dis]»osition of secular business will be respected by the courts as fai- as possible; and if the mode of government in force in the denominalion at large is not b}' congregations, but by superior clerical personages, assemblies, synods, councils, or consistories, the authority of these will not be displaced if it can be upheld consistently with the laws of the sovereignty. Klix v St. Stanislaus Church, 137 Mo. App. 347. Independence. The State having prescribed no law for the action of any church, leaves each church or denomination to the guidance of its own law, and looks to that as the standard by which all internal disputes are to be tried. Winebrenner v Colder, 7 Wright (Pa.) L*44. Lecture Room. The Sunday school room and lecture room of a modern church are as essentially used for religious pur- poses as the body of the church building itself. It is used for the midweek evening lectures and othei- services, when the attendance is not large. The exi)ens(' of lighting and heating the main church building is thus avoided. Put the services upon such occasi(»ns ai-e as truly religious in their character as the sermon u])on the Sabbath. The character of the use of the room is iM)t change hi.I. l.-'.C. Liquor Tax Law. A two-storv Imildiiijjj the upper story of which was used for reli<;ious worship by a .Jewish congrej^a- tiarb)r floor of a building erected for a dwell- ing house is used for the services of a church and Sunday school, while the pastor or minister in charge lives with Lis family on the second floor, keei)ing house with the usual accommodations and conveniences for that purpose, and the til i I'd floor is occupied by a woman who more or less looks after the work to be done on the premises, with her children, such buihling is not used exclusively as a church within the meaning of the Liquor Tax Law. It appeared that the building was erected for a dwelling house and its structure was not changed after it was purchased by a religious so- ciety for church purposes. Majority, Power. A majority of a church congregation may dii-ect and contrcd in church matters consistently with the particular and general laws of the organism or denom- ination to which it belongs. Henry v Deitrich, 84 Pa. St. 28(1; see also Stogner v Laird, 14.") S. AY. (Tex.) 644. On a schism or division in a church or religious society, the nuMubers of the min<»rity faction having been expelled by the majority, and both factions afterward assembling at CHUKCH 115 the cliiii-cli for worsliij) at the saiiic tiiiie, if tlie officers and members of the iniiiority atteinjjt to coikIikI rrlijiioiis ser- vices, they are mere iiitruroperty held in trust to such mend)ers of liie l»<)dy as remain faithful to the original creed and doctrine. Boyles v Roberts, 222 Mo. (ii:;. Minister, Liability for Libel. A decision was agreed on in a church meeting and ordered to be ]»romulgated by rose of an act of church discipline is that it may have a salntary influence upon the whole religious body, of wliieh the oU'ender is a member, and tlie reading of sncli a |>a|>er by the pastor was within the scoi)e of liis aiitiiorily. I■^^•nswortll V Storrs, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 412. Organic Law. A chui-ch, like every otiier organizearticnlar clmrcli, witlionl reference to its conn(*ction with any other body, the majority of the church are the hene- ticiaries who remain under the organization then existing. Harper v Straws, If V,. >r«.n. ( Ky. I 48. Relation to Congregation. The church and congregation for some purposes, form one religions society, associated under one |»astor and ministei- for religious improvemei»t. The church constitutes a select body, set apart for si)ecial purposes by covenant, and at the same time forms part of the congi-egation. C)th(»r niembei's of the congregation may, upon suitable application, become members of the church, and all have a common interest in the general religious wel- fare of each other. In nniny congregations pro])osals for admission to the church and actual admissions take place before the congregation ; and in all societies, the ordinance of baptism is public. Farnsworth v Storrs, 5 Cush. (Mass.) iV2. Rules and Regulations, Effect. The rules and regulations of a church are, so far as church matters are concerned, a part of the law governing the members of such church. A person who voluntarily joins a church, and tacitly, at least, agrees to be bound by all the rules and regulations of siich church, cannot afterward be allowed wholly to ignore and disregard such rules and regulations. As to all matters per- taining to the church, he is clearly bound by the rules and regulations of the church, unless the .same are clearly illegal. Wnable v Ebenezer Bapt. Ch. 25 Kan. 177. Service. ''The church is the place proper for the celebra- tion of divine service, and at common law the church is open to all parishioners. The exercise of the functions of a min- ister or preacher of the Holy Word of God contemplates the presence of a congregation at the services celebrated by CHURCH 117 him." Attorney General v Hall, 2 Irish lie. 291, :iuy (1896). Sewing Circle. In First Baptist Church in Franklindale V I'ryor, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 271, the society was held entitled to recover a fund raised by a sewing circle connected with the church. The circle had a treasurer who received the money. The court said the money was obviously paid for the use of the church which could adopt and ratify the action of the sewing circle in raising tlie money. Such a fund became the pro])erty of the church. Temporalities Defined. These are understood to be the revenues, lands, and tenements, to be managed according to the character and the by-laws; in other words, secular pos- sessions with which a church may be endowed. St. Patricks V Abst, 76 111. 252. Territorial Limitation. When a parish or religious society is, by its constitution, limited to any i)laei'. the chuich of such society, by whatevei- terms designated, is equally lim- ited, being necessarily associated ami indissolnbly connected with such religious society, and incajiable of subsisting independently of it. Stebbins v Jennings, 10 IMek. (Mass.) 171. Union. There must be identity of doctrine and faith before a majority of a ehurch organization can take the church i)roperty into another ns itiii|>os('s, for tlie time bein};, is to be rej^ardcd as the clnu'cli of such society, as to all qnestions of jn-opcrty depending; njton that relation. Stebbins v Jennings, 10 I'ick. (Mass.) 171. CHURCH EDIFICE Defined, 119. Not subject to execution, 119. When may be closed, 119. Defined. A oIiuitIi edifice is iiii(lerstoo^nan, renular defined, 120, Clcrgjinan, ncglecit of duty, 120. Coniinunioii, 120. Estiiblished C'hiinli, 121. Evil Liver, 122. Maryland, 122. Minister cannot refu.se to bury child of a dissenter, 122, Not a cori)oration, 122. Quaker not bound to accept office of churchwarden, 123. Sacrament, who may take, 123. Clergyman. Regular Defined. A regular clergyman means a person who ean ottieiate without being guilty ol" irreg- ularity. A clergj-nian of the Clnirch of England, Avho liai>ellaiit was of irre- proachable moral character. It was held that no lawful cause of expulsion had been shown ; that the ai»])ellant was not "an open and notorious evil liver" within the meaning of the rubric; neither was he a "Common and Notorious depraver of the Book of Common Prayer" within the meaning of the 27th Canon. Jenkins v Cook, L. R. 1 Probate Div. (Eng.) 80. Established Church. "In a countrj^ in which an Estab- lished Cluirch exists the law recognizes the essential doc- trines of that church as being true; and when, according to those doctrines, a benefit, either spiritual or temjjoral, re- sults to the general body of the faithful, from the offering up of prayers, or the celebration of religious services, such spir- itual or temporal benefit would be recognized by the law as such a public benefit as would bring witliin a statute a trust to promote the service of i)rayers of the I-stablishcd Cliun h, even if such i)rayers and such services were cajtable of being offered up in private. But tlie case of a religion, the exercise of which is lawful, but which is not established by law. such as the Roman (-atholic religion, dillers from that last men- tioned in this, that its doctrines, allhongli cai)able of being recognizercscn( in the case of a similar trust as to an estab- lished I'cli^jion; and, therefore, the conclusion that there may I»c, in such a trust, a fniblic benefit recognizable by the law, fails." Attorney General v Hall, 2 Irish R. 2!)1, :U)0 (ISJMIi. Evil Liver. A man who marries his deceased wife's sister is not an ''evil liver" within the meaning:; of the rnbi'ic ju'e- tixed to the service of the holy conininnion in the Hook of Common Prayer, so as to justify his repulsion from the holy comninnion. Banister v Thompson, 24 T. L. R. (Eng. ) 841, construing the deceased wife's sister marriage act of 1007. Maryland. By the Maryland act of 1702, chap. 1, the Church of England, with its rites, ceremonies, and sacra- ments, was declared to be the established church of the province; and provision was made for the support of min- isters. The Bishop of London had ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion in Maryland. The establishment was terminated by the State constitution adopted at the Revolution. Bartlett v ITipkins, 7(5 ^Id. iy. Minister Cannot Refuse to Bury Child of a Dissenter. A minister of the Established Church cannot refuse to bury a child of a dissenter. Kemp v Wickes, 8 Phill. (Eug. ) 27(j. Not a Corporation. At common law the Church of I'jug- land. in its aggregate description, is not deemed a corpora- tion. It is indeed one of the great estates of the realm ; but is not more on that account a corporation, than the nobilitv' in their collective capacity'. The phrase, "the Church of England," so familiar in our laws and judicial treatises, is nothing more than a compendious expression for the religious establishment of the realm, considered in the aggregate under the superintendance of its si>iritual head. In this sense the Church of England is said to have jHMiiliar rights and privileges, not as a corporation, but as an ecclesiastical institution under the i)atronage of the CHUKCH OF KN(JLAM) li';{ state. Town of I'awlet v Clark and oIIums, '.» Ciaiicli (U. S. ) 21) 1. Quaker Not Bound to Accept Office of Churchwarden. The court declined to conijtel a Q'i'*''^**i' ^^* accei>l the ollice of churchwarden to which he had been elected. Adey v Theo- bald, 1 Curteis (Knj-.) :5T:5. Sacrament, Who May Take. liy llic (liscipliiic of this church "no person can, at the same time, be a re^nlar coiii- municant in se])arate parishes under the care of diUVreiit independent rectors. The canons of the church panicu- larly direct that the sacrament shall not be adniinisteied by the rector of one i)arish to the |»arishioners of aiiotlier, without the license of the rector of the latter ]>arish, exce|)t to travelers, to persons in daiiger of death, or in cases of necessity.'' To be regular, the parishioners shonhl coninni- nicate at least thrice in every year. The only lej^al evidence that the parishioner is a coniniunicanl is his receivinji the sacrament in the parish clnircli, by and with the consent of the priest, and (he rector cannot take notice of the receipt of the communion in other parishes. Groesbeeck v Duns- cond), il How. Pr. (N. Y.) 302; See also clerjiyman. CHURCH OF GOD AT HARRISBURG History uiul form of government, 124. History and Form of Government. In tlie year 1825 a coti- jirejiation of woisliipois was formed in Harrisbnrg, callin*? itself the Cbiircli of God at Harrisburg, and professing to have no other creed tlian the Bible, with an independent church government. This denomination continued to nour- ish, and sj)read over the State, forming many congregations, having no connection with each other until the year I80O. when a confederation took place, for the mere purpose of cooperation ; by which an eldership was formed which was soon after known as the East I'ennsylvania Elder- ship; another was established in the w^estern part of the State about the same time. This East Pennsylvania Elder- ship adopted a constitution about the year 1832, but its nature or character cannot be precisely ascertained, as no copy thereof w^as presented to the court. The consti- tution given in evidence, which was an amendment of the former, was adopted in October, 1852. By the year 1845 the denomination had extended over many of the West- ern States, when it was resolved to establish a general elder- ship, which was to be composed of delegates from all the elderships, who were to meet once in three years. A con- stitution for its government was adopted, and this general eldership was invested with a degree of control over all the churches; among other things, with the licensing of preach- ers, and certain appellate i)owers from the inferior elder- ships. The locating and removal of pastors, and arranging the limits and boundaries of congregations, w^as vested in the local eldershi])s. which acted through its committees; it also seems to have been invested with power to suspend, 124 CHUKCH OF GOD AT IIAKKISBUKG IlM ;uicl probably to expel, a clergyiuuii lor caii.se, as also the lay members or elders and deacous of the congregations. On the 21st of April, 1857, the East I'ennsylvania Eldersliip was incorporated by an Act of Assembly, but no special or particular powers were conferred by the charter in regard to the government of the church. It is provided in the con- stitution of the general ehh*rship tlial n«> jKMson shall be an accredited minister in the Cluncli of (!»»i>ointment as i»astor are reipiired to take the one allotted to them under ])enaUy of not receiving one for a year. AVinebrenner v Colder, 7 "Wright (Pa.) ii41. John Winebrenner was the founder of the sect, and he wrote a history and exposition of the doctrine and order of the church. CHURCH WARDENS Acrount, spiritual court cannot settle, 126. lousiness powers limit cd, 126. Ecclcsiiistical powers, 126. Moral guardians, 126. Account, Spiritual Court Cannot Settle. A s]>iritnal conit has Tio jurisdiction to settle churchwarden's account. Adams V Kiiscli, 2 Str. (Enj?.) 1188. Business Powers Limited. A eluirchwarden has no author- ity to pledge credit of his co-churchwardens for repairs to the church. If he orders such repairs without the knowl- edjie of the other churchwardens, he is liable individually. North waits v Bennett, 2 Crompt. & Meesons Kep. (Eng.) 810. Ecclesiastical Powers. The Legislature has no power to authorize the wardens to interfere in matters of mere church discipline and doctrine. It could not constitutionally de- clare what shall constitute a curate in the catliolic accepta- tion of the word, without interfering in matters of religious faith and worship, and taking the iirst step toward a church establislmuMit by law. Wardens of the Church of !r*t. Louis V Blanc, S Bob. (La.) 52. Moral Guardians. Churchwardens are. to a certain degree, the guardians of the moral cliaracter and public decency of their respective parishes. Griffiths v Reed, 1 Hagg. Ecc. Be. (Eng.) 79. 126 CIVIL COURTS Charitable use, 128. Church arbitration conchisive, 128. Church judicatories, when actitjn final, 128. Church judicatories, limits of judicial review, 133. Civil rights only, 138. Consohdation of churches, 141. Constitution of church, 142. Creed, 142. Criterion, 142. Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 143. Diversion of church funds, 144. Diversion of property, 144. Doctrine, 145. Dowie's successor, 148. Ecclesiastical questions, 148. Elections, 149. Expulsion of members, 149. Friends, form of government, 151. Heresy, 151. Judicial notice, 152. Jurisdiction, true rule, 152. Jurisdiction, 153. Members, status, 154. Minister, 155. Noninterference, 156. Officers, powers, 156. Property rights, three classes, 157. Proi)erty rights, 157. Prot(>stant Ei)iscoi)al vestry, 158. Quakers, who are overs(HM*s, 158. Religious (juestions, 158. Resulting trust, beneficiary, 102. Salary, payment cannot be enforced, 162. Schism, 1G2. Separation, 163. Temporalities, 163. Trusts, 103. 127 ii's 'I'm; ri\ 1 1, LAW AM) 'I'm; ciii keif()i-ined. That is a matter of which the ecch'siastical authorities will take cog- nizance. But in settliuj^ a sclieiue for tlie regulation of such a charily, tlie court must, at least, take care tliat the person bv wliom the ecclesiastical duties ought to be per- formed is in sucli a situation that he may perform them. AttoT'uey rn')i('ial v i^niithies, 1 Keen, (Enji". ) 289. Church Arbitration Conclusive. A minister and his parish submitted a controversy to an ecclesiastical counsel. The issue involved charges of immorality against the minister. These charges were not sustained bj' the counsel. After- ward the minister brought an action against the parish for a portion of his salaiy and the parish sought by a bill of discovery to reopen and reexamine the issues submitted to the ecclesiastical counsel, but it was held that the award of the counsel was conclusive and could not be made the subject of an inquiry in the civil courts. I'roprietors v Pierpont, 48 Mass. 49G. Church Judicatories, when Action Final. When it appears that the whole controversy had once been submitted bj' the parties to the ecclesiastical tribunal which the church itself has organized for that purpose, the civil courts are justified in refusing to proceed any further. The decision of the church judicatory should then be treated as a bar to the action and a good defense in law. A priest or min- ister of an}- church, by assuming that relation, necessarily subjects his conduct in that capacity to the laws and cus- toms of the ecclesiastical body from which he derives his oflBce, and in who.se name he exercises his functions; and when he submits questions concerning his rights, duties, and obligations as such priest or minister to the proper churcli judicatory, and they have been heard and decided CI\IL CULKTri li.".) according to the prescribed forms, such decision is binding upon him and will be respected by civil courts, lie can always insist, of course, that his civil or property rights as an individual or citizen shall be determined according to the law of the laud, but his relations, riglits, and obligations arising from his position as a member of some religions body may be determined according to the laws and piocc dure enacted by that body for such purpose. iJa.xtci v McDonnell, 155 N. Y. cS:{. Where a local church organization is a mend)er of a gen- eral organization, having i-nies for the government and con- duct of all its adherents, congregations, and oHiccis, ilie judgments of tlie general organization, throngii its govern- ing authority, so long as they relate exclusively to church affairs and church cases, are binding upon such Ideal organ izations, and Avill not be reexaminod by the coinls. IJon- acum V Harrington, 05 Xeb. 8:51. In all ecclesiastical matteis the courts are bound by the decision of the ecclesiastical tribunal. Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church, Xoiwich v Harris, T.'l Conn. I'HI. Courts will not review judgments oi- acts of the govern- ing authorities of a religious organization with reference to its internal all'airs, for the pnrjiose of ascertaining their regularity or accordance with the discii)line and usages of such organization. It can make no dill'erence whether the governing authority of a religious denomination is con tided to one man or to a syiu)d or conference, nor whether the mode of proccdui-e jtermitted to such person is in accord with the ornt the nieiiibers of these liodies h;i\t' the same right as those of oilier \oIiiiil;iiy ass(M-ialioiis of pei'- i:;(» Tin: cin il i,.\w and 'I'iii; cm ijcii sons luriiH'il I'nr »li;i ri hililc ;iii(i li('iic\ ((lent piii|»«)S('s, to seek llic :iiil ol' cixil courts to prcvciil ;i diversion of its property from tlic uses :iihI Inisis lo which it vvjis (h'votcd, and to sccni'c lo tlic nicndx'i's the cnjoynuMit of the rij^hts of nieni- hcisliip in respect to the nse of the jM'opei'tv. It, therefore, sometimes hecomes necessary I'oi" the civil courts, for the pur|»ose of detei-mininj;' pro|>erl_v rij^hts of niemlu'i's, to pass upon (pM'stions which are ecclesiastical in their nature. Fulhright v IIi<(i)lication to the case before them. I'ounder v Ashe, 44: Nebr. Ke. (>7-!, followed in Powers V Bundy, 45 Neb. 208. The utter impolicy of the civil courts attempting to inter- fere in determining matters which have been passed upon in church tribunals, arising out of ecclesiastical concerns, is apparent. It would involve them in ditticulties and conten- tions, and impose uj)on them duties which are not in har- mony with their proper functions. Before a court could give an enlightened juyt(My acipiii-cd no title to the office, and lli;it the hnstees cliosen by a body coni|M»sed of i::l» 'I'lii: I*a. St. 152; see also Windham v T'lmer, 51) So. (Mis.s.) 810 (Baptist Church). The civil courts will not enter into the consideration of church doctrine or church discipline, nor will they inquire into the regularit}' of the proceedings of the church judi- catories having cognizance of such matters. To assume such jurisdiction would not only be an attempt by the civil courts to deal with matters of which they have no special knowledge, but it would be inconsistent with com- plete religious libert}', uutrammeled by State authority. On this principle the action of church authorities in the deposition of pastors, and the expulsion of members, is final. Where, however, a church controversy necessarily involves rights growing out of a contract recognized by the civil law, or the right to the possession of property, civil tribunals cannot avoid adjudicating these rights, under the law of the land, having in view nevertheless the implied obligations imputed to those parties to the controversy who have voluutaril}' submitted themselves to the authority of the church by connecting themselves with it. Morris Street Baptist Church v Dart, 07 S. Car. 338. "Whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law, have been decided by the highest church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final and as binding on them in their application to the case before them." Trustees of Trinity M. E. Chu. v Harris, 73 Conn. 216. CIVIL COURTS 133 Civil Courts exercise uo ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It accepts what the highest ecclesiastical authority in each church promulgates as the faith and practice of that church. But the property rights of all churclies are within the pro- tection of the court. Mt. Helm Baptist Church v. -I ones, 7!> Miss. 488. This court (chancer}') does not sit as an ecclesiastical tribunal, or determine equality in tlic distrihntion of tlie alms or aids of tlie church or of its nicnibers. It has uo jurisdiction over such matters. It will not review in any manner the action of the authorities of the church, in respect to subjects within the exclusive jui-isdiction of the church or its appointed agencies. Stewart v Lee, 5 Del. Ch. 573. Church Judicatories, Limits of Judicial Review. Civil courts will not revise the decisions of churches or religious asso- ciations upon ecclesiastical matters, but they will interfere with such associations when i-ights of projx'i'ty or civil rights are involved. And when conti-ovcrsies of which the civil courts have jurisdiction arise in such Ixxlics tiie courts will inquire as to the ])urpose for which they were instituted, and the rule by which they are governed, and so far as prac- ticable, they will be given effect. I'arU v Chaplin, 90 la. 55. In the princii)al (Connitt) case the court expressed the opinion that in all cases of doubt, when there is not clearly absence of jurisdiction, the decisions of Church judicatories as to their own jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters shouhl receive great weight. Connitt v Kef. rrotcstnul Dutch Church, 54 N. Y. 551. The Civil Courts cannot review the decisions of ect Icsias- tical judicatories in matters jtroperly within their prov- ince under the constitution and laws or regulations <»!" the church. When property rights are involved in the decisions of the church judicatories, such decisions may be reviewed by the civil courts, when i)roi)erly brought heloic them. Landis v Cami)l)ell, 7!> Mo. VSA. While the civil tribunal caniint (listnilt ilie ad ion of l.'.l 'IMir; CIS IL LAW AM* Tin; CIHKCII fliiiicli (•(•lilts ii|)()ii mailers |»iii('l_v rclij^ioiis, still civil tri- bunals, as a matter of rij^lit and justice, based upon prin- ciple and antliorily can int("rfore, and rejudj^e tlie juflj^nienls of spirit inil courts wiiere j)roperty beloni^inj; to cliurcli or<;anizations and dedicated for relij^ious jjurposes had been taken from its members by the mere aibitiary will of those constituting; the judicatures of such organizations without rearties. Connitt v Ref. Protestant Dutch Church, 54 N. Y. 551. AVIiile the courts of this State have no ecclesiastical juris- diction whatever, yet they are charged with the duty, and CniL COrKTS 185 clothed with the juiisfliction of in-olectiiij:; jn-operty rights of lelij^ious societies, corpoiatioiis, jnid cliurclies, as well as that of individuals, and thereby of necessity, they may be compelled to decide a question of ecclesiastical law when that law becomes a fact ui)on which i)ioi)erty rights depend. Smith et al v I'edigo et al 145 Ind. oGl. "It is not the province of temporal courts to assume ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The decisions of jtroper church tribunals must be accei)ted as conclusive, and aw not sub- ject to review." Ai>i>lying this rule, it was held in Auracher V Yerger, DO Iowa 5.")S, that the api)ointnienl of a i)lace for the meeting in 1801 of the General Conference of the I'^van- gelical Association of North America in accordance with the action taken by the General Conference of 18S7, referring the question of the place to the board of publication, was merely an ecclesiastical matter which involved no jiroperty or civil rights, and over which the highest judicatory of the church has supreme control. The civil courts have jurisdiction only in case of a perver- sion of trust; on matters of form and discipline, the decision of the supreme authority of the church is binding on the courts. Griggs v Middaugh, 10 Ohio Dec. (>4.'J. It is the settled law of this country that the judgments of the judicial tribunals of church organizations ui)on matters of faith and discipline, and the general polity and tenets of the chur-ch are binding ui)on the civil courts. Civil courts will not interfere in tliese controversies, even in cases where rights of property are involved, except in the case of a clear and pali»able violation of trust. The (pieslion here involved is one of ownership of jn-ojterty. These proceedings are instituted to recover ])ossession and control of that projterty. In this class of cases the conclusive etVect of church authority, acting within the scojie of its powers, is fully recognized by all the cases, and it is as well settled that civil courts will not review the decisions of en the nicrils; I»ul ilie prctposilion that the judgments of clnncli judioiiiuit's as to ilicii- own powers i;;(; Tin: ("i\ il law and tiii; cm hch ur jiiiisdict ion, or llir l;i\\ I iilnrss ol' llicii- iiicl hods, Jirc (-(tli- cliisivc, is iiol siisIiiIikmI I>_v rciisori or llic weight of au- lliorily. lU'-.iv v llcaslcy, !>S Midi. L'7I). Civil couils ill arelicr. 1 Speer's lOq. (S. (\) S7. That civil co\ir1s will not undertake to exercise any eccle- siastical authority, or to review i)roceedings of church courts upon questions which involve matters of discii»line or the application or enforcement of their own laws, is well settled in this country. Clark v Brown, lOS S. W. (Texas) 421. Civil courts will not set aside the decrees and orders of ecclesiastical courts, involving the construction of their own articles of faith or discii)line. Fnchs v Moisel. 1()L' Mich. 357. In New York the legal or temporal triininals do not pro- fess to have any jurisdiction whatever over the (linnli as such, except so far as necessary to jtrotect the cix il rights of others and to preserve the public peace. All cinesiions relai ing to faith and ])ractice of the church and its menduMs belong to the church judicatories to \\hich they have volun- tarily subjected themselves. It nnisl i»e a plain and pal pable abuse of j)Ower which will indnce a com t to intei-fere as to any dispute growing out of religi(Mis or sedai-ian con- troversies. A civil judge should not assnnie llie responsi bility of deciding upon the coi redness of ilie religions i;;s riii; cix IL law ANh Tin: cm Kcii (cncls (»r ollicis, cillicr in nutlcrs ol' fjiilli or ollierwise. Ii;i|>(iN( (Minrcli, Ilnrllonl v Willicrcll, :; I'iiij^e Cli. (N. Y.) 2! Mi. Civil Irilniiiiils will iiilcircic in niattors coniKicted with disjnitcs or ((tiilcsls jirisinj; out of thingH ecclesiaHtical, only, liowcvtM-, in so far as it is necessarj' to ascertain if the governing body has exceeded its power, or, in other words, has acted wilhin the scope of its authority. Batterson v Thonii»soii, 8 Phila. (I'a.) 251. Dillerences of opinion as to local church management arose in the society, resulting in the formation of two parties, one of which adhered to the pastor in office who had been chosen to this position, and put in possession of the property. A question as to the local situation was pre- sented to the presbytery, from which it appeared tliat the presbytery recommended that the pastoral relation be sus- pended, and that, in view of the differences in the local society, his longer continuance in the office of pastor was unwise. He was reelected to the office of pastor, as a stated supply for two years, but it was claimed that this meeting was irregular and void, for the reason that several persons were denied the ])rivilege of voting. The pastor's party pro- tested against the action of the presbytery in recommending the discontinuance of his service, and they withdrew from the i)resbytery. The i)resbytery thereupon declared that this withdrawal amounted to a secession of this party, and that the renuiining members constituted the true local church. The civil courts declined to entertain jurisdiction to determine this (piestion on the gi-ound that the ecclesias- tical bodj' having jurisdiction must be presumed to have decided correctly, and the question could not be reviewed by civil tribunals. Gatf v Greer, SS Ind. 122. Civil Rights Only. Civil courts in this country have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction. They cannot revise nor question ordinary acts of church discipline, and can only interfere in church controversies where civil rights or the rights of prop- erty are involved. Where a civil right depends upon some cr\'iL coT'irrs v.v.) matter pertaining to ecclesiastical allaii-s, the civil trihiinal tries the civil right, and nothing more, taking the ecclesias- tical decisions, out of which the civil right has arisen, as it finds them, and accepting those decisions as matters adjudicated by another jurisdiction. The civil courts act upon the theory that the ecclesiastical conrts are the best judges of merely ecclesiastical (picstions. aiid of all matters which concern the doctrines and discipline of the respective religious denominations to which they belorig. Wiiite Lick Quart. Meeting, etc.. v White Lick Quart. Meet, etc., 8!) Ind. 136. See also Lamb v Cain, ll't) Ind. 48(1. While the courts will decide nothing affecting the ecclesi- astical rights of a church, yet its civil i-ights to projierty are subjects for their examination, to be determined in conform- ity to the laws of the land, and the principles of equity. Ferraria v Vasconcelhts, 2:5 111. 45t;, 31 111. 1. Prickett v Wells, 117 Mo. 502 involved several (lucslions arising from a division of the society, resulting in a claim of title and possession of two parties. The court asserted the general rule that civil courts will not interfere with the affairs of a religious society where only (piestions of t(Mlioii. M;ii-i«'ii V I'yVim<,M'li(;il Ci-ccd ('oiij^i-cgation, Mil- \ViniU«'r. 1:52 Wis. (inO. The civil courts will interfere with churches and religious ;isso(i;i lions when riglits of proj)erty or civil rights are involved. Bill Ihcy will not revise the decisions of such associations npon ecclesiastical matters, merely to ascertain tlieii* jni'isdiclioti. Chase v Cheney, 58 111. 500. The only gronnd ujton which the supreme court can exer- cise any jurisdiction, to restrain the bishop from prosecut- ing a sentence of an ecclesiastical tribunal against a clergy- man, by pronouncing judgment of disj)Iacement from the ministry, is that the threatened action of the defendant may affect the civil rights of the plaintiff, for the protection of which he has a ju'oper recourse to the civil courts, namely, exemption from taxation, and the performance of certain civil duties. Conceding that this is sufficient ground for the action of the court, the only cognizance which it will take of the case is to inquire whether there is a want of jurisdiction in the defendant to do the act which is sought to be restrained. The court will not review the exercise of any discretion on the part of the bishop, nor inquire whether his judgment, or that of the subordinate ecclesiastical tri- bunal, is justified by the truth of the case. It will only inquire whether the bishop has the power to act; not whether he is acting rightly. Walker v Wainright, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 486. The right of civil courts to interfere in ecclesiastical matters is considerably limited. The general rule is that such right exists only where there are conflicting claims to church property, or funds or the use of them, where civil rights are involved. Rector St. James Church v Hunting- ton, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 31. The civil courts will not revise the decisions of churches or religious associations upon ecclesiastical matters, but they will interfere with such associations when rights of property or civil rights are involved. Bird v St. Mark's Church, Waterloo, 62 la. 567. CI VI J. COURTS 141 See Westiuiiister ri'esbvteriaii ('lunch of W. L'lJnl St. v Findley, -il Misc. ( N. Y.) ]7.'*>, lor a stateineiif ol" the rule that civil courts will not interfere in ecclesiastical matters unless there are conliictinj; claims to church j)roi)erty or funds, or the use of them, or where civil rights are involved. ''Courts of justice in this State (Louisiana) sit to enforce civil obligations only, and never attemjtt to exercise juris- diction over those of a spiritual charactci-." Ali-ican Meth- odist Episcopal Church v Clark, 25 La. Ann. I'Si*. Secular courts are powerless to ]»ass upon (piestions of ditt'erence between contending factions of a church congivga- tion, except in so far as property riglits are involved. Chris- tian Church of Sand Creole v Church of (Mu-ist of San 'i'lii; .in kcii Cliiircli \ Il:iiris. 7:'. Coim. L'HI, it wjis held lliat tin; aclioii (»r l'.islio|> W'aMcii ((Hisolidatiiiji three Methodist l']pisc(»|)al eh III* lies ill Xoiw icli, ('(Mill., niidcT a lunv name was a matter of ecelesiaslical law and pi-aartme!it of the government to settle ditl'erences in creeds, and the courts ought not to arrogate to themselves the jtower to restrain or control the free exercise of any, so long as this shall be harmless. It is not for them to determine what ought or ought not to be an essential element of religious faifh. State of Iowa v Amana Society. 1.S2 la. 804. Criterion. Before civil authority the question is, not which party has the authority, but which is right according to the law bv whicli the bodv has hitherto consented to be CIVIL COURTS 143 governed. The majority may direct and control consistently with the particular and {general laws of the organization, but not in violation of them. Sutter v Kef. Dutch Ch. (5 Wright (Pa.) 508. Cumberland Presbyterian Church. The (jencral AssiMiihly of the Cumberland I'resbyterian Church had jtower, ujjon the approval of two thirds of the jjrcsbyteries represented in it, to change the Confession of Faith. An action having been taken whereby it was declared that the change made in the Confession of Faith of the mother church (Presbyte- rian Church of United States) removed all obstacles to reunion and union of the two bodies, that decision is linal ui)on the civil courts. The General Assend)ly of the <'>unber- land Church had authority to determine from the provisions of the constitution whether it had the jtower to enter into the union with the Presbyterian Church, and having decided that it had such authority, and having acted u])oii tliat decision, the civil courts have no power to review that action. The General Assend)ly, tlic highest court of the church to whicli the decision of these questions is committed, decided that all practical ditferences between the articles of faith of the two churches had l)een eliminated, and there existed no reason why the union should not be elfected. That court had exclusive jurisdiction of the question, and having decided it, tliere is no ground for action by this court. The court stated the same rule as to the admission of Kegroes to participate in cert;iin ]»roceedings in conrls of the Presbyterian Clnircli. wliidi practice was not per- mitted by the Cumberland ('lini»Ii. Tills (|neslion conld not be reviewed by tlie civil c(»iirts. Hrown v Clai-k. 10- Texas :\2:i. Fussell v Hail, -;'>:; 111. 7;'.. was an action brctnglit lo restrain the General Assend)ly of the Cumberland I'l-esby- terian Church from consummating a proposed union with the Presbyterian Church according to negotiations initiated in 11)08, and ajiparently ratified in P.ion. The nbje( I of the bill is to have a court of cliancei-y, by its process, assume 1 II i'lii: ('i\iL i-A\v AM) 'I'lii; roperty rights. They have no jurisdic- tion of i-cligious or ecclesiastical controversies. Religious freedom cannot be maintained if tlie civil courts may inter- fere in matters roceedings of its i;(»veining bodies. The civil courts afford no remedy for any abuse of ecclesiastical authority which does not follow a civil or [troperty right. Church tribunals ought to perform their lunctious honestly, impartially, and justly, with due regard to their constitutional powers, sound nH)i'als, ami the rights of all who are interested; but if tyranny, fraud, opi)ressiou, or corrui)tiou prevail, no civil remedy exists for such abuse, excei)t where it trenches upon some ]»roperty or civil right. The ordiuaiy courts have no cogni/ance of the rules of a religious organization or other voluntary association, and cannot consider whether they have been rightly or wrongly applied. See also the article on the (Mnnberland I'resbyterian Church. Diversion of Church Funds. In Gable v Miller. 10 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) G27 it was held that the court of chancery had jurisdiction to prevent a diversion of the temporalities of a church from the purposes for which they were given by the donors, and to re(]uire them to be apjn-opriated to the sup- l»ort of that form of worshij) and to the teaching of those doctrines for which they were originally intended. Diversion of Property. When an ecclesiastical organiza- tion acquires property by deed or will, or other instrument, and the instrument in expre.ss terms, provides that the prop- erty shall be devoted to the teaching, support, and spread of some specilic form of doctrine or belief, the civil courts have authority to interfere in the affairs of the organization lor the [)urpose of preventing a diversion of the property from the use to which it was. bv the instrument, devoted. ClA'lL CUL'KTS 115 But wLere property is acqiiiied l)y an ectlesiaslical (jigaii izatiou, aiid tlieiv is iiolhing in the insli'imuMit iindcr wliicli the title passes lo the orgaiiizalion. or lo inistets in its behalf, whicli inii>()ses a limitation n|ton tlie uses to which the propeily shall l»e devoted, it is to be presumed that it was the iutenli (la. 1. Doctrine. In all matters of laitli ;iiid dociiine chnrches are left to speak for themselves. When rights of property are iu question civil courts will iiupiire whether the organic rules and forms of proceeding prescribed by the ecclesias- tical body have been followed, and if followed, whether they are in conflict with the law of the laml. A priest in the Kouuin Catholic Church, who i-eceives no staled salaiy. hnt derives an income from pew rents, Snnday collections, snb- scrijdions, and olferings h;is :i prctperty. in these sources of income. His profession is his property, ami the priest was not (udy deju-ived of his right of properly as jtastor <»r that particular church, but he was also prohibited from exercis- ing any pastoral functions as a means of sniqiort elsewhere. O'Hara v Stack, 1)0 l*a. St. 477; bnl see this (ase on appeal in 1)8 l*a. 213, where the foregoing decision is e.\|.lained. In People v Steel, 2 Barb. (N. V. i :!lt7. the ln';id note con tains the statement th.it c(»uits can only iiKpiire into the 1 h; tiii; cinil law and Tin: ciii kcii IciH'ts ]H(»iiiiil;r;i((Ml in ;i pjiil iciilar clnircli, in connoction with ;i y\'^\\{ <»!' in-opcily, «»r ii trnst io be iMiniinisfcicd. 'I'licy li;i\<' no iiowcr to dt'lciininc .is to llic s(i-i|»t ur;ii linlli (»r I Intsc lends. Tlic conils of lliis roiinli-y li;iv«' no powci- to dcierniine lor i('li<;ions Ixxlics ecclesiastical or doctiinal ijuestions, and they have never evinced a disposition to invade that domain, and will only iiupiire into such questions when propeity rij^hls become involved and are the subject of lit- ij^ation, and then only so far as to determine those rijjhts. I'eace v First Christian Church. ^McCJrej^or, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 85. Civil courts will deal with questions of church doctrine and beliels oidy in so far as it becomes necessary so to do to determine civil rights. Where a dispute arises as to which of two bodies represents a particular church in trust for which property has been granted, a question of ecclesiastical identity arises, and those who claim that the trust has been violated must show that their oj)ponents have so far de- lta rted from the fundamental princii)les of the church in question as to be in effect no longer members thereof. Itter V Howe, 2;? Out. Aj.p. Rej). 25G. It would be an unseemly thing for the secular courts to assume to themselves the right to decide in the first instance whether a certain doctrine or tenet of faith possessed and lu-acticed by one religious organization was contrary to the organic and fundamental doctrines and creed of another religious organization. "Wehmer v Fokenga. 57 Neb. 510. If church property is intended to be used to promote the teaching of jKirticular religious doctrines and an attem|»t is made to divert such properly to the support of ditferent doctrines, civil courts should interpose for the purpose of carrying such trusts into execution according to the inten- tion of the donors; and in case of a clear violation of such a trust the courts are bound to interfere on the application of a minoiity against a majority of the congregation. Miller CIVIL COUKTS 147 V Gable, 2 Deu. (N. Y.) 4!J2. Appaieully reversiii-,' 10 I'aige (N. Y.) 027, but see note iu Deuio p. 570. It is not within the province of courts to (leteriuine which of two factions is right from a biblical or theological point of view, nor which conforms to the faith originally adopted by the church, except when that is in exi)licit terms made a condition of the donation. First Baptist Church, Paris v Fort, 93 Tex. 215. Wliile adherence to the doctrines ali(atioii eoiiteniplates, that what is accord in^ to or consisteni with the particidar doctrine shall he determined hy some religions jndicatory, tlie determination of snch jndicatory, dnly nnide, when th(; matter is |»roperly l>rouj!,lit before il, is conclnsive on tlie civil conrts. Trustees, I'^ast Norway J.,ake Norwegian I'-yan^elical Lntlieran C'luirch, and otlxM-s v llalvorson, 42 Minn. r)0.'5. Differences of opinion having- arisen on doctrinal ques- tions and as to church government, the majority expelled the minority. This action was sustained, and it was hehl that there was no right of appeal to civil courts. Bennett v Morgan, 1 12 Ky. ~)\'2. Bowie's Successor. In Lewis v Voliva, 154 111. App. 48, the court declined to consider the (piestion as to who was tlie rightful successor to John Alexander Dowie as the leader of tlie Cliristian Catholic Apostolic Church of Zion founded by him. Two persons claimed the leadership by virtue of an alleged apixtintment l)y Mr. Dowie as his successor. The court said that if there was an organized body of persons who constituted the church, it must be left for that body to determine this ijuestion in accordance with its laws and usages, free from interference by the courts. The court held that there was no property (piestion involved in the case. Ecclesiastical Questions. It would be quite unseemly as well as detrimental to the best interests and harmony of religious socii'ties if courts should interfere with their in- ternal alVaiis when no properly rights are involved, sinqdy because the i*egularity of their i)roceedings may be open to question by some di.saffected |>arly. People ex rel Blomquist V Nappa. SO Mich. 4S4. Civil tribunals cannot n'\ise or question ordinary acts of CIVIL COURTS 149 cburcli discipline or excision, but iii;i,v decide coiiUictiuj^ claims of the parties to the church projterty, and the use of it. Shannon v Frost, 42 Ky. 25.*!. As to the rule that civil courts will not interfere in eccle- siastical matters, see Kodf^ers v Burnett, 108 Tenu. 173 fol- lowing Nance v Bushby, \)\ Tenn. :'A)7). See Chase v Cheney, 58 111. 5(1!) lor a discussion of the principles ai)plied by civil couits in considering questions relating to ecclesiastical a Hairs. The case reiterates tiie doctrines frequently cited in lliese notes. See this case also page v>04 for a collection of anthorities relating to the juris- diction of civil courts in ecclesiastical matters. Elections. Courts of law will interpose to control the proceedings of ecclesiastical bodies when a right to j)roperty is involved, but in no other instances. A court of law will inquire into the regularity of the election of trustees of a religious cor])oration, to whom the property of the corjjora- tion is committed, and will determine the qualifications of the voters who are allowed to vote at such an election. It will also, when the right to jiropertj' is in issue, institute an inquiry into the doctrines and opinions of a religious society as facts upon which the ownership of proi)erty may depend. But with resj)ect to s])irilual matters, ami the administra- tion of the si)iritual and tem]>oral affairs of the church, not afifecting the civil rights of individuals or the property of the corporation, the ecclesiastical courts and governing bodies of the religious society have exclusive jurisdiction, and their decisions are final. A court of law will not interfere with the rules of a voluntaiy religious society adopted for the regulation of its own alVairs, unless to pro- tect some civil right which is infringed by tlieir operation. Livingston v Trinity Chni-ch, Trenton, 45 N. J. Law 'SAO. In Michigan it was held tliat a ( onrt could not inquire into the regularity of an election of a deacon in the l»utch Keformed Church of Holland. Attorney (Jeneral ex rel Ter Vree v Geerlings, 55 ^lich. 5()2. Expulsion of Members. Considering a (luestion relating to ir,() Till: (IN' II. LAW AND '11 Ii: (III KCII llic cxiMilsioii (if ;i iiH'iiihci' (iC llir lt;i|ilist ("iiiircli :it Moss i'niiil, Mississip|ii. Ilic coiirl snid tiiis society w;is a piirf ilciiMM-racv. Its (N'Icriiiinatioii of (|ii<'stioiis of doctriiK; aii'l ()vernnient must be free fnun all ecclesiastical interfei-ence, and tlie Cliurcli of Jesus f'hrist, except in ju-operty rights, is not to be controlled by Stah; authority. J>ees v 3Ioss Point Baptist Churcli, 17 So. Kep. 1. (Miss.). Courts cannot and will not supervise or review the action of any religious society as to whether in excluding- members they acted wrongfully or justly. Iglehart v Kowe, 20 Ky. L. kep. 821. ''AVe cannot decide wiio ought to be members of the church, nor whether the excommunicated members have been jiislly or unjustly, regularly or ii-regularly cut off from the body of the church. We must take the fact of exjtulsion as conclusive proof that the persons expelled are not now members of the re])udiating church; for, whether right or wrong, the act of excommunication must, as to the fact of membership, be law to this court. Having once associated themselves with many others, as an organized band of ])ro- fessing Christians, they thereby voluntarily subjected them- selves to the disciplinary and even exj)ulsive power of that body. The voice of the majority has ]»revailed against them. They by that tiat of their nuMubership ceased to be members of that association, and with the loss of their membershi]) they have lost all the privileges and legal rights to which, as members, they were ever entitled. Their only remedy is, therefore, in their own bosoms, in a consciousness of their own moral rectitude, and in the consolations of that reli- gious faith and those Christian graces which, under all temporal trials, will ever sustain the faithful Christian and adorn the jiathway of his earthly pilgrimages." Bethany Cong. Ch. V Morse. 1.~>1 Iowa 521. Cited Hendryx v People's CIN'IL CUUKTS 151 United Cluucli, 42 Wash. o'Mi and Shaiiiioii \ Frost, :\ 13. Mon. (Ky.j 25:{. l*eople V Ki-iste Ulaszkoweer Kraiikeii riitcistut/iinj^s Verein, 50 Misc. (N, Y.) ;;04, 57 Misc. «ii', consideis the power of civil courts to review and revise the action of religious societies, asserting tlie general rule of noninter- ference, but an excei)tion was applied in this case because the societ}^ was also a benevolent or benefit society, with sjtecial ])r()visions for the welfare of its members; theivfore the court assumed jurisdiction to determine the validity of the expulsion of a member. If it api)ears that there is a fi-audulent scheme to ex])e\ meud)ers so as to obtain control of the i>roi)erty of the organ- ization and divert it from its original channel, the law will not ])ermit the fraud to be consummated. Notwithstand- ing the rule of the organization to ])ermit an expulsion in proi)er cases, there is an implied obligation or contract that the members will be fairly treated, and that good faith will be maintained between them. Courts will not assume to decide purely ecclesiastical questions, and sul)stitute their views for the views of the ecclesiastical aulhorities oi- judi- catories. If mend)ers are ex]»elled for a fraudulent jmrpose to carry out a fraudulent sciienie. the expulsion is a void act, an\'asli. :j:;(i. Friends, Form of Government. In Field v I'ieli'operty, ami whiih does not in- fringe the personal rights of others, which may .veem to i.vj 'I'm; (IN II. LAW A.xh 'riii; rin k<"ii him ri^'lil ;iml |»n»|»ci-, willmiil ;iii\ iiit('i-r('|-fii<-(! Iroiii I luj coiirls. Tlic l;i\v rccojiiiizcs the li^lil of the peoi)le to organ- ize voliiiitiirv r('ii;;i()us associal ions, to assist in the dis- sciiiiiialion of any and all relijjjions doctrines, with the excep- tions ahove named, and to create tribunals loi- the decision of clace was resisted by certain nuMubers of the < hurch. The destruction of the memorial building was held to in\(ilve a r ('([uity. (Mislinum v CImiicIi of tlic (lood Slicidici-d, HJ2 Pa. SI. 1»S(). Members, Status. Tlio vi^lit l«> a sliai-c in llic ^ovcT-miicnt <>r a (•(»r|»()rali(»ii is a civil iij;lil wliicli llui law will piotcct, and Ilic (onrls will llierefore (letcnnine who aic nicinbers of llic coi-poj-alioM. And where, as is usually the case with local chui'ch oT-<;aui/,alions, all the aoration — must determine on mem- bership in the relij;ious body, the congregation. It must determine this by the rules which the congregation has ad(>pted for its nuMnbershi]). If the rules make adherence to jiarticular doctrines a condition of membershii), then, so long as those rules continue, the repudiation of such do* - trines would seem to determine a member's right to remain in the congregation. Trustees, East Norway Lake Nor- wegian Evangelical Lutheran Church and others v Halvor- son, 4:5 Minn. 50.^. On a ([uestion relating to membership in the corporation, it Mas held that while the statute indicated who might become members of the cor))oration, it did not determine the (pmlifications of clinnh mend)ers. l*arties interested in the controversy must first exhaust their remedies in the church judicatories before civil courts would consider the ([uestions involved. Buettner v Frazer, 100 ^lidi. 17!>. Where differences of opinion arose in a local society on doctrinal (|iu\stions a!id church government, and the nmjor- ity expelled the minority, this action was held to be final and conclusive, and was binding on the courts, Bennett v Morgan, 112 Kv. r)12. CIVIL COrKTS 155 The civil couit will iiol det-ide who oiiyht to be nieiubei-s of a diurth, nor whctlier the persons have been regularly or irregularly exconiniunicated. The fact of exconininnication must be taken a.s conclvisive jtroof that the persons excluded are not members, but conrts may Incpiire whether the reso- lution of ex]>ulsion was the act of the s, 5 Del. Cli. llMl, llic ronrl declined to consider the (in('s(i(»ii of I lie statns of the itMlor of a Trotestant lOpiscojtal church. The relation of a rector to the church is to be determined by the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese. Considering the status of a minister of the Mcth«tany v Bradford, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 50!J. Noninterference. In the absence of a valid legal contract tiie courts are prohibited to compel the payment of a min- ister's salary or contributions for the support of the min- istry or the church. In accordance with the principles of ecilic form of religious doctrine or belief; the second, where it is held by, or in trust for, an independent congregatiou ; aud the third, where it is held by, or iu trust for, a congregation or other association subor- dinate to some general church organization, llorsman v Allen, 129 Cal. 131. The questions which have come befoi-e the civil courts con- cerning the rights to jtroperty held by ecclesiastical bodies have been dividero])erty which is the subject of controversy has been by deed or will, of the donor, or other instrument by which the i)roi)erty is held, by the express terms of the instrument, devoted to the teaching. sup|)ort or spread of some specific form of religious doctrine or belief; second, to property held by a religious congregation which by the nature of its organization is strictly independent of other ecclesiastical associations, and so far as church government is concerned owes no fealty oi* obligation to iiny higher authority; third, to cases of property held by a religions congregation or ecclesiastical ImmIv, which is a sniiordinate mend)ei' of some general clmrtli org;nii/.ii(ion in whidi there are sujterior ecclesiastical tribunals, with general ultimate ])owers of control, more oi- less coni]dele. in some supreme judicatory over the whole nieinbcisliip of that general organ- ization, l.andt V C;iin, 12'.) hid. ISC. Property Rights. TIm' jtei-sonal iind |.i.)|mmi\ iii:liis of ir.s 'nii: ri\ il i,.\\\ and 'iiii; ciii i;5 Ind. 198. Courts have nothing immediately to do with religious societies so far as relates to their spiritual concerns, church government, disci])line, faith, doctrines or modes of worship. These are matters which are to be left to the regulation of CIVIL COURTS l.VJ their own ]>ec'nliar tribunals and the ecclesiastical judica- tories of each churcli. lint courts have power to inquire info tenets openly and publicly expressed in reference to the i»lace in which they are ])roniuljiated. Where a relijiious society is foi'iued, a jilacc of W(»islii|( jjrovidcd, and either by the will of the founder, the deed ol trust through which the title is held, or by the charter of incorporation, a i)articular doctrine is to be ])i-eaclu'd in the place, and the latter is to be devoted to such ])articular doctrine and service, in such a case it is not in the power of the trustees of the conjjjrega- tion to depart from what is thus declared to be the object of the foundation or original formation ol' tlie instituti(»ii, and teach new doctrines, and set nj* a new nntde of worsiiij) there. At least this cannot be done williout the consent of all the members of the church or congregation, because it would be an infraction of the will of the founder, be contrary to the spirit of the deed, or act of incorporation, and a j>er- version of the original object and design of its institution. Upon the complaint of any i»arty aggrieved it may be made the duty of this court to inciuire int<> the docti'ines taught, with a view to ascertain whether there is such a departure, and to restrain and bring them back to the original ])riTi- cil»les of faith and doctrine if they will continue to \\(»r ship in that jdace. Kowden \- MtLcod, I IMw. (Mi. i \. \.) The civil coui-ts have no jtowci-, unih'i' tlie » oust itni ions by which they exist, in this conntiy, to inlenncddh' with rrli- gio\is matters |»urely as such, or to assume t(t settle for con- tending ]»arties in churches any question of d<»ctrine. dis- cii)line, or organization. These are tilings wholly ajiarl and aside fi-om the |»aths to which civil courts are ac|teity, the tillc, rii;lii (tf possession, or use, that (piesli(»ii must be decided l>y the ci\il court. It KiO Tin: ("l\ II, LAW ANh Till; <'lirK<'If iniisl lie decided like ;iiiy oliici- (|ii«'sl ion. iict ordiii;^ (o the (•(»ii(i-;m( (HI wliicli tlie i-ij;li1 is Iciscd. In ordci- lo iisccrtain llic terms ul' tii:il coiil i;ic( , ;ind its line ((inst iinl ion, il may heconie ne<'<'ss;iry (o deeid(M'eeiesi;isli(;il or llieohtj^icjil ques- lioiis. ir sncli (pieslion lias iio( |»revio\isly heen decided l)y any trilninal williin liie clinicli organization, tlie civil court will decide it according- to the best lights attainable. If it lias been already decided by any ti'ibiinal of the church ap- |)r()])riate for its decisiou iiuder the contract, before the con- troversy arose on which the snbse([uent litigation was based, the civil court w ill j;ive that decision very great, if not con- trolling, weight. To give weight to a rule laid down, or an interjiretation rendered, by one of the parties to the contro- versy, after the controversy had arisen, would be abhorrent to every sense of right ; it would be tantamount to making one party a judge in his own case against the other. The civil court in deciding a proi)erty right should honor the deliverances of the ecclesiastical court with the greatest attention and resjtect, but should not follow it unciuestion- ingly in every case. If the civil court can see clearly and satisfactorily that the ecclesiastical court was in error, then it should say so anpears that the ecclesiastical tribunal is wrong it should not be followed. If the civil court looks wholly to the ecclesiastical courts for the settlement of the principle, or, as the case may be, the facts on which the CIVIL COURTS 161 right of property turns, llieu the loriiier i(Mirt. abilicalcs its functions in favor of the latter. Tlie civil court cauuot invade the sacred iiulosure of tlie churdi and assume tcj direct her teachings or tlie administration of her rites and ceremonies, or to hinder the imposition of her censures; but where property riglits are involved the church, as to Ihese, stands on the same plane with all other persons, natural and corporate, no higher, no lower. The law is over all. Land- rith V Hudgins, 121 Tenn. r>r)(l. While it may be true, that the religious belief of llie grantor should not be inquired into for the purpose of as- certaining the nature and extent of the trust (Attorney General v Pearson, 7 Sim. (Kng. 70S), yet it is clear, that the circumstances surrounding the making ami accept- ing of the conveyance, may be impiii-ed into for the purpose of ascertaining the object of the ti-ust. First Constitutional Presbyterian Church v C'ongregational So- ciety, 23 Iowa 5(;7. A question having arisen as to the right to « ontrol ciiiiith property, it was held that while as a general |iro|tosiiioM no man could be called in (piestion for his religious bclici", yet such an inquiry was constitutional in a case involving the title of church property depending on the belief, faith and doctrines of the society. The (juestion in this case was not one of conscience, but of i)roperly, and tberefore was a ])roper subject of judicial investigation. Kisor v Stancilt r. Wright N. P. (Ohio) ;J2:{. Courts deal with tangible i-iglils. n(»t wiili siiiriiiiai con- ceptions, unless they are incidental and neccssaiily involvd in the determination of legal rights. Holm v Holm. SI Wis. 374. In Trustees of the Organ .Meeting llonsc, v Sc;iloi-d. 1 Dev. Eq. (N. C.) 453, it was held that a court ofc(|nity wonbl not, upon a dispute respecting the title to (hunb pioperl\. decide a religions conti-oversy itetwcen its menili«is. The Wisconsin S\i|>renu" ConrI bas repeat«'dly discbiimetl all right to determine mere (pieslidiis of ImIiIi. doctrine, or h;l' Till'] cix II. LAW .\M» 'I'm: (IUkcii schism not iit'ccssjirily invohcd in llic ciilorcciiM-iit «»!' jisccr- tained trusts oi* the (Ictcniiiiuilioii of Ic^iil iij;lils; ;iii(l li;is also (lis(];iiiii(Ml any rif^ht to all iiilj'rrcrcncc willi incic church Wis. 391. Resulting Trust, Beneficiary. C(jui1s of law will not enter into the examination or er beneticiary of a resulting trust; but if the trust was created for the benctit of those adhering to a particular denomination, courts of law will accejit and follow the determination of the j)ro]>er ecclesiastical tribunals as to who are adhering and in subor- dination to that denomination. First Constitutional Presby. ChuT'ch V Con. So. L'.'! la. 5(i7. Salary, Payment Cannot Be Enforced. A tariff prescribed by a bishop of the Konuui Catholic Church may be binding on the conscience of those immediately affected by it, but resort cannot be had to courts of justice to enforce compli- ance. Discussing this question, the court said : "It appears from the eighth decree of the first provincial council, held in Baltimore in the year 1829, that the right reverend mem- bers of that body doubted whether the payment of the salary could be coei-ced in temporal courts; since they enjoined upon each bishop of the different dioceses of the United States to interdict everj' church to retain the whole or a part of the usual s;il;iry of the curate. The courts of justice of a State, in which the peojjle recognized no power of tax- ing thcni. in ;my branch of the goverumeut, but that in which Ihcy are rej»resented, cannot easily be persuaded to ackjiowledge the i)ower of fixing sums to be drawn from the pockets of suitors by the mandate of tlie pope, or of any bishop appointed by him." Church of St. Francis, Pointe Coupee V Martin, 4 Kob. (La.) 02. Schism. A court of equity will not attemi)t to enforce the particular faith or doctrines of either party, though their existence and nature may incidentally be involved in an CIVIL COTTRTS 1G3 inquiry relative to the rights of tlie society. K(jltiiiaii v Bartling, 22 Nebr. :i75. Separation. Civil courts in (Icterniiiiing the (juestion of legitimate succession, in cases where a separation has taken place in a voluntary religious society, will adopt its rules, and will enforce its policy in the .spirit :iinl to the elfecf tor which it was designed. Harrison v Iloylc. HI Ohio 2r)4. Temporalities. As regards the piirelv ecclesiastical or spiritual feature of the church, civil courts have steadily asserted their utter want of jurisdiction to hear and deter- mine any controversy ])ertair.ing lliereto. On the other hand, the civil courts have, without hesitation, exerci.sed their jurisdiction to i)rotect the teni]>oi-alities of the church. Christian Church, Huntsville v Sommer, 4:{ So. lAla.i S. Trusts. "A court of equity, under its general |)o\\er and duty to see that trusts are not perverted, and upon the apjdi- cation of i)ro])er parties, and U])0U i)roper issues, inav he obliged to inquire into the fact whether doctrines specially designated in a trust have been professed and promulgaleerly l>\ the h;i tiik otvtl law and tin; ciiiHrH ;icli(»ii (•!' .1 iii;iji»iil y oC I lie liciicliciiiliL's ; ;iii(l, il' llit'i'(; he :i iiiiiKiiily who ;nlliri(' l<> tlio onjjnnal principles, such ini- iiorily will be licM to (oinprise tlio oxcliisive lKMM'li use, and will see that it shall not be diverted from that trust. Bates v Houston, GO Ga. 198. Civil courts have power to consider questions relating to the alleged perversion of trusts by ecclesiastical bodies, and may in(piire whether an ecclesiastical body has, in its action, transcended its powers or jurisdiction as a legisla- tive, judicial, or executive body. Civil courts may look into and determine the (piestion wlietlier there has been, by the action of such a body, a substaiiti:il and evident departure in essential matters of faith, .since such action would affect the title to the i)r()j)eily held by the church for its uses. But such departure must be from essential faith, and must l)e obvious, and not reasonal)ly ojien to contioversy. The general rule is that the doctrinal decisions ami judi- cial constructions of a church constitution and legislation under it, of the highest judicatory of a cliurch. are binding upon the civil courts, and the latter liaving no power to review or reverse them. Griggs v Middangh, 10 Ohio Dec. 643. United Brethren in Christ. In Bear v llea.sley, 08 Mich. 279, considering the powers of the General Conference, the courts say that tlie General Conference is the highest judi- catory of the church, and is intrusted with llie general sn]»er- vision of its atfairs, botli temjioral ;ni«l spiritual. In all nuitters, therefore, in wliicli it Ims jurisdiction its judg- ments are binding njion tlie cliurcli. its clei-gy, and its mem- bers, anon the ])roc- laniation by the board of bishops, was ])ni-ely legislative and open to review in the civil courts, riiiloniatli College v Wyatt, L*7 0r. :{!)(). Worship and Doctrine. Civil courts have no jurisdiction to determine mere ecclesiastical questions. The Maryland court, therefore, declined to entertain jurisdiction and de- termine (juestions relating to the alleged violation by a Lutheran congregation of provisions in its articles of incor- I)oration, requiring the worship and service to be in the German language, and also recjuirfng ministers to hold to the Augsburg Confession and the Symbolical Books of 1580. The determination of these questions was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the ]»ro]>er authorities of the denomina- tion. Shaeffer v Klee, 100 Md. -G4; see also Ecclesiastical Courts. COMMUNITY SOCIETIES Amana Society, 1G7. Harmony Society, organization, IGS. Jehovah Presbytery of Zion, Preparation, Iowa, 170. Oneida Community, 171. Order of St. Jientnlict, 172. Separatists, 173. Shakers, 17/). Amana Society. This is a roliojons orj^anization. The preamble' to (he constitulioii, whicl) is (he ConiKlalioii oC all the articles of incorporation, recites the emigration of the Coninninity of True Tnsitiratioii from Gormaiiy to this country in 184:^, for the sake of civil and religious liberty; its settlement at Ebenezer, near Buffalo, New York, and removal therefrom to Iowa County, a(coriisistc(l ol' iilxxil I.Tril) iiMMiilM'rs, and it <»\\ii('(l ;il>oiit -0,225 acres of l;iii(l in Iowa and Jolinson ('(unities, of (he estimated value of ^H) an acre. There were seven villii<;es and nnnierons hnildin^^s devoted to manu- facture, besides a larj^e nunilxT of dwelling houses. The societ}' owned stock estiniate, and others, all their property as a free gift or donation, for the benefit and use of the association or community. The associates agreed to obey the laws of the society. It was further agreed tliat any associate who might desire to witlidraw should be at liberty to do so. but should not claim compensation for services. Ra])}) and others, constituting the leaders, agreed to supply the asso- ciates with the necessaries of life, including clothing, meat, drink, lodging, etc., for themselves and their families, con- COMMUNITY SOCIKTIKS 169 tinuing during life, iu sickuess as well as in healLli, aud including medical attendance. But if any i)erson should not be able to conijjly with the regnlatioiis of I lie society, he might withdraw, aud would be entitled to receive the value of the propertj' turned over to the association by liiiii with- out interest. B}' an earlier agreement, 1805, the signers transferred to George Rapp and his associates, all the property owned b}' the associates as a free gift, or donation, foi- the beiielit of the community in llarmouy, Pennsylvania, renouncing all their interest iu the property, and making it subject to the jurisdiction of the superintendent of the coiiimniiity to the same extent as if they had never owned it. Withdrawals were permitted, but without the right to claim property given to the society. In each of these articles Kapp and other leaders adopted the signers of the documents as mem- bers of the society, with the privilege of being present at all religious meetings. The agreement of ISO.") c(»ntaiiied substantially the same provisions as the agreement of 181'7. A similar agreement was nmde in 1821. The court said the association was not a partnership, and that the agreements were valid and not repugnant to any principle of modern law. In this action, brought by a per- sonal representative of one of the associates, against Kapp and others for an accounting, it was alleged that because the sub.scriber might, under the terms of the articles, with- draw the contributions map. The members were a.s.sociaietl and com- bined by the common belief that the goveinmeut ot the patri- archal aii-e, united to the comnnniilv of |)ropert\. a(»sll('s, would coimJikc' to iJi'oiuofo llicii" toiii|>oi;il ;iii(l «'t('iii;il Iijii)i)iiiess. The fouiiderH of the society sniTcinlcrcd jill llicir jiropciMy 1o tin* association for the foiiniioii benefit. The society was settled ori}j;iiially in Penn- sylvania, was removed in 1814 and 1815 to Indiana, and ajjnin in 1825 to Kconomy, in Pennsylvania. The organic law of the society in regard to their property is contained in two sections of the articles of association, adopted in 1827 by the associates, of whom the plaintifif was one. They are as follows : "All the property of the society, real, personal, and mixed in law or equity, and howsoever contributed and acquired, shall be deemed, now and forever, joint and indivisible stock; each individual is to be considered to have finally and irrevocably parted with all his former contributions, whether in laud, goods, money, or labor, and the same rule shall apply to all future contributions, whatever they may be. "Should any individual withdraw from the society, or depart this life, neither he, in the one case, nor his represen- tatives, in the latter, shall be entitled to demand an ac- count of said contributions, whetlier in land, goods, money, or labor, or to claim anything from the society as matter of right. But it shall be left altogether to the discretion of the superintendent to decide whether any, and. if any, what allowance shall be made to such member, or his representa- tive, as a donation." Baker et al v Nachtrieb, 11) How. (U. S.) 120, plaintiff settled with the connnunity and withdrew receiving a dona- tion, which was authorized by the ]ilan of government. He sought by this suit to recover a share of the property, but it was held that his previous settlement, not having been im- peached, was conclusive, and that he could not recover. For other cases involving various a.spects of the Harmony Society see Schwartz v Duss, 93 Fed. 521), 187 U. S. 8, Speidel V Henrici, 120 U. S. 'Ml. Jehovah Presbytery of Zion, Preparation. Iowa. This so- (X)MMrXlTV SOCIKTIKS 171 ciety, which embodies the (((iimmiiitv idcM. is noted in tin* artiele on Moi'inoiis. Oneida Community. This coiiiniunity was I'orined al Oueichi, New York, in the year ISIS. riaintiiV at tlie ajje of four years became a provisional niendter of the conininnity, and on reachin<; his majority lie rormally assente»l to its articles of covenant and remained a nuMnber nntil ISSt), when he left tbe service of the community and en^ajicd in other business. The administinlive connsel of the conininn- ity construed his conduct as a withdrawal and adopted a resolution accordinj>ly, which was contii-med by the com- munity at a family nieetinf>-. In ISS4 tiic jdaintill bcjian an action aj^ainst the community and a new corporation formed thei-efrom to ju-ocure a judjjnuMit, declaring; that he was still a member of the community. an4<^. Order of St. Benedict. This order was founded by St. Benedict in Italy about the year A. D. 525. A civil corpora- tion known as the order of St. Benedict of New Jersey was chartered in that State. Augustin Wirth became a member of the order at the monastery of St. Vincent in Pennsyl- vania in 1S52. In 1S8T Wirth transferred his stability from the abbey of St. Benedict in Kansas to the abbey of St. Mary in Newark, New Jersey, and therefore to the order of St. Benedict of New Jersey. Wirth died at Springlield, Miiiiu'sota, December IJ), 1901. It was held that he was a member of the New Jersey order at the time of his death. This action was brought by the New Jersey corporation to recover certain property^ held by Wirth at the time of his death, and which it was claimed belonged to the corporation by virtue of the vow of poverty taken by Wirth when he became a member of the corporation. Under this vow Wirth could not hold any ju-operty as his own; he was entitle.'ew Jersey, aiul not to his adniiiiistiator, nor to his heirs or next oi" kin, and that an action conld be main tained by the order to recover this property. The court also held that the contract inclnded in the vow of poverty was not void as allej^ed on tlie gronnd ol' jnihlic policy bnt was a valid contract. By it all that he acquired during his life- time became tlie i)ro])erty of the order. When he - aratists emigrated from W'iirttendu'rg, in (lermany, to the United States. In (Jernumy they had been |)ersecuted on account of their religion. In that country they smiglit to establish themselves by j>ur(liasing land, but they found that the laws would not allow them this privilege. Dis- heartened by persecution and injustice. Iliey came to this 171 Tin; ("i\ iL LAW AM) Tin: ciirKcii codiiliv ill piii'siiil (»r civil .'Uid rclif^ioiis lihcrly. Tlicy ar- rived ill riiil;i»l«'l|»lii;i in n dcsliliitc coiidit ion, and were aided by the Quakers in Philadelphia and London, and en- ahlccl to ti-avel to Ohio, wlnTe they settled. A lar}j;e majority of Ihe society (• males and 104 females. xVmong other things the articles provided for a commnnity of property. The members renounced all individual ownership of property. The business was to be conducted by three trustees elected annually, and members who might leave the society were to receive no compensation for labor or ]>roperty, except by a vote of the majority. Anien of the property, and the administration of the society's allairs. In 18:^>2 the society was incorporated by the law of Ohio. At first there was a division of the property, each family selecting as many acres as it could reasonably imju'ove, but it was abandoned before the first articles of association were adopted. ''It appears that by great industry, economy, and good management and energy, the settlement at Zoar has prospered more than anj^ part of the surrounding country. It sur])asses probably all other neighborhoods in the State in the neatness and productiveness of its agriculture, in the mechanic arts, and in manufacturing by machinery. The value of the ]>ro])erty is now (lS52i estimated to be more than a million of dollars. This is a most extraordinary advance by the labor of that community, about two thirds of which consists of females.'' An action was commenced by heirs of one of the original proj)rietors for a partition of the property, but it was held that all individual rights of property became merged in the COMMUNITY SOCIETIES 175 title of the association. There was uo descent ot inupeity in the ordinary sense upon the death of a member of the community. If members separate themselves from the so- ciety, their interest in the property ceases, and new mem- bers that may be admitted under the articles enjoy the advantages common to all. The action for ])artition could not be maintained, (loesele v Eimelcr, 14 How. ( ('. S. ) 580. For a later case involving the same subject. ;iim1 with the same result, see (Jasely v Separatists Society of Zuar. K5 Ohio St. 144. Shakers. See the separate article on this topic below. CONFESSION OF FAITH Defincil, 17(). Defined. A confession of faith is simply the construrtion which a particnhir religions organization gives to the H0I3' Book. Boyles v Koberts, 222 Mo. 613. 170 CONGREGATION Public, defined, 177. Defined, 177. Government, 178. Public, Defined. What is nece.ssary to constitute a con- gregation has not been very strictly defined, but it has been commonly considered that ''where two or three are gathered together" there is the sufticient number to constitute a con- gregation. Barnes v Shore, 1 Robertson's Eccles. Rep. (Eng.) .S82. Followed in Freeland v Neale, 1 Robt. Eccles. (Eng.) 618, where proceedings were taken against a clergjinan lor pub- licly reading prayers, j)reaching, and administering tlie sacrament of the Lord's Sui»])er in an unconsecrated build- ing called Sackville College Chapel, without a license of, and contrarj^ to the iidiibilion of the l)ishop of tlie diocese. It was claimed in defense that the rear liy .my less formal mode, by the subscriidion of ])ai)ers oi- »»llu>rwise, have agreed lo form a religious society, and have contributed, or bound themselves to contribute, toward the cost of buildings and the sui)i»ort of ]>ul)lic woi-.^hij)." "Wliei-e |t('\\s Ikuc been sold or have been assigned and set ajtai'l, to be held in 177 ITS TTiK ('I\ II. LAW AND TFIi: CUVlim K(>ver;ill_v, (liis is ((Micliisive evidence lliiil stidi jiewliolders iire memheis af the coiij^rcj^alion." Attorney General v I'ro- IM-ieJors of I'\'(leral Street Meeting; House in Boston, '.* (Jray (Mass. I 1, 44. Government. An indei)en(lent congregation may be gov- erned by tlie inajoi'ity of its own niend»erslii|), but a congre- •^ation connectiMl with any given (hMioniinat i(»n must submit to the system of discipline peculiar to the body witli which it is coMiieiled. Krecker v Shirev, HJ:', I'a. it'.'A. CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH Definition, 179. Described, ISO. Organization, general principles, 183. Advisory councils, 1S3. Deacons, status, 183. Home Missionary Society, 183. Minister, mode of settlement, 184. Minister, contract of settlement, 184. Missions, 185. Platform, 185. Republican government, 185. Saybrook platform, 185. Definition. "The term 'Congregatioiialist,' a.s used to designate a religious sect, is not unknown in I'^ngland ; but in England, Congregationalists and Indejiendents are now and always have been one and the same denomination ; an 'I'lii: ri\ II. LAW AND 'I'm: ciii kcii religions Inilli; llial no cliiU'cii was hound Ity any gcniTal creed or conftiSHion of faith, which iniglit be set forth as an exposition of the doctrines taught in the Scriptures; that it was the right and duty of each cliurch, and of each individ- ual to resort directly to the Scrij)tures as the source of Divine truth; that each church was at liberty to settle its own articles of belief, provided they were founded on the Scriptures, and acknowledged Christ as head and Master." "lOach church had the riglit to choose and change its own standard of religious character and doctrine, for nieniber- shij) and fellowship." "The system of fellowships and asso- ciations among churches and ministers appears to have been unknown for some years after the first settlement of New England, but began to come into use as early as lOol." "'The ministers united in associations; they assembled in councils, and synods, and recommended with all the author- ity of united opinion in a body of men who then had the real control in matters civil as well as religious, rules of discipline and articles of faith." From the opinion of Judge l*erley in Attorney General ex rel Abbot v Dublin, 38 N. H. 459. "A Congregational church is a voluntary association of Christians united for discipline and worship, connected with, and forming a part of some religious society, having a legal existence." Anderson v Brock, 3 Me. 243. Described. The church is composed of those persons, being members of such parish or religious society, who unite them- selves together for the purpose of celebrating the Lord's Supper. They may avail themselves of their union and association, for other purposes of mutual support and edi- fication in piety and morality, or otherwise, according to such terms of church covenant as they may think it expe- dient to adopt. But such other purposes are not essential to their existence and character as a church. The body of communicants gathered into church order, according to the established usage in any town, parish, precinct, or religious society established according to law, and actually connected CONOKKGATIONAL CHURCH ISl and associated therewith, lor i-cligicMis idirposes lor the time beiug, is to be cousideied as the cliuicli of such society as to all questions of property depending upon that relation. Stebbins v .Jennings, 10 J'ick. (Mass.j 172. A parish and church are bodies with tlillereut jjuwers. A regularly gathered Congregational church is composed of a number of persons, associated by a covenant or agree- ment of church fellowship, princijially for the jiurpose of celebrating the rites of the Supper and of baptism. They elect deacons; and the minister of the parish is also admitted a member. The deacons are made a corporation, to hold property for the use of the church, and they are accountable to the mendters. The mendx'rs of a church are generally inhabitants of the parish ; but this inhabitancy is not a necessary qualification for a church member. This body has no power to contract with or to settle a minister, that power residing wholly in the i)arish, of which the mem- bers of the church, who are inhabitants, are a part. The parish, when the ministerial ollice is vacant, from an ancient and respectable usage, wait until the church have made choice of a minister, and have requested the concurrence of the parish. If the pai-ish concur, then a contract of settle- ment is made wholly between the parish and the minister, and is obligatory only on them. The proceedings of the church, so far as they relate to the settlement, are only a nomination of a minister to tlie ])iirish, which nniy be con- curred in or rejected. This view of the subject must be confined to imrislu's created by the genei-al laws of the land, and not extended to j)arishes iiicori>orated specially with ditlerent i)Owers. Burr v First Parish in Sandwich, !) Mass. Re. 27(j. The character, powers, and duties of chunlu's gathered within the various Congregational parishes and religious societies in this commonwealth have been definitely known and understood from the earliest period of its existence. Indeed, the main object of the first settlers of the country, in their emigration Iiithci-, was to iiiaiiag(> their religious 1S2 Tin: CIVIL LAW AND Till: cm IMII siirairs in I heir own wiiy. The earliest lliinj^' lliey estal»]islie(l was a con^i-e^ation aii;r(';;uli<)iial cinircli. The legal cliaraclei- of I lie Cliurcli was well understood. It was a body ot" persons, nienibei's of a Conj^i-ej^ational or other reli- gious society, established lor the promotion and support ol" public worsliij), which body was set apart from the rest of the society, for peculiar religious observances, for the cele- bration of the Lord's Supper, and for mutual edification. They were usually formed and regulated by a covenant, or articles of agreement, which each se])arate church formed for itself, sometimes with the advice of other churches, by which they mutually stipulated to assist each other, by advice and counsel, in pursuing a Christian course of life, to submit to i>roper censure and discipline for any devia- tion therefrom, and, genera 11}% to promote the essential growth and welfare of each other. They might consist of all or only a portion of the adult members of the congrega- tion with which they were connected. The earliest statutes of the colony recognize the churches, not as corporations, or even as quasi corporations, but each as an aggregate body of Christians in each religious society, collected together and united by covenant and by usage and recognized by law; and these statutes provide that their rights and usages shall be respected, and that they shall be encouraged in the exercise and maintenance of the same. Charters and General Laws of the Colony and Trovince of Massachusetts Bay, 100. Weld v May, 9 Cush. (Mass. I 181 ; see also North Carolina Christian Conference v Allen, 15G N. C. 524. "A Congregational church is, by tlie institution of Christ, a part of the militant visible church, consisting of a company of saints by calling, united into one body by a holy covenant, for the public worshij) of Cod and the mutual edification one of another, in the fellowship of the Lord Jesus." Cam- bridge riatform quoted in Holt v Downs, 58 N. H. 170. where it was further said that what the Congregationalists established in Massachusetts was, not the reign of the parish over the clninli, but the reign of the church over the CONGKKdATIOXAL ClUKCll is:i pari.sli aiul every other civil inslitutiou. "We cannot but take judicial notice of the historical fact that Aniericau Congregationalism has always been a vehement and uncom- promising jirotest against a union of a church and a secular body, uot revocable at the ])leasure of the church." Organization, General Principles. The funthimental idea of Congregational polity under which the churches of New England were gathered, was that the particular estates of visible saints who under Christ, their head, are statedly joined together for ordinary communion with one another in all the ordinances of Christ, are particular churches, hav- ing right to choose their own officers, and discipline, admon- ish, and excommunicate scandalous and oll'ending members. Gibbs V Gilead Ecclesiastical Society, 88 Conn. 15o. Advisory Councils. The system of advisory councils is an integral and vital i)art of the i)olity of the Congregational Church, and in this ca.se is expressly recognized by tlie con- stitution of the local church. Arthur v Nortield Congrega- tional Church. 7:\ Conn. 718. Deacons, Status. In Boutell v Cowdin, 9 Mass. 254, it was held that the deacons of the society did not constitute a cor- poration for the purpose of receiving and nuinaging a fund for the supi)ort of a minister, and that a juomissory note given to the deacons in aid of a fund for the support of a minister of a parish was void as without consinitli Hcrornied. Prcs- bvterian, and Associate Kerornicd ; ImiI in IS.'IT the IMcsby- ISI Tin; (IN II. LAW AM) Till': CiiriMil f('i-i;iii ('liiii'cli (livi, bnt it did not api)ear that the testatrix knew that in IcSDij the name of the society had been changed. The court held that the Con- gregational Home Missionary Society, being the corporate successor of the society' named in the will, was entitled to the legacy. Congregational Home Missionary Society v Van Arsdale, 58 N. J. l':(i. !*1»:{. Minister, Mode of Settlement. From the ancient and im- memorial usage of Congregational churches, before the par- ish settle a minister he preaches with them as a candidate lor the settlement, with the intent of declaring his religious faith, that his hearers may judge whether they approve his theological tenets. And if he is afterward settled, it is understood that the greater part of the parish and the min- ister agree in their religious sentiments and opinions. Burr V Sandwich. 1) Mass. 27(1. Minister, Contract of Settlement. In a contract by which a minister is settled over a Congregational parish, it seems that a stipulation that the contract shall be binding on the parish until the minister shall be dismis.sed by a mutual ecclesiastical council, which shall be called for that purpose by a majority of the church belonging to the parish, is not illegal ; but if it be illegal and void, still the parish cannot dissolve the contract at their own pleasure, without some misconduct on the part of the minister. Peckhani v North Tarish, Haverhill, IG Pick. (Mass.) 274. An action to recover the income of the pari.sh fund will be found rejiorted under same title in 19 Pick. (Mass.) 559. It was held that the i)laintiO:" was not entitled to recover. C0N0RE(JATlONAL CliLliCU IS.'j Missions. Testatrix gave certain fiiiuls to be used for carrying on women's work in foreign lands and to women's work in Iiome lands "not Tank Home." The bequest for work in home lands was held payable to the Women's Home Missionary Union of the Congregational Churches of Michi- gan. The bequest for foreign lands was held payable to the Women's Board of Missions of the Interior. Both soci- eties were organized under the ausjiices of the Congrega- tional Church. There was also a bequest for I'rotestant Missionary Work among poor colored peojjle of the South. This bequest was held payable to the American Missionary Association. Gil- christ V Corliss, 155 Mich. lliO. Platform. Congregationalists have their code, called the Platform of Church Discipliue, agreed upon at Cambridge in 1G48, and afterward ratified in IGSO. They have also their confession of faith, in substance agreeing witli the Presbyterian and the Episcopal, and differing little from the Romish. Among Congregationalists each church is inde- pendent if it chooses to be so. Eacli dioo.ses and expels its members and its oillcers, and the sentence is linal. Vah\i Congregational churdi acknowledged no superior on eaith. Muzzy V Wilkins, Smith's X. II. Ke]). 1. Republican Government. The dislingnisliing feature of the churches of the Congregational denomination is that each is a conij)lete and inse. it tluis njijiears, was to ISC, Tin: ('I\IL F.AW AND Till: Cliriiril (•oiirt'(ler;i(o llic clniiclics into ;i jXTiiiaiicnt esljil>lisliiii('iit, and ])r<)vi«lo for ;i j^ood ami rcj^nlar iHsue in cases of dilli- cnlty or occlcsiaslical discijdine, llu; regular introduction of <-:indida<('s inmination entertaining and pro fessing and in a jjrojK'i- way striving to maintain and to teach both privately and publicly any religious iit'cd or belief whatsoever, these riglits are all held to be unalienable. are secured and guaranteed by the const lint ion. Hale v Everett, .5:? N. H. 1. Rule. In this land of liberty, civil and religions, con- science is subject to no human law; its riglils ;ire not to be invaded, or even questioned, s(» long as its di«tales are obeyed, consistently with the harmony, good order, and 187 188 'nil: ('i\ iL LAW ANh 'riii; ("iiiinii pciHc (»r llic cuiiiiiiiiiiil \ . Willi us iiiodts of liiilli :iM(i woi-- sliij) iinisl al\v;iys be muiimtous jiikI vai'iaiit ; and it \h not the province of eillier braiuli of the governineut to control or restrain llicni when they appear .sincere and harmleHS. Waite V Merrill, et al, 4 Me. 90. CONSTITUTION Defined, effect, 189. Defined, Effect. The con.stitntion is the contract of asso- ciation in churches aiid all unincorporated societies. It is binding upon all portions of the chnrch, as well as all judi- catories thereof. It is the sui)renie law of the church and must be adhered to by every part thereof. Boyles v Roberts, 222 Mo. 613. 189 CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH History, 190. Courts, 191. General Assembly, 192. General Assembly, powers, 192. Name, doctrines, etc., how changed, 193. Presbytery, 193. Session, 193. Synod, 194. Unincorporated society, liabihty, 194. Union with Presbyterian Church, 194. History. The Cumberland I're.sbytei-ian Cliui-tli was or- ganized in Dickson County, Tennessee, February 4, 1810. It was tlie ontj2:rowtli of the great revival of ISOO, one of the most powerful revivals that this country has ever witnessed. The founders of the church were Finis Ewing. Samuel King, and Samuel McAdow. Tliey were ministers in what is now commonly known as the Northern Presbyterian Church, but they rejected the doctrine of election and reprobation as taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith. These three ministers, on the date above referred to, met in a log cabin, and organized an independent presbytery, calling it the (Cumberland Presbytery, and this was the beginning of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. In three years the church had become sufficiently large to form three presby- teries, and these ])resbyteries in 1813 met and constituted a synod. This synod, in a ])a])er called the ''Brief Statement," set forth tlie ]K»ints wherein the Cinnberland Presbyterian dissented from tlie ^^'estminster Confession. They were as follows: "I. That there are no eternal reprobates. 2. That Christ died not for a part only, but for all mankind. 3. That all infants dying in infancy are saved through Christ and the .sanctitication of the Spirit. 4. That the spirit of God operates on the world, or as coextensively as Christ has 190 CUMBERLAND PRESBYTKRIAX CIlURCn 1!»1 made atoiieuieiit, iu such a iiianner as to leave all men inex- cusable." lu 1814 the synod i-evise it contained 17 synods. 1 1 \ presby teries, and a total membership of nearly 20U,tJU0. In 1903 committees were appointed by this denomination and by the reguhir Presbyterians to consider the (piestion of a union of the two denominations. This j)lan of union was consummated by the adoption of the report on \inion Ity the General Assembly held in Decatur, 111., in May, ll»()(i. This General Assembly thereupon adjourned to meet there- after only as a component part of the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church, This ]dan of union had previously been adopted by a vote of the presbyteries, 60 voting in favor, and 51 against. The dissenting mend)ers of the Decatur Assenddy jn-o- tested against the action of the majority anerland Presbyterian Chui-ch. Mack v Kiiiic. IL'!» (!;i. 1. See also Pres. Ch. v ('undterland Ch., 215 111. 71., Landrith v lludgins, 121 Tenn. 55(;, Boyles v Roberts, L»L'L' Mo. (i:u;, Fussell v Hail, 283 111. 73, Brown v Clark, 102 Tex. IVS.',. Courts. The constitution of the clMircli cicatcs i-ertaiii cliurcli courts. It declares that llie goxcninieiit of the church is to be exer«-ised in some certain and delinite form. and by various courts, in regulai- gradation. These conrts are denominated chnrcli sessions, j)resbyteries. syn<»ils. ami the General As.sendtly. The jurisdiction of e.icli of iliese courts is defined in the const itntion. The (linrch session I!»L' Till: ('l\IL LAW AM) '1111: (IUKCII li;is jni'isdici ion «»f n siiij;l(' clinicli. Tlic |»i'(*sl»yt('iT li;is jiiiisdici ion aycv llic cliurcli sessions within ;i proscrilxMl district. The synod h;is jurisdiction over thrcf* or more jtrt'shyteries. And tlie (Jcnoi-al Asscnddy luis jurisdiction over such matters as concern the w hole clnirch. Every court is (hM'liircd to hiive tlie riji^ht to resolve (piestions of doctrine ;ind ecially l)cloiifi;ing to it, the lower courts are subject to the review and control of the higher courts in regular gradation. The General Assembly has jurisdiction to review and decide all references and com- plaints regularly- brought before it from the inferior courts, and to decide all questions respecting doctrine and dis- cipline, and to receive under its jurisdiction other ecclesias- tical bodies whose organization is conformed to the doctrine and order of this church. Mack v Kime, 129 Ga. 1. General Assembly. The General Assembly is the highest court of the church and represents, in one body, all the particular churches thereof, and constitutes the bond of union, peace, correspondence, and mutual confidence among all its churches and courts. It must meet at least every two years. It consists of commissioners from several presby- teries according to a ratio specified in the constitution. Each presbytery is entitled to be represented by one min- ister and one ruling elder. Landrith v Hudgins, 121 Tenn. 55(5. General Assembly, Powers. Certain members of this society brought an action against certain other members claiming to be adherents of the Northern Presbyterian Church in consequence of the action of the Decatur Assembly in adopt- ing the proposed plan of union. The court held that on the question as to whether there should be a reunion of the Cumberland I'resbyterian Church and the Northern I*res- byterian Church it was for the determination of the General Assembly whether these two organizations were in accord with each other as to doctrine and order. The question was CUMBEKLAM) I'KIOSBVTIOKIAN CHUKCU liKi decided by the General Assembly wliicli was the only iii- bunal having jurisdiction, and the civil court would not attempt to revise the coiic-lusions and findinjjjs of the Gen- eral Assembly. The General Assembly determined that there was no substantial difference between the doctrines and teachings o! the Cund)erland I'resbyterian and the Northern Presbyterian Church, and therefore tiie (ieneral Assembly might, according to its sound judgment, deter- mine the further question whether it was expedient for the two denominations to form a union. The reunion of the two churches was valid, and those members of the local church who adhered to the new organization were entitled to the possession and control of the church property. Mack v Kinie, 129 Ga. 1. Name, Doctrines, Etc., How Changed. The only way under section (JU of its constitution by wliich tiie General Assembly of the Cumberland Tresbyterian Cliurcli would change the name of that organization, or change its doctrines or faitli, was by proper jimendments ollered as 1<» their own con- fession of faith and organic law. It has no inherent power to wipe out the name "Cund)erland Tresbyterian Chinch," until by a two-thirds vote of the Assend)ly it has asked its presbyteries, by \v;iy of a pro]»os('d ;nnen thiit body is denied all powers not expressly conferred. Boyles v Kober(s, L*L*l2 Mo. 01 :^. Presbytery. .\ presbytery consists of .ill (he ordniiu'd ministers and one ruling eldei- r!'<»ni eacii chui-cii widiin a certain (!. Session. The session is the go\erning agency of (he c_v the joint action of the individual eon <2:re;^a lion, and the preshyterv. The con^rej^ation is represented in the j>resl»_vtery by an elder whom I he session elects to that body. So far as it may be thon{i;bt necessary, upon any subject, to obtain the voice or know the will of the congregation, this is accomplished by the session bring- ing the matter before the congregation, and in some i)roper form obtaining the sense of that body. The church session consists of the minister in charge and two or more ruling elders of a particular church. Landrith v Hudgins, 121 Tenn. Hno. Synod. The synod consists of all the ordained ministers and one ruling elder from each church in a district compris- ing at least three presbyteries. Landrith v Hudgins, 121 Tenn. SHtl. Unincorporated Society, Liability. A note was given by individuals who were, in fact, trustees of the .society, and gave the note in behalf of the society; but the society was unincorporated, and was therefore not liable on the instru- ment. Phoenix Insurance Company v Burkett, 72 Mo. App. 1. Union with Presbyterian Church. In 1003 negotiations were instituted between the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the regular Presbyterian Church for the reunion and union of the two bodies under the name and style of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. The plan of union was prepared by a joint committee of the two denominations, and was submitted to the presbyteries thereof, and was approved by a majority of such j>resby- teries, taking eftect in 1906. By this plan the Cumberland Presbyterian Church accepted the revised confession of faith adoi)ted by the I'resbyterian Church in 190:i. and the Gen- eral Assembly of each denomination adopted appropriate cu:mberlant) presbytt:riax ('ih^rcit i!»r> resolutions in 1!)0(; ck'chiiing tlic icsult oi tlie vote and that the union of the two denominations had become etteetive. A large minority of tlie Cnniberland General Assembly of 1900 protested against the union, and in several States litigation arose concerning the effect of tlie alleged union on the title to church j)roi>erty. In the following States tlie validity of the reunion and union was sustained, namely: Georgia, Mack V Kime, 129 Ga. 1; Texas, Brown v Clark, 102 Tex. 323; Kentucky, Wallace v Hughes, l.'U Ky. 445; (^ilifornia, I'ermaneut Committee of Missions v Pacific Synod, l")? Cal. 105; Indiana, Ramsey v Hicks, 44 liui. A]))), 400; Illinois, I'resby. Ch. of Lincoln v Cundj. I*res. Ch., 245 111. 74, IMeas- unt Grove Congregation v Riley, 24S 111. 004; Arkansas, Sanders v Baggerly, 131 S. W. 40; Hayes v Manning, 172 S. W. (Mo.) cS!>7, and Alabama, Harris v Crosby, 55 So. 231 ; also Morgan v Gabard, 5S So. (Ala.) 902; Oklahoma, First Pres. Ch. Wagoner v Cumberland Pres. Ch., Wagoner, 12G P. 197. In tlie following Slates the union was declared invalid: Missouri, Boyles v Roberts, 222 Mo. Gi:>; Tennessee, Landrith v Hudgins, 121 Tenn. 55(>, The ojiinions in the foregoing cases include much historical matter and also interesting discussions of I'resbyterian forms of govern- ment, confessions of faith, and doctrinal standards, and ihe relations between civil judicial tribinials and church judi- catories in determining various ecclesiastical questions. The eleven cases above cited present a comprehensive sturincipal i)oints in ditlereuce. Muzzy V Wilkins, Smith's N. H. Rep. 1. 197 DLSCIPLES OF CHRIST Government, l!)S. Meeting, j)o\vers of minority, 198. Government. Every Discijtlos roiijijrofjntion is prartif-ally iihlepeiMleiil ; oilier congregations of the same denomination nujy advise, but there is no superior tribunal of ai)peal. Alexander Cam])bell, the Disciples' greatest pieacher, if not their founder, is quoted as saying, "It (the church) knows nothing of superior or inferior church judicatories, and ac- knowledges no laws, no canons or government, other than that of the Monarch of tlie Universe and its laws." Long v Harvey, 177 ]»a. St. 47.S. Meeting, Powers of Minority. This society was organized in lSo2 and was not incorporated. A report was made to the Pennsylvania conference in 18S9 showing that there were only 15 members in good standing, the remaining mem- bers having been excluded without notice or hearing. In 1800 a movement was initiated for the purpose of a bearing, by an appropriate tribunal, to adjust ditt'erences existing in the societj'. The result was an attempted meeting of the congregation in June, 1890, but the majority prevented the meeting, and refused to permit it to be held in the church. It was held in front of the church by a minority which elected certain officers who assumed to transact other busi- ness. Eepresentatives of this minority brought an action against the majority to obtain possession of the church prop- erty. Kepresentatives of four other congregations a}>peared and assumed to take ]>art in the meeting of June, 1800, and that meeting ]>roceeded to depose certain trustees and officers of the society who had been chosen by the majority. This proceeding by outsiders was irregular, and had no bind- ing effect on the society, nor on the officers chosen by it. Long V Uarvey, 177 l*a. St. 47:^. 198 DISSENTERS England, 199. England. The disseiitinc; cluircli in l^ni^land is not a free clinich in the sense in wiiicli we apply tlic term in this conntiy, and it was nnuli less free in Lord lOldon's time than now. Laws then existed upon the statute book ham- pering the free exercise of religions belief and worship in many most opi)ressive forms, and though I'rotestant Dis- senters were less burdened than Catholics and Jews, there did not exist that full, entire, and practical freedom tor all forms of religious belief and i)ractice wliich lies at the foundation of our political principles. And it is ([uite ob- vious, from an examination of the series of cases growing out of the organization of the Free Church of Scotland, found in Shaw's Rei)orts of Cases in the Court of Sessions, tliat it was only under the i)ressure of Lord Eldon's ruling, established in the House of Lords, to which final appeal lay in such cases, that the doctrine was established in the Court of Sessions after no little struggle and jesistance. AVatson v Jones, i:{ Wall. ( l. S.) (170. In 1765 the Protestant dissenters in Crcat Biitain were distinguished by the sevei-al deiiominalions of i'rcsbytcrians. Independents, and Baptists. Waller v Childs, 2 And»l. (Eng.) 524. I'J'J DISTURBING RELIGIOUS MEETING Assenihly, wliul con.slitutc.s, 200. Camj) ground, (runic, 201. Christ nia.s festival, 201. Christ ni:us treo celebration, 201. Church trial, 201. Common law, 202. Conduct, 202. Damages not recoverable, 202. Decorum required, 202. Definetl, 202. Described, 203. Dispersion of congregation, 203. Evidence, 205. Extent, 208. Extent, one person, 208. Father removing child, 208. Fighting, 203. Grantor preventing occupancy of property, 209. Intention, 209. Interru{)tion by expelled member, 209. Intoxicating liquor, 209. Intoxication, 210. Meeting prevented, 211. Motive, 211. __ Patrolman's unreasonable interference, 211. Preaching by rival, 211. Protest against minister, 211. Removal of distmber, 212. Riot, 213. Salvation Army, 213. Scope of statute, 213. Singing, 213. Singing by choir, 214. Statutes, constitutional, 214. Summary conviction, 214. Sunday School, 214. Assembly, What Constitutes. In its true sense a religious meeting is an assemblage of i)eoi)le met for the purpose of performing acts of adoration to the Supreme Being, or to 200 DISTURBING RELIGIOUS MEETING 201 perform religious services in recognition of God as an object of worship, love, and obedience; it matters not the faith with respect to the Deity entertained by the persons so assembled. The law affords equal protection to tlie religious views, rites, and forms of worsliii) of all denominalions, all classes, and all sects, and does not undertake to state of what they shall consist, or how such services shall be con- ducted. Therefore, as to whether or not a congregation of persons constitutes a religious meeting assembled for reli- gious worship is necessarily largely a question of fact to be determined by the jury from the evidence and under proper instructions from the court. Cline v Stale, 1^0 Tac. 510 (Okl.). Camp Ground, Traffic. The defendant sold ginger bread on a camp ground near a congregation engaged in religious service in violation of a statute which prohildted such a sah? within one mile of a worsliiping assemltly. A conviction was sustained on ai)i»eal. West v State, 28 Tenn. 6G. Christmas Festival. Section 485^? of the Tennessee Code is intended to protect assemblies met for religious worship. A meeting held for the enjoyment of a Christmas festival, though it was esjtecially intended for Sunday school schol- ars and their teachers and friends, does not change its char- acter, nor make it an assembly for religious worship. Layne v State, 72 Tenn. 11)0. Christmas Tree Celebration. The ("lirisluKis tree servitM- which was intende}f('y, 1* Wlici'lcr Cr. ('. (X. Y.) l.'jr), and is iii(lictable. IV'oplc V Crowley, 2:\ lluii. (N. Y.) 412. Conduct. Ill Stale v Jasper, 15 N. C. '.i2:i it was held that laiif^Iiiiij; and talking, and indecent actions and grimaces, (hiring: the pcrforinance of divine service, was a misde- meanor, and indictable. Damages Not Recoverable. A ])('isoii allej;('d to be dis- turbed in a relij^ious service by noi.ses, talkiiij;: or sinj^inj^ or other demonstrations, has no cause of action for dama}j;es against the i)ersons causing the disturbance. The law pro- vides a summary remedy for disturbing religious meetings. Owen V Henman, 1 Watts & S (Pa.) 548. A private action cannot be maintained by an attendant upon divine worshij). He does not receive special or par- ticular damage. If one can, every one may maintain a suit. First Bai)tist Church of Schenectady v The Utica & Sche- nectady Kailroad Company, G Barb. (N. Y.) 313. Citing Owen V Henman, 1 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 548. Decorum Required. "It must be understood that people who go into a church, whether for the purpose of attending divine service, or of being present at a vestry, must keep themselves under restraint, and not depart from that de- corum which should always be preserved within conse- crated Avails." Provocation is no defense to a charge of dis- turbing a meeting. North v Dickson, 1 Hagg. Eccles. Rep. (Eng.) 310. Defined. To constitute the offense there must be a congre- gation assembled for religious worship, and that congre- gation, so assembled, must be disturbed, that is, agitated, aroused from a state of repose, molested, interrupted, hin- dered, perj)lexed, disquieted, or turned aside or diverted from the object for which they are assembled; and the act which causes the disturbance must be willfully done. Rich- ardson V State, 5 Texas Ct. of App. 470. To constitute a disturbance there must be not only an actual interruption or disturbance of an assemblage of DiSTi'RUiNd Ki:ij(iiresent on the gronnd. The delendanl's coiidnct was held to constitute a dislnrliance of worship, ilie conrt nhsrrving *J()I TMK ('l\II. I. AW AM) TIIK CHURCH lli:it (lie iHirpnsc, spirit, ;iii(1 let In- ol (lie law are to i»r()tect llio rolif^ious asscniMy from (listui-haiice before and after services, as well as during tlie actual service, and so long as any portion of the congregation remains upon the ground. Dawson v State, 7 Tex. Ct. of Aj.p. 59. To constitute an interruption or disturbance of an assem- blage of i)eople met for religious worship, it is not necessary that the interrui)tion or disturbance should be made during the progress of the religious services; if made after the con- clusion of the services and the dismissal of the congrega- tion, but while a portion of the people still remain in the house, and before a reasonable time has elaj^sed for their dispersion, the offense is complete. Kinney v State, 38 Ala. 224. An offense is established where it appears that the disturb- ance occurred even after the services were closed, and while the congregation were passing out of the house. Love v State, 35 Tex. Cr. Re. 27. Where a congregation assembled for divine worship had, after the morning service adjourned for dinner to be served on the church grounds, with the intention of returning after the meal to the church house for an afternoon service, the congregation had not, in contemplation of the statute, dis- persed while partaking of their dinner, but were still as- sembled for the purpose of divine worship. A person who discharged a pistol in or near the place where the congre- gation was assembled for dinner was held properly convicte. and insulting discour.se and deliberately nmde, ami whi Tex. Ct. Ai)p. (14. The ci'acking ami eating of nnis during religious servi<-es •j(m; t\\\: <'I\il law and tiii; ciiriicii :iii(l tlici-chy (lisiiirltiii^; iiiciiihci-s of llic coiiji.rj'^Ml ion, may (•(tiislihilc ;i (lisMirlciiHc oC I'cli^ioiis woi-sliip. Hunt v State, :\ Tex. CI. A|»p. in;. TIk! (letViise showed tliat the persons cliarj^ed with mak- iiifif the disturbance were members of the conf^regation a»- senibU'd for religious worsliij*. That during the service ai)i)elhnits were guilty of repeated acts of inishehavior, and that ill the closing prayer, after the conclusion of tlie ser- mon, o!ie of them groaned aloud, which caused the minister to be disturbed, according to his testimony. It further appeared, aud presumably from evidence, that during prayer ai)pellants were laughing and talking together to such an extent as to distract the attention of persons in the con- gregation, and cause them to turn their thoughts from wor- ship to ascertain the cause of the disturbance. A conviction was sustained on appeal. Friedlander v State, 7 Tex. Ct. App. 204. "If the persons without the house had separated them- selves from those within, who were engaged in religious worship, and no longer participated in the purposes for which the congregation had met, but had wholly discon- nected themselves from the assemblage, with no intention of again participating in the purposes of the meeting and were engaged in the discussion of other nuitters,'' then the disturbance of one or more of such persons would not come within the prohibition of the Alabama statute. Adair V State, i:U Ala. 18:^ The conduct alleged as a disturbance must in fact have disturbed the meeting, and conduct of a person, however reprehensible and indecent, which does not in fact disturb the assembly of people met for religious worship, and though committed at or near the place of worship, is insufficient to authorize a conviction under the statute. Cox v State, 13G Ala. 94. In a trial for disturbing religious worship evidence that defendant, together with others, disturbed the congregation by talking and laughing is admissible as when he and the insTrRHiNc Ki:iJ(ii()i's mi:i:tix(; l'ot otliei'« coiivei'sed ainoiiji; tlieinschcs ; tlic ;ni ol' uuc was the act of all. On a prosecution for disturl)iii«f relij;i()us worsliip, evi- dence that, after the preaching was over, defentlant in answer to a remark that the preacher would bust him, stated tliat if the preacher fooled with him he would shoot him, is admissible to show that his talking- during the preaching was maliciously done. Where defendant knows that the remark addressed to him referred to a probable prosecution for disturbing the preach- ing his answer is admissible as a tacit admission that he was coiine<-ted with the disturbance. On a prosecution for disturbing jtublic worship, testimony that the preacher ceased preaching and si)oke to the defend- ant and the others jtarticipating in the disturbance about their talking, is not admissible as hearsay. McAdoo v State 35 S. W. (Tex. Ct. of Crim. App.) 9G6. The disturbance consisted of various acts by the defendant intended to exhibit not only his dissent from the faith and practices of those conducting the meeting, but also to show his contem]>t therefor. This was done by deriding and mak- ing sport of the same, stating to a person engaged in ]»rayer "to pray louder; i)eradventure your God is asleep, or has gone on a journey." Chishcdm v State, I'l S. >\'. (i|(; iTcx. Crim. App.) The African Congregalioiial Clinrcli in I'mis, 'i'e.\;is. iM'iiii,^ the owner of th(> church edifice, permitted tlie use of it by Methodist and IJaptist congregiitions in tlie same town on days agreed upon. <)ne Smidiiy, when tlic llaptists were occupying the church, the sexton of ilic Alri(;in Snrjtiy entered tJie cliurch while service was in |irogress, and ilie minister was ]>reaching, and called out a mend)er of the society, and the two outside the door had an altercation w^hich disturbed membei-s of the congregation, and a min- ister sitting in the jnilpit went out to ascertain the cause of tlie disturbance. The sexton was arrested for disturbing a meeting, and claimed in defense thai on that d;iy the LM)S 'IMIi: ('I\ll. LAW AM) Till: ciukcii Mctliodisis were ciiMtlcil to llic use of llir cliiirrii. His coii- (Incl \\;is li<'l|». OT. A prima facie case was deemed made where it appeared that two witnesses testilied that the defeiidaiit eiltertMl the cluii'ch with a ]ar<:;e stick, remaiiiiiij;' within hut a shoi-t time, and al'teiward was heai-d l>_v them talkinj^ out c)f dooi-s. occasionally usin^ profane lanj^naj;e in tlie tone of xoice loud enough t<» he heard ovei- the cliurch, and that th<*y were disturbed, Init <]i(l not notice that it j)articularly dis- turbed the remainder of the congregation. McElroy v State, 2.") Tex. 507. Extent. The cou'^regation need not all be disturbed. A noise audible in all parts of tlie house, and which disturbs a considei-able ]>art of the congregation, constitutes a dis- turbance within the statute. Clark v State, 78 S. W. (Tex.) 1078. Extent, One Person. The disturbance of one person only while a member of a congregation engaged in religious wor- ship is a violation of the statute. State v Wriglit, 41 Avk. 410, Walker v State, 140 S. W. 802. It is a violation of the Texas statute against the disturb- ance of religious worship if but one worshiper be disturbed by the loud talking or abusive language, and it is not error for the court to so instruct the jury. McVea v State, 35 Tex. Crim. 1. Every individual worsliijier in the congregation, as well as the entire congregation, is protected b}' the statute from rude and profane disturbance during the solemn moments of public worshi]). It was therefore held that ]>rofane lan- guage addressed to- one person in the congregation was suffi- cient to constitute the offense. Cockrehara v State, 7 Hump. (Tenn.i 11. Father Removing Child. A father has no right to enter a church, and during divine service take away by force and violence his minor child, in such manner as to disturb the congregation. In this case the child was a daughter about DiSTrKiMxc Ki:jj(Jiors mi:i:tin(; 2o:» fifteen years of a^v, and was participating; in (he service when lier father entered and took her h_v the arm and tohl her to come home. Comnionwealtli v Si^nian. '2 (Mark ( Pa. i 30. Fighting. A conviction was deemed made ont for distnrb- ing religious worshij) on j»roof that the defendant willfully and intentionally en«;a«j:,('d in a light, without lawful excuse, or necessity, at or near a place at which jieople were en- gaged in worshij), even though he did not hrin^ mi the difficult}', nor strike tlie first blow, (louldin^ v State, si! Ala. 48. The defendant was engaged in a light with another i)er- son, some thirty-tive yards from the ]>lace where the reli- gious service was being held. Somebody notifierotesling against it, and jtersisting in this interrni»t ion against the remonstrance of the minister and others. State v Kam.say, 78 N. C. 448. Intoxicating Liquor. In r>urden v State, 8 (ia. App. 1 18. it was held that jiersons wli(» go to chnrches must not carry liquor or have liy seclion 411, it is not niilawfiil to use iii- loxi(:iliii^ liipioi's ;it such phu-es in ense of aeciorter, beer, or any fermented, mixed or strong drink, within three miles of any place of religious worship during meetings for that imr])ose, was held to a])ply to the sale of such articles as would have a tendency to produce intoxication and con- sequent disturbance; the sale of articles of food that could have no tendency to intoxicate is not within the prohibition. Fetter v Wilt, 4(1 Pa. St. 457. Intoxication. Defendant, while under the influence of liquor, went into a church after the services had begiui, talked loud enough to attract attention, used profane lan- guage, and said he could jtray as well as the preacher, and would do it. His conviction was sustained, the court on appeal holding that the trial ctmrt properly refused a re- quest to charge that the jury must find defendant not guilty "if thev believe from the evidence that what he said and did DISTURBING KELIGIOUS MICETING 211 was said and done la-edh'ssly or recklessly, that is, care- lessly, without thinking of the probable consequence." Johnson v State, 1)2 Ala. 82. Meeting Prevented. A person who took ijossession of the doorstej) of a church and by threats and violence prevented the congregation from holding a service as intended, in Con- sequence of which the}' dis]»ersed without entering the buihl- iug and engaging in worshi]), was held guilty of disturbing a religious meeting under the Georgia statute. Tanner v State, 12G Ga. 77. Persons entered the cliurch, locked ilic door, and pre- vented worshi*]»ers from assembling. I'reventing a meeting from assembling is not a disturbance within the meaning of the Tennsylvania statute. There could be no disturbance unless the worshii>ers had assembled. (Commonwealth v Underkotfer, 11 Fa. Co. Ct. 58!). Motive. To constitute the statutory oll'ense of disturbing religious worshij) the act must be willfully or intentionally done; it is not sufiicient that it was done recklessly or care- lessly. Harrison v State, 'M Ala. i N. S. i ]~)i. Patrolman's Unreasonable Interference. An tmlawful or unreasonable interference by a jtatrol in the service of a religious meeting constitutes a disturbance thereof. Bell v Graham, 1 Xott ^K: Mc(\ ( S. (\| 1(;8. Preaching by Rival. A i)reacher who occupied tlu' juilpit and i>reached to the congregation, instead of pi'iniitting a rival to preach the sermon, was held not guilty <)f disturbing the meeting. The clmrch was <]ivided into two factions, each of which claimed the right l«» coihIuc t the service. The preacher who first obtained possession of the pulpit and preached the sermon diplication of needed force, auriest, who had attempted to remove a person so disturbing the meeting, was not liable to au action for assault. Wall vLee, 34N. Y. 141. Vestrymen have authority to i)reserve order at public services, and to remove, or cause the removal of a person disturbing such services. Beckett v Lawrence. 7 Abb. l*r. N. S. (N. Y.) 403. Every congregation of worshiping Christians must neces- sarily have authority to preserve order and decorum during the time of religious worshij). Tf any man were to force himself into the church during divine service, and by noise and violence disturb the congregation, the officers of the church might request him to be quiet, or to go out, and if he would not. to i)ut him out by force, taking care to do him as little injury as possible. If he should commit acts of violence, and a bi-each of the ])eace, the officers of the church or members, or both, might resort to any means of defense w^hich they might reasonably deem necessary to defeat the assailant's ])ur])oses and rid the house of such nuisance. In this case it was held that a father had no right to enter a church, and during divine service take away by force and violence his minor child, in such manner and under such cir- cumstances as to disturb the congregation. The members DISTURBING Ki:iJ(il(>rs MKKTING 2i:! of Uie euiij^ix'^Jitioii have llicir rights; llic liouse is theirs, and is (kMliralcd to the worship of Almighty God. Com- monwealth V Sicilian, -5 (,'hirli ( I'a.i .".(;. See note on Father Kemovinj;- Chihl. Riot. In State v -Jones, 77 S. C. iiS."), it was lield that enersists in conducting himself in an offensive manner, and .so diverts attention from the services then in progress, violates the statute against the disturbance of religious meetings and is liable to punishment therefor. Hull V State, 120 Ind. 15:>. Scope of Statute. The statute is applicable, not only to disturbances ^\llich are maor(ment. The prosecution admitted that he did not intend to disturb the meeting. A conviction was revci'sed on appeal, tin' court observing that the defendant might Ik* a proper subject for discijiline by I'll Till': ('l\IL I.AW AM) Tin: CillRril his cliMi'cli, but not toi" (liscipliiic l»y llic coiii't. State v Linkhaw, (19 N. 0. 215. Singing by Choir. Siii^in{]f l>y a cliurch choir accordiii}^ to the usual custom and in a quiet and ordefly manner, tlioujjh coutrary to the announcement of the pastiti- of a Methodist I'rotestant con<;i'e^ation tliat tliere wouhl he no sin^iufi; at that service, did not constitute a distui-hance of a reli}:;ious nieetinj;. Commonwealth v McDole, 2 Pa. Dist. K. ;{70. Statutes, Constitutional. A statute prohibiting certain kinds of business within a specified distance from the place where religious services are being held is constitutional, and is in aid of the provision of the constitution securing liberty of religious worship. State v Gate, 58 N. H. 240. Summary Conviction. Under the New York act of ISKl as amended in 1824 relative to the disturbance of religious meetings, it was held that a justice of the peace might order an oft'ender into the custody of a constable without warrant and proceed to a summary conviction for the ottense, it aj)- pearing that the oflfense was committed in the presence of the justice of the peace. Farrell v Warren, 3 Wend. (N. V. ) 254. Sunday School. A person who willfully disturbs a Sun- day school is indictable at common law, and the North Carolina statutes are amply sutticient to cover such a case. State v Brauuer, 149 N. C. 559. A Sunday school, where the Bible and the precepts of religion are taught, is a place of public worship within the statute prohibiting the disturbance of religious meetings. Martin v State, 6 Baxter (Tenn.) 234; see the article on Religious Worship, sub title, Sur.daj' School. DOCTRINE Civil courts no jurisdiction, 215. How ascertained, 215. Predestination, 215. Civil Courts No Jurisdiction. Wluit is tl»tM)loj,Mciilly tnie in religion it is agiccd on ;ill Ininds that llic coni-ls ai-c not competent to decide; nor luive tlu'y power to (Icicnniiic wliat is really and intrinsically snhstanlial and essential in nnillcrs of doctrine. Attorney-C^Jeneral ex rel Abbott v Dublin, 88 N. H. 459. How Ascertained. "Where a trust is ci-ea nine persons as tnistccs of the local society known as (Jennan Baptists, conunonly called Dnnkers, for the exclusive u.se forever of the German Baptist Society. The deed did not express that it was for a chnrch, and it was held void under the 34tli article of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. In 1808 the same grantor, for the purpose of correcting defects in the original deed, made a new deed in which it was declared that the land was intended as a burial grounastor.s and their churches and parishes. IJnt notwithstanding the frequency of their occurrence, it is not easy accurately to define their powers or to ascertain the precise force ami eti'ect of their adjudications. It is frcciuently called an advisory court. Its detennination oi" i-esnlt is often called advice, and is usually, il' not uniformly, given in the form of counsel to the i»arties. And tht; benetits so often derived from the action of these tribunals de|tend more ii]»oii the respectability of the mcMnbers and their collect ivc and indi- vidual moral intlncnce than upon any legal etVect which can be given to their decisions. Steai-ns v Bedford, L'l Pick. (Mass.) 125; see also Avery v Tyringham, :*> Mass. Ke. 1S2 and P.uiT V First Parish in Sandwich, !) Mass. 27(1. Minister, Change of Religious Tenets. If alter a minister is setlled lie ado|'(s a new syslem of divinilv, (lie parish re- •_M9 220 TIIIO (*l\ IL l-AW AM> Till: ("IIIKOH laiiiiu^ (iii'ir ronucr religious hclid', su that llic iiiinisler would not have been Hettl<'(l on liis present Hysteni, the parish lias good cause to coinitlaiii. I>y the change in the opinions of their niinisler tiicy are obliged to Jicar doc- trines which they disai)prove, and which they do not believe. This makes a ])roper case for the advice of an ecclesiastical couucil. Burr v First Parish in Sandwich, 9 Mass. Ke. 2T(>, ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS Arbitrary proceedings, 221. Denominational rules, 222. Ecclesiastical question, defined, 222. England, description, 222. England, jurisdiction, 223. Friends, 223. Judges, should be inijjartial, 223. Judgment, efTect, 224. Judgment, how enforced, 220. Judgment, when binding on civil courts, 227. Judgment, when conclusive, 227. Jurisdiction, general rule, 227. Jm'isdiction, when exclusive, 227. Legislature, jurisdiction, 228. Mandamus, 228. Members, trial, 228. Object and purpose, 229. Pewholder's right, 229. Power limited, 229. Power, necessity of limitation, 229. Scotland, 230. Secret investigations, 230. State not bound by decisions, 230. Vei-mont, 231. Arbitrary Proceedings. >\'li('r(' n incshytery was (onsitl- ei'iiig the appeal of a iniiiish-f rioin a sentence «»f sns- j)ension an atloni]»t was made 1<> exclude two nicnibcrs of the j)resbyteiy from ay the casting:; vote of the niodei'atower in such a case to declare this is not according to the truth wc lUdlcss, and. therefore, we pro- nounce .such doctrines to be wrong, with which we cannot have unity, noi* yet any more spiritual fellowslii]) with tiM)se that hold them." Judges, Should Be Impartial. Where in a pi-oceeding iiefore a presbytery a minister remarks that some nuMubers of tlu' jii-esbytei-y were until to sit in any couil, ami the ndnister was rebuked and sus|»emled by i he presbytery by the vo(«'s of four of the i»ersons indinh'd in iiis criticism, il was said that a sentence of suspension pronounced under sucii cir- cumstances was improper and couhl not l»e sustained. Smith V Nelson, IS \'t. T)! 1. 224 Till'] ('l\ll, LAW AM) TIIIO (mvnCU Judgment, Effect. Tlic decision of an ('((Icsiasticnl court iij»<)ii an ccclcsiaslical niatlcr as l(» its «»\vii jurisdiction is conclusive ui)ou (lie ~>], ciHn^ Cliasc v Clieuey, 58 111. 50!), where it is said tiiat the civil c(»nils will interfere with ehui'ches or reli;;ious associations when tin; i-ij^iits of prop- erty or civil rijihts are involved, hut they will not revise the decisions of such associations ui)on ecclesiastical mat- ters merely to ascertain tlu'ir jurisdiction; see also Marie M. E. Church of Chicago v Trinity M. E. Church of Chicago, 258 111. 21. Wherever religious associations liave been organized in society for the expression and dissemination of religious doctrine, and have created for their direction in matters of doctrine, church government and discipline, tribunals within the association, the final and controlling etfect of the eccle- siastical polity thus formed u])on the individual members and congregations and ofiicers Avithin the general association will not be questioned but will be given efl'ect in the civil courts. And all who unite themselves to such a body do so with the imidied consent to sid)mit to the system of ecclesias- tical control, and are bound by it, and it would be vaiu con- sent, and would lead to the total subversion of such reli- gious bodies, if anyone aggrieved by one of their decisions should appeal to the secular courts, and could thus have that voluntary control, which they had themselves agreed to, reversed and destroyed. It is of the essence of these reli- gious unions, and it is their right thus to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesias- tical cognizance in matters of doctrine and discipline, and this control goes to the extent of controlling the terms upon w^hich the pastoral relation shall be formed, and the salary accompanying it shall be demanded. First Presbyterian Church of Perry v Myers, 5 Old. 801). The weight of authority is to the effect that if a religious organization has, under its form of government, a tribunal ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS 225 constituted willi jurisdiction to (Iccide dillerences between its members as to creed, teaching, or doctrine, tlie civil courts will not undertake io review or revise the juil<;inejit of the church tribunal in releience to such matters. If the matter relates to creed, doctrine, or leaching, the judgment of the constituted clnirch tribunal is absolutely conclusive upon the civil courts, whether in the oi»inion of the judges of such courts the decision appears to be right or wrong. Where a right ol pro|»ei-t_v turns upon such a on it the duty and responsibility of determining what are within the limits of its jurisdiction. The judgment of the eci lesiast ical tri- bunal is final and conclusive it within its jurisdiction; in other cases the civil courts will inquire into the scope, chai- acter, ans 'iMii: ('i\ II, LAW AXh tin: cm \n w scicMcc, iiiid .'iiT snhjccis I'oi' r(]iiiiiei-oceed- ing of the ecclesiastical court, in cases of ciinie or iiimior- ality, are quite different from that of pi-oceeding and con- viction for crime in the temporal eonrts. Sentences of the ecclesiastical courts in crinunal jjrosecntions consist of spii-- itual admonition, suspension, or toi;il deposition from oflSce. All the proceedings of these tribunals in criminal causes are professedly pn» sdlntc aiiiniii ; and there is not power to line or imi>ris(»nnient. Satteiiee v l'. S. 2(1 Ajip. 1). r. rwi. Pewholder's Right, in .Jacob v Ihdiow, L' Salk. (lOng.) 551, it was held that a j>erson who had a |»rescrij»tive right to a pew, being disfnibed in his right, might sue in a spir- itual court fo have his ]iossession <|niete(l. Power Limited. (Miuicli judicatories cannot usurjt legis- lative i>owers. The creation of church judicatories and their investment with authoi-ity is one of the functions of the sovereign power. Bear v Heasley, 1)8 Mi( h. 27!». Sucli a court has no jurisdiction to setth' a chui-ch- warden's account. Adams v Kusch, 2 Str. ( lOng. i 1 i:'.;i. As a general j»rinciple, ecclesiastical judicatories c;inn(»t interfere with the temporal concerns of the congi-egation or society with which the church or the membeis theicof ;ire concerned. Baptist Clmich. ilartfoid \ NNitlicrhell. :', i'.iige Ch. (N. Y.) 200. An ecclesiastical coniM cannot eiiteilain a snit as to the allotment of seats in a jilace of di\ine worship unless snch place is a legally consecrated building. P.al I isi-ouibc \ l]\e, 1) .Tur. N. S. (Kng. I 21b. Power, Necessity of Limitation. The doctrine ilial courts of the chui-ch may exercise coordinat<' jurisdiction with the sui>erior courts of justice is om* of the great engines by which the ]to\\ei- of the papacy was upheld and lis spiiifnal despotism extendeil ovei- lOnrope. The spiritual courts uidle the legislative, judicial, and executlvj' functions — the iincuil* 2:\{) 'I'm; cin ii. law am» tiii; <'iiri:(ii I lolled cxcrrisc <»!' sncli :i jmiwci- would iiiscsl thi-iii willi :iii jilithority (lie iiiosi ii resist ildc :iiid ;i|»i»iilliiij(, :tiiroceedings and hearings upon due notice ought to be had in every investi- gation of every sort or charge or issue, we must remember that it is not our ])rovince to im]K)se our views as to such matters upon religious denominations." Bonacum v Har- rington. 05 Neb. S.'U. State Not Bound by Decisions. The decisions of ecclesias- tical courts do not bind the state. Such courts have power ECCLKSIASTICAL ("OlKTS 2.S1 over the consciences of those wlio adniil Iheir antlioiii\ ; and their decisions imist be taken as coMclnsive cvicU'iice as to the conscientions convictions of their subjects, lint temporal courts could not be bound by the construction ji,iven by ecclesiastical courts to Ihc nn'anin«!; of a term ust'd in the civil constitution. Hart v Siliool District, Tliroops- vilh', 2 Lancaster Law Kev. ( I'a.) :U7. Vermont. In this Stale there is no reli'jjious establish- ment, no ecclesiastical law or courts, cslablished by any authority. All Ihcir laws are wantin<;' in this essential requisite, to <>ive llu-m any authority, that they are not i)re- scribed by the sui)renie jjowcr in the State, and thou«i,h they may form constitutions, enact canons, laws or ordinaiu-es, establish courts, or make any decisions, decrees or judg- ments, yet they can have only a voluntary obedience, cannot affect any civil rights, immunities, or contracts, or alter or dissolve any relations or obligations arising from contracts. Smith v Nelson, IS \'t. 511 ; see also Civil Coui'ts. ECCLESIASTICAL LAW Origin, 232. Subordinate to civil law, 232. Origin. The ()iij;iii of flie canon or ecclesiastical law is s;ii(l to be coeval with the establishment of Christianity, nnih'r the apostles and their immediate snccessois, who are snpposed to have framed certiiin ordinances or canons for the government of the churcli and its membere. These rules or oi-dinances are called, in tlie history of the jirimitive church, the aitostolical canons; and though the fact of their being the work of the apostles does not admit of positive proof, yet there is no doubt that they belong to a very early period of ecclesiastical histoiy. They grew and accumu- lated from the exigencies of the church organization, and hccjime binding u]><)n its mend)ers, and, in fact, constituted tlic b;Lsis of the modern ecclesiastical law. Satterlee v U. S., I'O App. D. C. 803. Subordinate to Civil Law. Ecclesiastical law is not a part (»f the law of this State, nor are equitable rights to be deter- mined by it; on the contrary, when a court of equity exer- cises its ])owers it rinciples, irrespective of ecclesiastical or any other law. Cohen v Congregation Shearith Israel, 114 A. I>. (X. Y. ) 117. 232 ELECTIONS Adjoui-mnent, 233. Burden of proof, 234. By-laws, 234. Certificate cannot be modified, 235. Hand vote, 235. Illegal votes, 235. Mandamus, requiring notice, 235. Meeting, justice may call, 235. Method, congregation may regulate, 235. Nominations, 236. Notice, 236. Place, 236. Presiding officers, 236. Referee, 237. Regularity, qualifications of voters, 237. Rescinding vote, 238. Silence, effect, 238. Validity, notice, 239. Validity, other meeting at same time, 239. Voter, right cannot be reconsidered, 240. Adjournment, lu March, 11)00, the se«siou attempted to postpone the annual election of elders from the regular time in Ajiril until after the meetin«i of the (Jeneral Assembly, which had under consideration a question relating; to the l)astor of the church. The meeting of this session was hehl at the residence of one of its members, but not on the re- (juired notice. The pastor was not present, and one of tlie elders acted as the moderator pro tern. The law of the cliurch required tlie pastor to jii-eside at all meetinus, except in certain specified cases, of whidi this was not one. Tlie meeting was held irregular, and its action inelVective. Not- withstanding this attemiiled action by the session, regular annual meetings were hebl in I'.tOO, lUOl, and l'.i()L». The 233 L'::i Tiir: ("i\ ii. i,.\w am> 'imii; cm kcii olliccl'S clcclcd ;i( llicsc iiicci iii;j;s wci'c (Icchi ictl to he llip i'<»}i;uliir olliccis of llic sociclv. iJjivton v Cjirlcr, L'(MI l';i. Si. I!t1. Ill Sloiitilitoii V KcyiioMs, Ll St rniiji;*' I Iji*;. i KUT), it ;i|»- l)eare(l lli;il I lie vicnr li:iil (lie right to iin ]H'esent, adjonrned the meeting. Such members therenpon continned llie meeting and elected a church- warden. It was lield that lie was entitled to tlie office, and tliat (he right to adjourn the meeting was iu the i>aris]i. Burden of Proof. The burden of ]>roof is on tlie jtersons claiming to have been elected trustees. African Baptist rhnrch V AMiite. 24 Ky. Law Rep. 040. By-Laws. Wheie the charter vested iu the congregation ]>ower to make bv-laws, a bydaw was held valid autliorizing the president of the cor]>oi-ation to apjioint inspectors of election. A by-law was also held valid which provided that a ticket should contain nothing but the names of candidates. Commonwealth v Woelper, 3 Ser. & R. (Pa. i 20. A by-law of the society restricted the right to vote to persons who had been members of the church twelve mouths preceding the election. A subsequent bydaw itrohilMte10. Certificate Cannot Be Modified. At an election of trustees of the society known as tlie Church of the Turilans the iii- S]»ectors declared, at the close of the election, that certain candidates had received a specified number of votes, being a majority of the votes received. Afterward the inspectors made a certificate iu which they reviewed and revised the result of the election, declaring that certain votes assumed to have been cast for the successful candidates were illegal. This atteni])ted review by the insj^ectors was without author- ity, and the i>ersous receiving the highest number of votes ELi:cTIONS 235 were held to have been legally elected. Votes received ;im<1 counted cannot afterward be rejected as invalid. Hartt v Harvey, :\'2 Barb. ( N. Y. ) 55. Hand Vote. In Wardens, Christ Church v Tope, 8 Gray (Mass.) 140, an election of officers was sustained though elected by hand vote instead of by a written vote, as pre- scribed by a previous rule adopted by the congregation at an annual meeting. Such a meeting could not bind its suc- cessors as to the method of conducting an election. The officers so chosen were dec lared regularly elected. A resolu- tion to increase the nund>er of vestrymen could not alfect the existing organization until the new officers were elected. Illegal Votes. The reception of illegal votes at the elec- tion of officers of a religious society does not invalidate the election if it does not affect the result. Wardens, Christ Church V Pope, 8 Gray (Mass.) 140. Mandamus, Requiring Notice. The rector may be required by mandamus to give notice of an election of vestrymen. People ex rel Fleming v Hart, 36 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 874, 13 N. Y. Sup]). 1)0.3. Meeting, Justice May Call. In the absence of a provision in the charter for calling meetings for the election of trus- tees such a meeting nmy be called by a justice of the ])eace on the application of live members of the society. Ladd v Clements, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 476. Method, Congregation May Regulate. In 1724, at a meeting of the congregation, a rule was adopted that thereafter the churchwardens and vestry be always chosen by a written vote. This meeting had no power over the election <»f officers at a succeeding meeting, and the rule adopteil relative to the method of voting could not bind the congregation at a subsequent election. I'ei'sons assembled at any meeting had full jiower to regulate the method of conducting elec- tions, and were not bound by the action of a previcms meet- ing. Therefore an election at a subseipient meeting by hand vote, instead of written ballot, was held valid, and the |)er- 2'M\ 'I'lli; (IN IL LAW AND Till: (IK IJCII sons (Iccl.ircd clcclcd wci'J' cut il led lo iIjc ollicc. \V;ii-(]oiih, (Mirisl CIiihtIi v P(»ih'. S (Jniy (Mass.) 1-K). Nominations. II Ii;mI lonj; Im'cii liic custom iu this Hociety for the (•(nisisloiv lo ii()iiiiii;il(' (•.iiididates for doarons and elders, and for Hie minister lo aiinonnee the nominations from the pnliMt a si>e(ifieurpose of holding service, the election held on the 30th of July was held to be irregular and invalid. Dahl V Talache, os'cal. 248. Place. The election must be held at the usual place of meeting. American Primitive Society v Pilling, 4 Zab. ( N. J. ) (\:^:\. Presiding- Officers. In People ex rel Smith v Peck, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) (>04, a Baptist minister was held not to be an elder within the meaning of the statute requiring two elders to preside at a church election. This case involved the validity of a church election, it appearing that there were two sets of presiding officers, two ELECTIONS 287 polls, and the alleged election ol two sets of trustees. At one of the elections a ministef of the church was one of the presiding- otlicers. At the other election two elders presided, as required by the statute. It was held that the alleged election at which the minister acted as one of the presiding officers was irregular and illegal, because he was not an elder within the meaning of the statute. The other election, presided over by two elders, was sustained. Under the New York religious corporations act of 18K5 it was held that two persons chosen by the members of the congregation present should preside at an election. Con- cord Society, Strykersville v Stanton, 38 Hun. N. Y., 1. See Peoide v La Coste, 37 N. Y. 192, involving the validity of the election of churchwardens and vestrymen holding, among other things, that the rector is both the presiding and returning officer, and that his certificate of election is pre- sumptively valid. Referee. The court has power to appoint a referee to supervise a special election ordered on granting a writ of mandamus directing the rector to join with the trustees in giving notice of a special election to fill vacancies. People ex rel Fleming v Hart, 36 St. Rep. 874, 21 N. Y. Supp. 673. Regularity, Qualifications of Voters. The case involved the question of the regularity of the election of trustees, each party claiming to have been lawfully elected. Two elections for trustees were held on the 0th of June, 1$51, one in the schoolhouse near the church, the other in the open yard. The respondents were elected at the jxdl in the schoolhouse, the relators at the other poll. The act of incori)oration is silent as to the mode of conducting charter elections. It fixed the date of the election but did not direct who should conduct it. No by-law on this subject was adopted. It was held that the only legal election on Monday after Whitsun- day was that which was held by officers duly chosen on the previous Thursday to conduct the election, and the trustees elected at an unauthorized and irregular ])oll could not hold L':;s Tin: cin ii. law and tiii; cm i;("II I lie nllicc. ('\cii ir iIh'v \v('|-(' cIiuscii hy ;i riiiijorily (;!' the \( tiers. TIh' coiii'l s:ii(l I lie cliicr (|ii<'s(i(»ti in llic cusc involved the li^hl of iiiciiihtTs of this K«»iii;iii Ciitliolic ('Imrdi to vote at a |»r('liniiii;ii-y chMtioii of presiding ((llicci-s, siicli right to vote hciiig (IctiTiiiiiicd by tlic coiitrihiilioiis of iMenil)ei's. Under llie act of incorpoi-at ion tlic li^lit to vote d(!p(Mided on the f;i(t thai ;i iiuMidx'i- had either contrilMited to the erection oi the clnncli or liaerson as a voter. Hence election officers were justified in refusinj.*- to receive the votes of such ]iersons. The trustees chosen at a meeting held bj' the election officers regularly elected by legal voters were declared to be the lawful trustees of the society. Juker V ronimonwealth ex rel Fisher, 20 Ta. St. 484. Rescinding Vote. A board consisting of the vicar (pre- siding), two churchwardens, and four overseers of the poor met for the ]iurj)ose of electing a master of a charity school. A candidate was chosen by a vote of four to three, the vicar giving the casting vote in his favor. Subsequently a ques- tion arose as to the candidate's ability to accept the office, and by a vote of five to two his election was rescinded and the meeting adjourned. It was held in Attorney-General t Matthew, '^ Russ. (Eng. i .^)00, that so long as the boai-d was in session it had i)ower to rescind the action, provided it acted in good faith, and for the welfare of the charity. Silence. Effect. A majority of the legal voters who choose to vote always constitutes an election. When a majority expressly dissent but do not vote, the election by the minor- ity is good. It is no objection to an election that illegal votes were received unless the illegal votes clianged the nuijority. The mere fact of their existence never avoids an election. First Parish, Sudbury, v Stearns, 21 IMck. (Mass.) 148. ELECTIONS 'j:;'J Validity, Notice. The society was iiRoi'i)orated by legis- lative act ill 17J)7. The charter provided for the election of four elders and lour trustees, who were to compose tiie vestry. The minister was to be president of the vestry, and he was required to give notice of elections. A controversy arose in the society resulting- in the election, in IS-lJi, of two sets of elders and trustees, each claiming to be regular, one set claiming to represent the original society and its min- ister duly chosen, while it was claimed that the other set represented a party which had in ettect usurped the power and jurisdiction of the congregation, and that these elders and trustees were not regularly elected. It was held that even if the election of 1843, at which certain elders and trustees were chosen was invalid, subsequent elections, held on due notice, could not be questioned, and the court could not declare them invalid. It was held that both elections in 1843 could not be valid, because one of them was held without a notice of the election given by the i)astor as re- quired by the charter; consequently, jiersons claiming to have been elected without such notice could not lawfully take the offices. Whatever might be the situation as to the validity of the election, it was held that mandamus was not the proper remedy, for the reason that a legal remedy existed by which the ]»ersons entitled to the management of the corporation could obtain possession of its jiroperty. Smith V Erb, 4 Gill. (Md.) 437. Validity, Other Meeting at Same Time. An election of trus- tees was held on the (Ith oi' .laiitiaiy, IIM.'I, nn(; A. D. (N. Y.) 38«;. Voter, Right Cannot Be Reconsidered. A person voted at a cliurrh election without clialleii*;!' and i-eceived a majority of the votes cast for the office of ( Inucliwai-deii, and the result was vangelical Association, because the ]>laintiMs w(»re invested with that right, being the regularly ajipointed j>reacliers in charge. It was held that the acti(tn of the General Conference of 1887 in referring to the Board of Publication the question of designating the jtlace for the next (Jeneral Conference was a valid exercise of jjower; that the Indianapolis Conference was the' lawful high church court of the association, and was authorized by the con- stitution of the church to review and declare void the pro- ceedings w^hich resulted in the alleged suspension of the bisho])s, and to elect others for the Constitutional ]>eriod and that the Annual Conferences over which they i)residei| were the lawful Conferences of the association. It was held in substance also that the jdaintitl's, comjtosing a majority of the I>es Moines Cis(i]>lin(\ TIm* Icrritorv coven-d In- said denomination is divided into Annnal Conference districts, in each of which is held a yearly meeting of the jireachers of the denomination localed in snch disti-ict. For certain purjtoses of local administration each Annual Conference exercises jurisdiction over all its own members and over the con<;rej]i;ations within its limits. By the Ceneral Conference, held every four years, bishojts aie elected for a term of four years. It is the special duty of a bisho]) to preside over the Annual Conference, and, with the aid of the presiding elders thereof, to appoint at the Conference session the l»reachers to their respective pastoral charges for the ensu- ing year, the same being the only recognized method of appointing ministers in use in said denomination since its origin. Neither the lay members of the several congrega- tions nor the trustees thereof, according to the Discipline of said denomination, have anj* voice or vote in the selection of their pastors, nor any power to reject a pastor who has been appointed in the manner aforesaid. Under the Discipline a presiding elder is recpiired to superintend the spiritual and temporal affairs of the de- nomination within his district, to enforce all disciplinary l)rovisions, to hold services, and otherwise to officiate in the various houses of worship in his district, and once in every three months to call and preside over a quarterly Conference held in the house of worship of each pastoral charge. In this denomination a ])astor's appointment over any partic- ular charge lasts for one year only, though he may be reap- pointed at an Annual Conference, but not more than three times in succession. Every pastor who is a married man is entitled to occupy the parsonage belonging to his congrega- tion. Fuchs V Meisel, 102 Mich. 357. Description. This association was an unincorporated society, composed of about 30,000 menibers, residing at dif- ferent places in several States and in Canada, who hold to EVANGELICAL ASSOCL\TION 247) a (letiued system ol' faitli, who ;ii(' imiicd in Quarterly, Annual and General Conferences, and who are governed by a certain jjrescribed Discipline, and by r\ilos of order adoi>ted from time to time by tlie legislative power of the association. Its organization is as complete and minute as that of any existing religious society in the country. And it is strictly and exclusively a religious association, existing only for religious purposes. Bequests to this association were sustained in Evangelical Association's Appeal, i>5 Pa. St. 310. Division of Property, Effect. This corporation was organ- ized to supj)ort the faith of, and to be connected with, the German Evangelical Synod of North America, especially with the division known as the Wisconsin District. The corporation took title to its property cliarged with a law- ful trust, and they could not divert the property to incon- sistent uses against the protest of any nieniber. There was also an Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Wisconsin, distiiu-t and separate from, but holding views somewhat similar to the Evangelicals. Dissensions arose in the society regarding faith and doctrine. Persons in control of the society changed its name to the p]vangelical Lutheran Creed congregation, used books in the Sunday schools not authorized by the Evangelicals, and dissolved the relations existing between the society and the Wisconsin District, and declared that the congregation shall be and remain Evangelical Lutheran, and that the j»roperty in case of schism or division shnll be enjoyed only by those who adhere to the constitution as so amended. It also appeared that the society was emjdoying a pastor who had departed from the Ihangelical faith. Tlie plaintiffs sought to obtain jtossession and control of the property on the ground of its diversion by the managers of the corj)oration. It was held that the i)laintilV's claim had been sufliciently established. Marien v Evangelical Creed Congregation, Milwaukee, 132 Wis. O.")!). Expulsion of Member Terminates Office. Dill'erences having arisen in the local society, (iiic p;iity seceded from the churi'h L'K; Tin: ("l\ll. LAW ANh tin; ("III kcii 2111(1 joined nil iissocialioii known jis tin; United lOvan^tdieal ('huierty was bought under the condition that it should be subject to the rules of the Evangelical Association of North America. The jdaintitls had no standing in court and were not entitled to the relief demanded. Garrett v Nace, 5 Pa. Sup. Ct. 475, Nace Appeal, 11 Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 41. General Conference, Place of Meeting. The Conference of 1887 aj»pointed the usual Board of Publication, composed of the bishops and eight other persons, who were respectively selected from the eight general districts, with power to select the place of meeting of the next General Conference. The Board named Indianapolis as the place of meeting of the General Conference of 1801. After the Board of Publi- cation had designated Indianajiolis as the place of meeting of the next General Conference, the East Pennsylvania Annual Conference met at Alleutown, and declared illegal the action of the General Conference of 1887 in delegating to the Board of I*ublication power to designate the place of meeting of the next General Conference. This Annual Con- ference then designated Philadelphia as the place of meet- ing of the next General Conference. This action by the oldest Annual Conference was nugatory, for the reason that the place of meeting had already been fixed by the body charged with that duty by the General Conference. Eighteen Annual Conferences sent delegations to the Indianapolis General (Conference, and two sent delegations to the Philadelphia Conference. The remaining tive sent delegates to each Conference. Tln^ Indianapolis General EVAXGKLICAL ASSOCIATION 247 Coufereiice had a quorum of lejjjal rejji'esentatives of the Annual Conferences. The Philadelphia Conference had less than a quorum. The court held that (those) members of tlie denomination who adhered to the Indianapolis (reneral Conference consti- tuted the Evangelical Association. The alleged Conference which met in l*hiladel])hia was unauthorized, its assum])tion of ecclesiastical aulhority was an act of rebellion against the organization with which its members had been con- nected, and whose name it adopted. It was furtlier held tliat property which prior to 181)1 belonged to the ICvangel- ical Association, now belonged to, and must be controlled by those who still constitute that organization. The Annual Conference which Ohio Cir. Ct. .*>12 Schweiker v Husser, 14(1 111. ?M). Minister, Power of Appointment. The ICast Pennsylvania Annual Conference, which refused to adhere to the (reneral Conference at Indianapolis in 1S!)1, ai»]»ointed a minister to this church. The court held that his a])|K)iiilment was irreg- ular. ^rend)ors of this Annual Confei-cnce who adhered to the IndiMiia|>()lis Confci-cnce met and ap]»(>inted a minister. This aclion was allcrwaiMl i-alilicd by the Indianajiolis (Icn- eral ConlVi-cnce. The couiM held that this i-at ilicat ion \ali- dated the ap|K)intin('Mt made by the ])r()visi<>nal Annual ("(in- ference, and tlKM-cforc that tlic minister appointed Ity that provisional Conleicnce was entitled to the ollice as jtastoi- of the Imnianuel Church, and was the only pastor that church was authorized to receive. Krecker v Shirey. !(»;{ Pa. r>:u. Secession, When Seceders Cannot Control Property. The Salem's Aiii fnuisfcr (o n-KuIar |{;i[>tisl Clitircli invalid, 2r)0. Creed. Tlic I'rcc linplist fjiitli is )>jisooration the society had received a conveyance of land on which to erect a house of wor.ship for the ditYu- sion of the gospel, according to the faith and practice of the Freewill Ba]»tist denomination. It was said by the court tliat the religious belief and the articles of faith of the Baptist Church or denomination were radically different from those of the Free Baptist Church, and each had a separate and distinct organization, and was governed by its own officers, laws, and rules. It was hehl that the property was acquired for the benefit of the Free Baptist Church, 250 FREE BAIT I ST CHURCH lT.I and that such i)r()i)erty coiiM not he translVncd to the Baptist denomination against the protest of nieinheis of ihe local society. Such members who still adhered to the Free Baptist faith had a right to protect the property and ob- tain an injunction against its transfer. The religious so- ciety as such could dissolve its rehitions with the Free P>:i]»- tist denomination ;iiid join the B;iptist, but the society could not take with it the i)roi)erty accpiired by a civil corj)or;itioii directly coniiecled with the Free Bajdist ("liurcli. I*;irk v Chaplin, i)G la. 55, FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND Organiziition, 252. Diversion of i)roprrty, 252. Minority's rip;ht, 253. Union did not afT(H't fnMMlom of private opinion, 2.54. Organization. 'J'lic Free Clinrdi <»!' Scothiiid \v;is foiiiicd in the year 184)] by wliat is called "the (lisi'ni)1i<)ii," or, in other words, the secession from the I>stal)lislied Chnrcli of iScotlaud of a larjije body of the ministers of the JOstablished Church, who renounced entirely the pecuniary benefits of their conned ion with Die estaldisliment in amendments of a protest which they had made against the interference by the civil courts with rights wiiich they considered to be the rights of the duirch. It was the feature of the Free Church (prior to the Union) which distinguished it from all other I'resbyterian churches in Scotland, that it was the only I'resbyterian Church not connected with the state which professed to hold the establishment principle. General As- sembly of Free Church of Scotland v Overtoun (1901), Law Reports. A])peal Cases (Eng.) 515. Diversion of Property. In 1000 acts of assembly were passed by the majority of the Free Church, and unanimously by the Ignited Presbyterian Church, for union, under the name of tlie United Free Church, and the Free Church prop- erty w^as conveyed to the new trustees for behoof of the new church. The res])on dents contended that the Free Church had full power to change its doctrine as long as its identity w-as preserved. The appellants, a very small minority of the Free Church, objected to the union, maintaining that the Free Church had no power to change its original doc- trines, or to unite with a body which did not confess those doctrines, and they coni]dained of a breach of trust, inas- much as the property of the Free Church was no longer 252 FKKK CHURCH OF SCOTLAND 25:^ used lor behoof of that church. They brought this actiou iu tlie uame of the General Assembly of the Free Church, ask- ing, substantially, that they, as representing the Free Church, be declared entitled to the property. It was held that the establishment ijrinciple and the Westminster Confession were distinctive tenets of the Free Church ; that the Free Church had no power, wliere i)roperty was concerned, to alter or vai*y the doctrine of the church; that there was no true union, as the United Free Churcli had not preserved its identity with the Free Church, not having the same distinctive tenets; and that the appellants were entitlerineii)le, and the pi'edestinat ion doctrine in the Westminster Confession as they pleased. General As- seml»ly. Free riinrch of Scotljind v Overtoun (190-1), Law Kep. Apj). Cas. (lOng.j 515. FRIENDS History, 255. Three groups, 25G. Described, 257. Business, how transacted, 260. Creed, 201. Ohio Yearly AIecliii{^, 2l'.l. riiiUulelpliia Yearly Meelinf!;, 262. J'repMrative Meeting, only one regular, 264. Affirmation, 265. Division of society, eiTect, presiding officer, 265. Exemption from mihtary duty, 266. Meetings, 266. Ofhce, when not bound to accept, 266. Title, not forfeited by removal of building, 267. Unincorporated, may take by will, 267. History. Tlie distiiu-tive doctrines of Quakerism were first taught in ICngland shortly after the middle of the seven- teenth century. The earliest meetings of tliis sect of Chris- tians were no doubt for the purpose of worship only, and it was not until the year 1(>S2 that the Society of Friends was fully organized for the purpose of discipline or church gov- ernment. In that year a form of ecclesiastical government \\as matured and adopted. The system tlien adopted, whidi has been continued ever since, embraced four grades of church judicatories, called meetings, namely, the Prepar- alive, the Monthly, the Quarterly, and the Yearly. These were connected and subordinated in the order named — the pT'e])arative to the monthly, the monthly to the (piarterly, the cpiartei'ly to the yt'arly. The London Yearly Meeting. the only yearly meeting at that time e.stablished. was in vested with ])aramonnt and final jurisdiction over all the subordinate meetings of the society. The jurisdiction of the Yearly Meeting was both api)ellate and advisory. Ap- peals from the decisions of the (>uarterly Meetings were 255 2r)(; Till': cinil law am* iiii; <"ii(i:rij t'literdiiiMMJ l»_v I lie ^'(';l^ly Mfcliiij;. lOacli (Quarterly Meet- ing was invested with like jurisdiction over all the Monthly Meelin;;s witliin its jn'escribed tej-ii torial limits, and each Montliiy .Meeting; with like jurisdiction over Preparative Meetings within its territory, riuler this system a Prejjarative Electing (aunot be "set up" or "laid down" within the bounds ol" a Monthly Meet- ing without the consent of the Monthly; a Monthly Meeting without tlie consent of the Quarterly Meeting to which it is accountable, or a quarterly- without the consent of the Yearly Meeting. All meetings for worship are promiscu- ous, being comi)osed of members of the society without regard to sex, and open to all i)ersons who may desire ad- mission. In the scheme of Quaker government no superior judicatory has been organized for the exercise of discipline over its Yearly Meetings. Harrison v Hoyle, 24 Ohio 254. Three Groups. Those known by the general name of Friends, and residing upon the American continent, are divided into three i)rincipal groups of Yearly Meetings. The first of these groui)S comprises all of the Y'early Meetings, which are in correspondence and in regular fraternal rela- tions with the London Y'^early Meeting, and to which we have already referred. Of this group the New England, formerly known as the Rhode Island, Yearly Meeting is the oldest American Yearly Meeting. The second embraces those Y^'early Meetings which have their origin in a division of the society of Friends, commencing in the year 1827, in which Elias Hicks, a minister of the society, bore a promi- nent part. Those constituting these meetings are known in common parlance by the distinguishing name of Hicksite Quakers. The third is compo.sed of a class of Yearly Meet- ings which, in the matter of their immediate organizations, are of a still more recent date. Those uniting with this class of Yearly Meetings, as between tliemselves and others claim- ing to be Quakers, prefer to be knowTi as orthodox Friends. These Yearly Meetings base their claims to regularity in their organizations upon their avowed adherence to the FRIENDS -27)1 ancient i)rincii)les of Quakerism, ami upon the orthodoxy of their sentiments as Quakers on the general subject of religion. The position of the I'hiladelpliia Yearly Meeting is somewhat anomalous. It is next to the oldest, and, in some res])ects, has been, and i)erhaps continues to be, one of tlie most influential Yearly Meetings on this continent, and on terms of courtesy and friendship with many other Yearly Meetings; yet, owing to some internal dilliculties and disagreements as to what relations it ought to sustain to certain other bodies claiming to be Yearly' Meetings, it has ceased to have regular correspondence with any otlier Yearly Meeting. We, consequently, find it difficult, if not imprac- ticable, to classify it with any one of the groups of Yearly Meetings to whicli we have referred. White Lick Quart. Meet, of Friends v White Lick Quart, etc., 89 Ind. 13G. Described. The society consists of a series of what are termed meetings — the word being used not only to desig- nate assemblies of the people for worship, but also the jurisdiction and authority of these bodies. The lowest of these in order, which are called l*articular Meetings, are local assend)lies for the purpose of worship only. Some- times several of tliese exist in a single town. They are sim- ilar to what some other sects call congregations. Next in order are Preparative Meetings. These consist of the mem- bers of one or more particular meetings. They assemble for worship, a)id also for the transaction of business to a limited extent. They usually include more than one Particular Meeting. Next above these are Monthly ]\[eotings. They consist of as many Preparative Meetings as may be conven- ient and assendde monthl3^ From among the members of each Preparative Meeting belonging to them, they annually elect two or more males and two or more females as over- seers. These overseers superintend the discipline and man- age the funds and business of the ^Monthly ^Meetings; and the mend)ers which belong to each ]>r('])aratlve meeting superintend its discijtlinc and inaiiage ils iiiiids and busi- ness. 258 TlllO ('l\ 11. LAW AM) Till: CIUKCII Ii_v llio ]\r;issa(lnis('tts ad of Isi'ii coiporate J)ow(;i'h were coiifcncMl iijioii llicsc bodies, aiiresenta fives, the members of the society generally are entitled to attend all the meet- ings and to participate to a greater or less extent in their proceedings. The greater part of the merely disciplinary and administrative business of the society is transacted at the Monthly Meetings, but their proceedings nmy be reviewed by the Quarterly Meetings and appeals may be sHU further taken to the Yearly Meetings. Each Y'early Meeting has a final and controlling jurisdiction in all matters of faith, religious duty, administration, and discipline within its territorial limits, and is regarded as a coordinate sui)reme judicatory with other Yearly Meetings, all constituting the ecclesiastical system known as the Society of Friends. This general plan of organization is adhered to by all classes of English-speaking peo])le claiming to be Friends, but more genor;illy known as Quakers. Instead of general conventions, general conferences, or other general assem- blages of some kind, as is provided for in most other reli- gious organizations, the society of Friends has adopted a system of correspondence and fraternal communication be- tween its Y'early Meetings in unity and general accord with each other, which is carried on by means of epistles, liberat- ing certificates, visits, interchanges of ministers, and general letters of recommendation. Bv this system of intercom- FRIENDS 259 nuinication each Yearly Meeting receives information from time to time as to the general condition of all the other Yearly Meetings with which it is in correspondence, and is afforded an opportnnity of consulting such other Yearly Meetings in all affairs of serious difficulty or of grave im- portance. In matters of correspondence, and of an advisory char- acter merely, tie Yearly Meeting of England, which as- sembles at London, and which was organized and established more than two hundred years ago, has usually had accorded to it that kind of precedence which is quite frequently, if not usually, conceded to the oldest member of a family, and correspondence with, and consequent recognition by, that Y^'early Meeting has been regarded by most, if not all, the Yearly Meetings on this continent, as a matter of consider- able, if not of very great importance. In the peculiar phraseology of the Society of Friends, a meeting is said to have been "set up" when it has been organ- ized according to the usages of the society, and to have been "laid down" when it has been formally dissolved. A new Y''early Meeting is set up by some contiguous or convenient Yearly Meeting, but only with the consent of nil the Yearh' Meetings willi wliich such contiguous or conven- ient Yearly Meeting is in unity and fellowship. When a new Yearly Meeting is set up it acquires juris- diction over all subordinate meetings already establislu'd within its territory. Quarterly Meetings are set up by the j)roper Yearly Meetiiig; Monthly Meetings are set uj) by the (Quarterly Meetings, and the Preparative Meetings are set up by the Monthly Meetings. The clerk of the meeting is in a qualified but, neverthe- less, in a general sense, its ])resi(ling ollirer, as well as the recorder of its proceedings, and during his term in office he stands at the head of the organization which const itules the nieeling. The meeting itself is frecpiently contradistin- guished from others ])y a rcrcreiice lo liiiii as its cliMk. \VIien, therefoi-e, a clcik lias been icgiilarly apjHiinted liie '2m Tin: ("I\il law and 'riii': ciiikcii iiieelinj; is fully or^iinizcd and ready to proceed with itH business. White Lick Quart. Meet, of Friends v White Lick (^uarl. :Meet. of Friends, SO I ml. Ul.'t. Business, How Transacted. One of tlie peculiar and distin- guishing characteristics of this people consists in their mode of transacting business and arriving at conclusions, in which, rejecting totally the i)rinciple that a majority as such is to rule or decide, or govern, they arrive at a unity of resolution and action, in a mode i)eculiar to themselves, and entirely different from that connnon to all civil or polit- ical, and to most ecclesiastical bodies. They look and wait for a union of mind; and the result is produced not by a vote or count of numbers, but by a yielding up of opinions, a deference for the judgment of each other, and an acquies- cence or submission to the measure proposed. Where a divi- sion of sentiment occurs the matter is postponed for further consideration, or withdrawn, or dismissed entirely'; or, after sometimes temperate discussion and sometimes silent delib- eration, those who support, or those who oppose a measure, acquiesce in the sense of the meeting as collected and minuted bj'^ the clerk; and they believe the "spirit of truth" w^hen the meeting is "rightly gathered" will be transfused through their minds, and they will be guided and intiuenced by a wisdom and judgment better than their owti, and that their clerk will be led to act under the overshadowing of that power, which is not at his command, which will enable him to make proper decisions. Quoting from Clarkson's Portraiture of Quakerism, the court said : "When a subject is brought before them it is canvassed to the exclusion of all extraneous matter, until some conclusion results ; the clerk of the meeting then draws up a minute, containing, as nearly as he can collect, the substance of this conclusion ; this minute is then read aloud to the auditory, and either stands or undergoes an altera- tion, as appears by the silence or discussion upon it, to be the sense of the meeting; when fully agreed upon it stands ready to be recorded." FRIENDS 2G1 The coustitution of this society neither recognizes nor makes provision for a vote or a decision on the principle of numbers in any instance or prediciiiiient. Hendrickson v Shotwell, 1 N. J, Eq. 577; see also Hendrickson v Decow, 1 Saxton (N. J.) 577. Creed. Although the Society of Friends have seldom made use of the word trinity, yet they believe in the existence of the Father, the Son, or Word, and the Holy Spirit ; that the Son was God, and became flesh ; that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all thinj^s were made, who was •glori- fied with the Father before the world began, who is God over all, blessed for ever, that there is one Holy Spirit, tlie promise of the Father and the Son, the leader, and sancti- fier, and comforter of his people, and that these three are one, the Father, the Word and the Spirit. They also believe in the doctrine of the atonement; that the divine and human nature of Jesus Christ were united; that thus united, he suffered, and that through his sufl'eriTigs, death, and resurrection he atoned for the sins of men. They also believe that the Scriptures were given by inspiration, and when rightly interjyreted are unerring guides. They believe that the Spirit still operates upon the souls of men, and when it does really and truly so operate it furnishes the primary rule of faith. Hendrickson v Decow, 1 Sax, (X. J.) 577. Ohio Yearly Meeting. In 1S32 land in Jefferson County, Ohio, was conveye Yearly Mectinj^. Tlu' division in the Ohio Yearly Meeting of 1854 was apiKircnfly the ivsult arties in the Ohio Yearly Meet- ing respectively synii)athizing with the larger and siiiall party in the New P^ngland division. The controversy in 1854 grew out of the election of a clerk, resulting in the declaration of election of two clerks by opi>osing factions. After this division each party met in a separate meeting. One of those meetings was known as the Binn's Meeting, and the other as the Hoyle Meeting. The Binn's party maintained the history, traditions, and customs of the Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, while the Hoyle party was, so far as practicable, excluded from associa- tion with the other party. The court held that the Binn's party was entitled to be considered the true Y'early Meeting, and that the Hoyle party had not conformed to the rules of the societj' in attempting the election of a clerk and assistant in the manner pointed out in the opinion. It appeared that nearly all other Y'early Meetings of Friends in this country recog- nized the validity of the Binn's election and the status of the Binn's party. This was deemed of great weight by the court in determining the question as between the Binn's and the Hoyle factions. The Binn's party was held entitled to the property conveyed to the Ohio Y'early Meeting in 1832. Harrison v Hoyle, 24 Ohio 254. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. In the latter part of the seventeenth century, and at a verj' early period in the prog- ress of the settlement of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the number and condition of the followers of Creorge Fox. or the people called (Quakers, rendered it desirable they should FRIENDS 203 be brought under a comiiiou liead, aLcording to the loriii of ecclesiastical government adopted in England, and already existing in some of the more ancient colonies. In the year KiSl or 1()S5 (the precise time seems to be controverted) a Yearly Meeting was established, comprehending the prov- inces of New .Jersey and Pennsylvania, an77. This was declared to he a hody jjolitic or coiporate hy prescription, and its right of taking and enjoying i)roperty could not be impaired hy inipiiry into the sejjarate capacity of its component members. Magill v Brown, Fed. Cas. No. 952 (U. S. Cir. Ct., I»a.) Brightly N. P. 347. Preparative Meeting, Only One Regular, For some time I)rior to 1827 there was a i)reparative meeting at Chester- lield, New Jersey. In December, 1827, there was a separa- tion among the members of this meeting, and two meetings were formed, each calling itself the Chesterfield I'reparative Meeting. One of the meetings elected a treasurer of certain school funds, and the other continued the former treasurer in office. Each of these Preparative Meetings was con- nected with one of two Yearly Meetings in I'hiladelphia. But while there were two meetings claiming to be the true Yearly Meeting, it was conceded that by the law of the societj* there could be only one true Y'early Meeting in IMiiladelidiia. It was held that there could be only one Preparative Meeting at Chestertield, which must be connected with one Yearly Meeting in Pliiladelphia. It was also held that the separation in 1827, by which the Philadelphia Yearly Meet- ing was divided, a minoritj^ organizing another I'early Meeting, did not have the effect to change the status of the original society, which Avas continued by the election of officers, and the transaction of general business; and this Y'early Meeting was held to be the true Yearly Meeting. The Chesterfield Pre|)arative Meeting, which continued in office the former treasurer, was held to be the regular I*re- parative Meeting, duly connected with the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, and that this treasurer was entitled to recover the amount due on a mortgage given to him for the loan of money belonging to the school fund. Hendrickson v Shotwell, 1 N. J. Eq. 577. FRIENDS 265 Affirmation. In Rex v Mayor of Lincoln, 5 Mod. (Eug.) 400, a Quaker was admitted to the freedom of the City of Lincoln on his aflirmatiou. In Ex Parte CUuubleton, 2 Atk. (Eng.) 70 Lord Chancellor Hardwicke held that under the act of 7 and 8 W. 'S, a Quaker could not by affirmation without oath present articles of the peace against her husband, and it was suggested that the woman, "as she goes in danger of her life," might overcome her scruples and take the required oath. A Quaker's testimony on his affirmation is admissible in an action on debt on statute, 2 Geo. 2, c. 24, against bribery. Atcheson v Everitt, 1 Cowper (Eng.) 382. Quakers may serve as grand jurors aiul tlie affirmation administered to them is equivalent to the oath to be admin- istered to other persons. Commonwealth v Smith, 9 Mass. 107. Division of Society, Effect, Presiding Officer. Members of a Society of Friends formed an association known as the "Purchase Preparative Meeting," to whom belonged a school fund of about .f800 in cash, raised by contribution, and loO acres of land devised by an Individual. In 1828 a separa- tion took place in the Societj'^ of Friends, at their Yearly Meeting in the city of New York, about 250 i)ersons out of an assemblage of 1,200 withdrawing from the Friends Meet- ing house in the city of New York, and organizing a se])arate Yearly Meeting; the section withdrawing was called the Orthodox, and those remaining the Hicksites. Under the rules of the society the clerk of the nteeting is its ju-esiding officer, and the meeting is not deemed organized until he is in his place. At a meeting held in 1828 the Hicksites were a large majority, and they refused to ])ermit the clerk to ])reside, for tlie reason that he liad joined the Oi'thodox party; thereupon the clerk and several mend)ers withdrew and held a meeting in anothei- i)lace. At tliis meeting the Orthodox Friends were direc-ted to sepai-ate from the Hicks- ites. On the withdrawal of the clerk, as aboNc pointed out, the Hicksites elected anothei- dei-U ;in7:i Title, Not Forfeited by Removal of Building. Property con- veyed to the society for its use so lon<.i' as it was needed for meeting purposes, with a provision that it should revert when no longer needed for such j)uri)Oses, was not forfeited by the removal of the buildings erected by the society on the lot. Such a removal did not constitute a forfeiture. Carter V Branson et el, 79 Ind. U. Unincorporated, May Take by Will. In Magi 11 v Brown, Fed. Cas. S, U'>'2 ( U. S. Cir. Ct., Pa.) (Brightly N. P. :UT) Judge Baldwin, considering the provisions of a will making numerous bequests to Societies of Friends for charitable purj)oses, said: *'It is not conceivable that the Quaker settlers of this province should have introduced those laws of the mother country, which would inca])acitate them as indi- viduals, or a religious society, from taking, holding, or enjoy- ing property as a matter of right without a charter ; or expose to a forfeiture to the projirietor, or mesne landlord, lands conveyed to them for the purposes of sepulture, religious wor- shij), or charity, and above all, that William Penu should have adojtted the statutes of Henry VIII declaring the celebration of divine service according to the rites of the Catholic Church to be superstitious, and a conveyance for its u.se illegal and void ; and the statutes of mortmain which make the enjoyment of jiroperty by a religious body (h'ju-nd ent on the pleasure and permission of the lord of the Ice. while at the same time he exchnles the Statute of 4."> ICli/a- beth, and the mild and beneticenl |>rinciples of the coimnon law which that statute has been held to have restored." The history of the Society of (Quakers jtrcscnls no instance of an incorporation. The societies of l-'ricnds, though never form- ally incorporated, are cai)able under the constitnlion and laws of Pennsylvania, of taking jnopeiMy l>y devise «>r iKMpiest for the piir|»oses of theii- organi/,at ion. Put in (Ji'cen v Dennis, (► Conn. I'lC!, a devise to :im uninciHpdrated (Quaker society was rejected. FRIENDSHIP LIBERAL LEAGUE Description, 268. Description. Testator gave a legacy to the league but did not specify the use to which it was to be api)lied. The league was organized for tlie purpose of uniting socially for the improvement of their intellectual and moral condition by the dissemination of scientific truths by means of literature, music, lectures, and debates. It did not claim to be a Chris- tian organization, but it represented nevertheless the belief of its members about religion, and their practices as to the observance of the Sabbath and similar subjects. It was an organization that had about it no element of personal or corporate gain. It had no capital stock and no stockholders. Its meetings were usually held on Sunday. It was held that money given to this league was given for religious use within the act of 1855. Knight's Estate, 159 Pa. 500. 268 GERMAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH Diversion of property, 269. Diversion of Property. Property was conveyed to the society in trust lo be held as an Evangelical Lutheran Chnrch forever, in which tlie doctrine of the Augshui-g Con- fession and Luther's Smaller Catechism shall be taught and adhered to. Provision was also made for conducting the service in the German and also in the English language. The local societ}- enacted a constitution i)i'()viding for the election of seniors and wardens, and that the ])astor must be a regular clergyman connected with some Evangelical Lutlieran Synod in the Tnited States of America. Abont lSr>o the pastor, as alleged, began a S3steumtic effort to lead the congivgation to adoj)t ])rac(ices in churcli worshii) which are nol a|»[>roveossessi(Mi of the property. They demand<>d the key of the se.xton, who refused to deliver it. IM-o( cedings were commenced against the pastor and sonu' of the trus- tees and mend>ei-s adlu'ring to his inleicsls, to restrain them from taking jiossession of the jtroperly or from exercising 269 •_'70 Tin: CIN'll. LAW AXh Till; CIUKCII ;niy t'lincl ions llici-cin. ll \\;is ln-ld lii;ii |»l;ii iil ills wen; entitle*! ((» tlie |><»ssessi(»ii of tlie [ddperl \ , ;iii(l tlie |i;islor'H jKlliereiits were not en(itle(l to continne in possession thereof. German lOvangelieal Lutheran Church, Newark v Maschop, 10 N. J. Eq. 57. GERMAN EVANGELICAL SYNOD OF NORTH AMERICA Property, separation, injunction, 271. Property, Separation, Injunction. A local society was or- ganized, but the papers were defective. Trustees, were chosen, a corporate organization was maintained, the riglit to be a corporation asserted, and the corporate franchise accordingly used down to the commencement of this action. The corporation was undei- tlie jurisdiction of llio (Jcrnian Evangelical Synod of North America, and was presided over by ministers of that denomination. Land was conveyed to trustees of the local society, on which the church edifice was erected and dedicated, as proi)erty of a society of the Ger- man Evangelical Synod of North America, and used in har- mony therewith until some time in ISIMI. Owing to the dilliculty attending the employment of a minister, tiie society em])loyed one who was a member of the Lutheran Church, a sect materially different in its religious belief and distinct from that of the Wayne Society. Tliis emi)loyment was for one year; at the end of that time a majority again employed the same minister. Tlie minority ])rotested on the ground that they desired and were entitled to have a ministci- in harmony with the views of the (leriiian I'vangelical Synod of North America. Tlu; majority conti-olled the jxtssession of the church, and refused its use by a minister of the denomination to which the society belonged. It was held that the ])roi>erty could not he diverted to uses not contem- plated in the original a((|nisiiioii. :ineal '2 I)enier church officers, as trustees of the corporation, from time to time, were entitled to the tempo- ralities of the church and to its books and papers. Joint Title, Division, Effect. The German Reformed So- ciety and the Lutheran Society occupied land together for many years, using the same church building. The original tract of land thus occu]»ied contained about eight acres. After a long period of joint occupancy the Gennan Reformed Society concluded to erect a separate house of worship, and for that i)uri>ose took possession of about three quarters of an acre at one end of the eight acre tract, sufliciently dis- tant from the other house of worship, so that neither congre- gation interfered Avith the service of the other. In St. Pauls Ref. Ch. V Hower, r.ll Pa. St. :'.0(;, it was held that although those who erected a new church could not without the ci>n- sent of the other party take lawful possession of a portion of the land, the Lutherans objecting were estopped from claiming title to the new building, which had been occu]iieing accord- ing to the forms of the United Greek Catholic Church. It was held tliat the trust contained in the deed of the church property was created for the Greek Catholic Church at Wilkes-Barre, as it was then being conducted. A new pastor, who came to his ])osition in 1S!)2, taught new doctrines and forms, and required of the congregation and trustees that they renounce their belief in tlie doctrines and dogmas of 27S GKEEK CllLUClI 1»7'J the Uniled (Jieek Catholic Chinch. A portion of the con- gregation, led by the pastor, attempted to transfer the society and its property to the Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church. An injunction was granted preventing such transfer. Greek Catholic Church v Orthodox Greek Church, 195 Pa. St. 425. Priest, Appointment and Removal. Tn I'apalion v Manusas, ll."> 111. App. .")!(;, it was held that the board of trustees had power to api)oint and dismiss a priest, and that the jxtwer was not vested in the congregation. There was no evidence of any law of the denomination prescribing any other method of appointment or removal. There was no evidence to show that either in this country or in Europe a priest had ever been elected by the vote of the church or congrega- tion, or that there was any law of the church providing for such election. GUARDIAN Removal on c-h;inf!;o of religions faith, 280. Ward's rcligiou.s education, 281. Removal on Change of Religious Faith. Testator, who (lieointnient of a Protestant in whose family she had lived for live years. The Surrogate ry 283 usi tin: ("i\ il law and 'iiii; rm ijcn tlicni 1(> ]i1:iiiil iir, iiiiil on wIikIi Ik* liiid d'cctccl :i r:iiiiily (oiiil). The j»I;iiii( ill' liiid a I'if^lil (jf acc<'ss to lli(* loiiilt which could ii(»l bo ohslnicU'd by the society. Burke v Wall, 21) La. Ann. ;'.S. Cemetery, Removal of Bodies. A chnich which has per- mitted its ineuiber.s and olhci-s to bnrv their (h'jid on its lot for twenty years has thereby dedicated sncli \k\v\ of its lot to that jairpose, but in a ju-oitei- case it will not be enjoined from selling the lot and removing the bodies to another l»lace. Ex Parte IMcCall, Little v I'resbyterian Church, Florence, C.S S. C. 481). Diversion of Property. In 1856 the Little Schuylkill Navi- f^ation Kailroa had proposed Ity-laws for its government, an ]»ari^h register, on the ground that the (piesiion invohcd was purely eccle- siastical and beyond the jnrisdici ion (d'l'ivil ("ituits. L'S Til I! riji |;( ll '^riic (-()lii|»l;iilKilil <-l;iilii(M| tli:il lie Ii;m| iiii hi w I'liliy hcfii |ni( on prolcilioii in the society ;miiI \\;is I lii(';itciic(| wiili expulsion conlrni-v lo llie inlcs ol" tlie «leiioniiM;i)ion, iiinl In- iisked for an injnndion. Tliis was he lie;HMl, especially after his complaint had heen made, and that if such action should be taken, he would have a comj)lete remedy by mandanms. Ilammel v (Jennau Con;^i-e^al ion, 1 ^^'kly. Notes ('as. ll'a.i •411. See also Members and Mandamus. Lease. Land was conveyed to the officers and members of the church for the jturpose of k<*e)>ing jukI maintaining^ a place of worship. The action of the otlicers iu leasing a small portion of the lot for erecting a store, the rent to be paid to the officers for the benefit of the society, was held not to be a violation of the trust and an injunction restrain- ing such lease was refused. Hayes v Franklin, 141 N. C. 590. Members, Interfering with Property. I'ersons who had been niend)ers of this society, but had withdrawn therefrom and worshii)ed in other buildings, forcibly entered the church edifice, changed the locks, and interfered and threat- ened the disturbance of the rights of the society to the unin- terrupted use and control of its house of worship. An injunction was granted to prevent the defendants, former members, from interfering with the possession and use of the church i)roperty. Christian Church, Huntsville v Sommer, 140 Ala. 14.5. Members, Interfering- with Trustees. The trustees were held to be the managing agents of the corporation and en- titled to an injunction restraining certain members of the society' from interfering with the possession and manage- ment of the i)ro]ierty by the trustees. Baptist Congregation V Scannel, ?y Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 48. In Richter v Kabat, 114 Mich. 575. it was held that injunc- tion was the i)roper remedy to secure to the officers of a church the i>eaceable j)ossession of its i)roi)erty as against IN.TUNCnMON 2S7 members of (he |)aiisli \v1m» have assiimed to exclude them therefrom witliout ri«^ht. Minister, Dissolving Relations. A vestry de facto was lieM competent to act in t-oiisidering tlie relations of the rector to the society. This vestry had power to elect a rector, but the charter and b^-laws did not confer on the vestry the power to dismiss a rector without giving him an opportunity to be beard. An injunction was, accordingly, granteson, S IMiila. iV.i.) 2.j1. Minister's Occupancy of Church. The pastor was dismissed by the action of a majority of the congregation. He and other defendants took possession of the church property and he preached and made api)ointments to preach with a view to the occupancy of llie church without the consent of the majority. An injunction was granted restraining the min- ister and his associates from occujning the church without the consent of the majority. Th(* majority represented the church and had a right to select the pastor. Hatchet t et al v Mt. rieasant Baptist riiurch et al, 4(5 Ark. i.M)1. The trustees api)lied for an injunction restraining tlie defendant, a minister, from intruding into the church and oc('U])ying its ])nlpit without authority and contrary to the wishes of a majority of li congregation. It was alleged that he had declared his intention to occupy the clmicli as a min- ister for the next three years unless ju'evenled by physical force. It a])i>eared that he had not be«Mi emidoyed as a min- ister and was ii(»t a mendK-r of Ilie rlmicli. The (oiiri on ap]>eal granted an injunction, s.iviug among other things that where ]>ro]»erty is held by trustees for the exclusive use of a particular organization, that body has the right to enjoy it, accorditig to the usages of the church. I'.ven the lrnste<'s. much less others, have no jiowt'r to pervert it to other uses, except in the usual imtde of transferring such prt)perty. and any att<'m])t to do so may be resti-ained. Such a l)ody lias 2SS 1'lll'; CINIL LAW ANh IMIi: ClUK'CIf (lie ri<;li( to use it lor tlic |iiii|t<»sc of worsliip, jicconlinj; to the rules for the govcrmncnl df llic clnii-cli. And they have tlie rijiht to luivc such worsliip ik'tIoiiimmI in Ilic ni;inncr and l)y jKM-sons dcsijfiuiUMl hy tlie niics and tcnels of the church. Other jx'isons cannot lawfully intrude ujxin such rights. I'ersons not selected in th«; mode prescribed hy the regula- ti(tns for the clinrch <;<)v<'rnnient havit no riglit 1o force theni- sel\-es into the cliui'ch and olliciate or cotidnct the religious exercises, and any one d<»ing so acts in violation of law. A congregation of religious j)ei-sons cannot be forced to accept the niinistrations of a clergyman not chosen according to the usages of their church, and wlien a jx'i'son aftemi)ts to force himself ui)on tliem they may maintain a bill to restrain such acts. Trustees of the First Congregational Church v Stew- art, 43 111. SI. In Ishani v Trustees of the Fii'st Tresbyterian Church of Dunkirk, 63 How. Tr. (N. Y.) 405, it was held that the trustees of the society could not lawfully ])ermit the use of the church edifice by a clergyman mIio liad adopted and advo- cated religious views at variance with those held by the denomination, but those who adhei-ed to the original fjiith were entitled to an injunction restraining such use of tlie church edifice. This society was a free and independent church, and had not declared any particular articles of faith. It was not under the jurisdiction of any synod, but it was united with other Lutheran churches in their existing ecclesiastiial l)olicy. In 1867 a division arose among the Lutheran churches and a new body was formed, called the General Council, to which some of the synods united themselves, and others divided. In an action by members of the church against the pastor and other officers of the society, to re- strain the pastor from officiating as such, and the officers from permitting the use of the pulpit by any minister who did not preach the doctrines indorsed by the General Coun- cil, it was held that the action could not be maintained for the reason that the society was independent, and could elect INJUNCTION' 28!) its own pastor, aiul that be was only bonnd (o leach the faith and doctrines generally accepted by Lutherans, without reference to any synod or council. Threnfeldt's Appeal, ]01 Pa. St. 18(>. A Baptist congregation by ij'»;()lu(ioii requested the pastor's resignation, but instead of resigning he continued to occnjty the |)uli)it. sometimes using force and viidence, and to exercise tlie functions of a pastor. In an action by the society to enjoin the pastor fron> further use of the |»ul- pit and churcli tlie resolution of the congregati(Mi was sus- tained, and an injunction against the i)astor was granted. Morris Street Baptist Church v Dart, G7 S. C. 338. Differences having arisen between tlie pastor and council or governing bodj^ of the church the pastor was suspended for six months. Notwithstanding this suspension, he occu- pied the puljjit under j)rotest, and ]»reac]ied, ai)i)arently sowing seeds of dissension in the congregation and creating opposition to the council as the governing body of the society. In a proceeding by the council against the minister to restrain him from further occupancy of the pulpit, or church, an injunction was gi-anted i»rohil»i(ing him from exercising ministerial functions. (Icrnian I'vangclii al Congregation v Pressler, 17 La, Ann. 127. The corjtoration includes all the mendters of a society, and not the trustees only. Trustees are oflicers of the society, and do not hold the property in trust in the same sense that a private truslee holds the properly for his bene- ticiary. In May, KSijl), the pastor and the jkmsou acting as schoolmaster, chorister, and sexton were excluded Iroiii their jiosition 1)3' action of the ti'ush-es and a majoi-ily of Ihe mend)ers of the society, conlrary 1o the rules of the Lu- theran Church, which vested in ilic sviiod liu this case, Buffalo) and the minislry the sole |>ower of removal of the ]>astor and schoolmaslcr ; and al (he same lime llic trustees and congregation reiionn* (mI the ecclesiastical goNcrnmeuf of the BulTalo Sviiod. In (Ir;ini v l'i-ussi:i Cniiur.ili'd I]\;in- 290 TlllO CI\ IL LAW AM» iiii; CIHIICH j^clicnl LntlH'i'iiM (Jcniuiii Socicly, ;{<; N. V. Hil. it Wiis held (hat llic pastor and schoolmast*'!* wen; not ciitithMl to an iiijunclioM rcsd'ainini;- Ihc li-nslccs and socicly Ironi cnii)loy- inr the use of the Ba])tist denomination. The society had ])ower to dispose of its j)roj»erty in this manner, and an application for an injunction against such removal was denied. I\ggIeston v I>(K)little, ;*.:'. Conn. .'>1M!. Restraining Increase of Salary. The parent church was located at New Dorp and cha])els were established at Castleton and Oilfords. A resolution was adopted in the absence of mend»ers of the cha])els increasing the salary of tlie pastor at each place. In an action by a member of the ]»ai-ent church to restrain the corporation from cari-ying this resolution into effect, it was held that members of the cliai)els having been ])ermitted to vote at the general niecting of Ihe church for a long time, and no ])roi)erty riglits being involved, a court of eipiity would not interfere to jirevent tlie consummation of the ])ur])o.se exj)resse. Sale of Property. I^and was conveyeL' Tin: ('i\ii. LAW AM) Tin; ciirKcn s;ii(l cIuh'cIi in llic (((iiiiiiiiiii 1 \ . '^riic iMiildinii \\;is crcctcil accord iiij^ly, and used lor (Iiirly years, wlien il hecanie nntil. for Inrllier use. 1Mie socielv liavin;itli. The contract was Iroiii DccciiiIhm- 1, 1859, to Ati},nisl 1, ISC.O. ('liar<,'cs of improiK'i- coihIikI were made aj^ainst llio teacher, grow- ing onl of llie Itnsiiiess estahlislied ami rondiK'led by him, and lie was dismissed by a vole ol the eongregation Ajtril IS, 18(»(h In an action by him against the society to recover the agreed compensation up to Angnst 1, 1800, the court said the congregation were jnstilied in dismissing him; he was there- fore not entitled to compensation after the termination of his service after his dismissal. (Congregation of the Chil- dren of Israel v Peres, 1' Coldw. (Tenn.) 620. LIBEL Excommunication, 295. Privileged communications, churrh disciplino, 2nr). Excommunication. I'laintitT lnouiilii ;m jiction njiniiisl the ])astor Mild two ollu-r iiumiiIxms «d' tlu' clun'cli session, ;illi'i!;- \u^ a libelous ]»\ibli(al ion l»y (licni eiMisislin*^ of a judnnuMil rendere(l by tlie session exconiinnnicalin^ llie i»laiiitilV, charging him with making false and malitions slatements coneerning the i)astoi-. The trial of the plainlilV bv the ses- sion was held withonl notice to him. It was held that the ecclesiastical tril»nnal had jurisdiction; its action conld not be reviewed by civil courts. The action of the session in declaring the excomninnication. in making the i-ecord thereof, and its announcement by the pastor, including the transmission of a copy of it to tlu^ jdaintill'. did not con- stilute a publication of a libel. I.audis v ('am|»bell, T!t Mo. 4:!:;. Privileged Communications. Church Discipline. ^Vords spoken or wiitlen. in the regular coursi' of church disci]dine, to or of members of the church iiave, as among the mendters thems(dves, vei-y properly been held to be privilegi'd cnm- munications. and no! actionable unless e\pi-ess malice be shown in the s|»eakei- or ]»ublisher. Uut the i»i-(»tect ion of the rule should not be extended to a mendier of the church when (»n such occasion lie inipruales the ciiaractei- of a stranger to the rules of the rlnirch, N\ho is not anieiiaiile (o its authority, and who has no opportunity to repel an o|)|u-obrious accusation before the tribunal \\lii(li is to try it. An acc\isation maerson n 'iiii: cm i:< ii Words writ ten or sitokcn in the rcj^ular course of cliurch (liscijdine, or before a tribunal of a religious society, to, or of members of the church or society, are, as among the mem- bers themselves, j)rivileged communications, and are not actionable without ex])ress malice. Lucas v Case, 9 Bush, (Ky.) 297. LUTHERANS History, 297. Organization, 298. Alaska, property, effect of cession from Ru.ssia to United States, 298. Associations, 299. Close communion, .300. Confession of sins, should it be i)ublic or priv'atc? 300. Congregation, powers, 301. Dissolving connection with synod, effect, 301. German language in service, 301. Icelandic Church, 302. Independent congregation, status, 303. Minister, how employed, 303. New York City, 304. Russian toleration, 30G. Secession, 306. Synod, 307. History. P^or many centuries tliere have been Iwo organ- ized associations of chnrches, (•oninicncing in (iciiiiany and extending thronghout the United Stales, one known as the German Evangelicals, or as the Evangelical Clmrdi. and the other as tlie Evangelical Lntlierans. and there exists tlie Evangelical Lntheran Synod of ^^'is(•oIlsin. distinct an Tin: ("i\ il law and 'riii: cm i:cir liokl lo (he caiioiii";!! Intoks of llic ()I(> la. 750. Dissolving Connection with Synod, Effect. Tlie connection of this society wi(li the ]']v:ingelical Lutheran Synod of Ohio was voluntary, and a dissolution of the connection was no violation of the condition upon which the church property was holden by the congregation, llcckman v Mees, 1(1 Ohio 583; see also Gudmundson v Thingvalla LnllnMan Chnrcli, 150 N.W. (\. O.) 750. German Language in Service. The society was incorporated in 1S()(), and its charter was amended in 1873. According to the articles of incor]iorati<»n, the ])ur])o.se of the organization was to provide for holding ]»ul)]ic religions woiship in a Christian-like nmnner, in accordance with the pure Lutheran doctrine, the i)reaching of the W<»rd of (iod. and the ]»roper administration of the Holy Sacraments, and in conformity with the fundamental doctrines of the unal- tered Augsburg Confession, and assure to themselves and to their children the Lutheran catechism in the (Jernuiu lan- guage. The worship was always to be conducted in con- formity with the established Till; <'iirK(ii liiillicr.iii ('Imnli, :iimI IIm* worship iiiid sci'v'kc wen* to be ahviiys ill tlic (Jcriimu laiifjuiij^c, so loiijij jis oiu* iiicmber shall (li'sire it. It was ])rovird. IMU. Icelandic Church. See Gudmundson v Thingvalla Lutheran Church, 150 N. W. (N. D.) 750, for a statement of the his- torical connection between the parent church in Iceland and churches in North Dakota, derived from the nu)ther church, with a discussion of the question of the ins))i ration of the I'ible as applied in a local church and by the synod LUTUKKANS W.l of wliicli liie local society was a iiiciiibcr. iiulndin^ evidotice of tlieolo T\\\: (inKcii the coiij;!;r(»}^iilioii nmsl. however, he hist approved by the fieneral presi(h'iil of the syiicul, and from that time until final action taken hy the synod he is regarded as a j)rf>visory member, or one taken on trial. It is not pernjissible for the congT-egation to employ or rcdiiii a jtastor who is not, and cannot become a iiicinhci of the synod. Hclldg v Kosen- berg, S() la. 15!). New York City. "Thci-c were a few Liilhcrans aiiM)iiort in lOlS-lJ). They were relieved from persecution here, but were not permitted to worship together in public until after the province became a British colony. At that era (1GC4) they had became so numerous that they sent to Gennany for a ]»astor, and one arrived here in KJOO. About the year 1(571 they erected a log church at the southwest corner of Broad- way and Rector Street (New York) which was known as Trinity Church. The ground on which it stooregati(»n, \\li<) desiied to have I'^nglish j)reachin<:;, left the ohl chnnli, and eslal)lisheed a new one, called Zion Chnrcli, wiiere the lOnglish service alone was ])er- forined ; and on Ihis event the English service in the old church was disconlinued. In 1805 the site of Trinity church was sold to lOpistopalians. Zion Church was destroye/l by fire in 1814, and the congregation was broken ui». About 1821 another new church nioveuient was initiated and a church known as St. Matthew's Church was estab- lished, comj)Osed in part of members of the original and the United Churches. In 182G St. Matthew's Church and lot was sold for the payment of its debts. The sale was to a member of St. Matthew's Church, who sold the property to the corj)()ration of the United Churches. Uiifler this deed the church was to be used as an lOnglish Lutheran Church. Subsequently a new church known as St. James was organ- ized, constituted of the congregation of St. Matthew's Church, which latter church ceased to exist. Subseciuently the congregation of the United Churches removed from Christ Church to St. Matthew's Church in Walker Street. The service was i)art of the time in lOnglish, and part of the time in German. But the English service was discontinued in 18: 50. There was no trust contained in any conveyance or agree- ment that any ])art of the service in either clniitli sliould be in the lOnglisli language. By the agi-eenient to unite the two churches. Trinity and Chiist ('hurch, the property of both societies was vested in the corporation callcil tlie United Churches, and the terms of the agreement indicate the union of two (Jernian societies without any piovisiou as to service in English. A new trust c«tuld not be ini|»ressed \ij»on Trinity Church adNcrse to the tiiist established by its ::(m; tiii; cin il law and tui: (iiriicii ronndcrs. It \v;is lirld licit pci'sons claiiiiiii;^ to I>c the coi'poi'jitois niMlcr tlu; union jij^rccinciit, ;nnl to Ix' rcpi-cscii- tatives of tlu* orijjinal Trinity ('Inirch, could not maintain an action a«j;ainst tho United (V)ri>oration to coinpcl tliat hody to found and erect a new clinr<-li in jdacc of Trinity Cliurdi wliicli had been destroyed, ('aninuncr \ I'nitcd (Jerinan Lullieran C'liurches, New York, 2 Satidf. ("h. i \. \. i 20S. Russian Toleration. Notwithstanding the existence of an cstaldislu'd (liiirch — Die (Jreco-Kussian — in Kussia. the set- tled policy of that government for a long period of years has been to foster and protect among its people religious associations and organizations of every known shade of be- lief or doctrine; and within the limits of the empire, from the Arctic Ocean to the Chinese border and from the North Pacific to the Baltic Sea, may be found congTegations whose members are believers of every known religious doctrine anen the hou.se for the use of the other society. It was held that a writ of mandate was not the proper remedy, but that an 308 MAN DAM IS 309 action in equity should liave been brouj>lit on the contract contained in the .subsci'i])tion. State ex rel I'oyser v Tnis- tees of Salem Church, 114 Ind. 3SJ). Member, Restoration. A member of the church was ex- cluded, as he claimed, without lawful authoi-ity. The act of excommunication was by the consistory which, it was alleged, did not i)ossess the jjower of excommunication. The excluded member ai)i)lied for a writ of nmndamus to compel the church ofiicers to reinstate him. A writ of mandamus was denied, it being held that even if the at- tem])ted exclusion was invalid, the member's remedy was by ai)peal to the j)r()i»ei' chui-ch tribunal. Cliuicli v Sciberl, :> l»a. St. 282. In State ex rel Soares v Hebrew Cong., :)\ La. Ann. I'O."), it was held that nmndamus would not lie to compel the restoration to nuMubership of a person exjielled from a reli- gious society, it aj)pearing that such expulsion was by the decree of the legally constituted clMinli judicatory, on ac- count of an alleged violation of some one or more of the laws of the society. The civil courts will not revise the oi-diiiai-y acts of church discijiline or the adminislialioii of cliiiicii government. The relator, who had been, as he claimed, irregularly expelled from the society and congregation, ajiplied for a writ of mandamus to com])el his i-estoration. The exjtulsioii was admitted, but it ap}»eared that the .society haay City, in Mich. 542. In People ex rel Dibber v (Jerman I'niled i'.van. ('liuich, 53 N. Y. 103, a writ of mandamns was refused to the jilain tiffs who alleged llial Ihev ^\•eI•e wion^fnlh- exclndet] lidin ::i(i Tin: cix iL law am» Tiir: niriicir (dlicc :iimI iiu'ml)t'rslii|) in (lie cliurcli. Tlir courts siiid It could ii«t( he re.ulily deterniiiMMl ti-oiii llic |»;i|»(ms wlu'thcr the exclusion was by the corjKnalioii or by the < Imrcli as a religious society. If it were by the corporation, such exclu- sion was a nullity; but if it were by the society, its action was not subject to review bj' the civil courts. A person who had been exjjelled from the society applied for a writ of mandamus to compel her reinstatement and restoration, but the writ was denied on the ground that the expulsion was presumably by the society and not by the corjjoration ; that it was an ecclesiastical matter, and that the person was not entitled to the writ unless some civil or property right was affected by the expulsion. Sale v First Kegular Bai)tist Church, G2 Iowa 20. A writ of mandamus was held to be a proper remedy to restore a person to membershi]) in a religious society from which she had been unlawfully deposed. All questions relat- ing to the status of the applicant could be determined on the hearing under the writ. Hughes v North Clinton Baptist Church, East Orange, 67 Atl. GG (Sup. Ct. N. J. ). A writ will not issue to compel the restoration of a church member after expulsion. Hundley v Collins, 1J)1 Ala. 234. Civil courts will not consider questions relating to the right of membership in an incorporated religious associa- tion, where no civil or i)roperty right is involved. Man- damus will not lie to compel the association to restore the applicant to membershi]). State ex rel v Cummins, 171 lud. 112. This writ cannot be granted to restore the persons expelled from membership in a religious society, and the court will not in(iuire whether such expulsion was regular and justified by the facts. The court will not revise the action of an ecclesiastical tribunal in such cases. State ex rel Soares v Hebrew Cong. .SI La. Ann. 20.5. Minister, Reinstatement. If ecclesiastical tribunals have been provideiili(Hl for to enable him to justify his conduct, it appearing that he had not complied with all the requisites necessary to give him a i)rima facie title. Kex v Jotham, 3 T. Kep. (Kng.) 577. The power of the civil courts to restore by nuiiulamus a party who has been wrongfully removed from an ecclesias- tical or spiritual ottlce, is well established when the tem- poral rights, stipends, or emoluments are connected with or annexed to such office, which belong to the incumbent. But the courts are powerless to interfere where there are no fixed emoluments, stipends, or temporal rights connected with the office, where it is j)urely ecclesiastical. State ex rel McNeill V Bibb Street Church, 84 Ala. 23. A minister who had been excluded by the society from the ministerial office, functions, and privileges sought a writ of nuuidamus to compel his restoration, but it was . Not a Superstitious Use. Saying masses for the souls of the dead is a ceremony nnivei-sally observed in the Komaii Catholic Church, and a becpu'st foi- that i)ur|»ose cannot be said to be for suj)erstitions uses, it being one of the articles of the Roman (^atholic faith which has been adopted by millions of people through the civili/ed world as a part of their religious beliel'. lliigennievcr v II;insciiii,iii. J hem. ( X. y. ) ST. 313 MEETINGS By-laws, 314. Chairman, 314. Majority, 314. Notice, 315. Quorum, 315. Silence on taking vote, effect, 316. By-Laws. A by-law made by one meeting of the society to govern the i)roceeding.s of futnre meetings is inoi)erative beyond the pleasnre of the society acting by a majority vote at any regular meeting. The power of the society derived from its charter and the laws under which it was organ- ized, to enact by-laws is continuous, residing in all regular meetings of the society so long as it exists. Any meeting could by a majority vote modify or repeal the laws of a previous meeting, and no meeting could bind a subsequent one by irrepealable acts or rules of procedure. The power to enact is a power to repeal; and a by-law requiring a two- thirds vote of members present to alter or amend the laws of the society, may itself be altered, amended, or repealed by the same power which enacted it. A majority may act in such a case. Kichardson v Union Congregational Society. 58 N. H. 187. Chairman. The election of a moderator of a parish meet- ing will be valid, though the meeting was called to order, and the votes were received and declared, by a private \rdr- ishioner who assumed that authority to himself. Jones v Gary, Mo. 448. Majority. At a church meeting, eitlier regular or special, called with proper notice, the vote of the majority is bind- ing upon the congregation. There is a distinction between a corporate act to be done by a definite number of persons, and one to be i)erformed by an indefinite nund)er; in the 314 MEETINGS :\\:> first case Jio act can be done unless a majority of the whole body are j)resent ; in the second, a niaj law and 'iiii; cihk*!! s(tiis ;i (|ii()niiii, for- the jtiirposcs of clt'clioiis :iiiil Mtliii;^ npon oIIm'i- (|iit'sl ions, wliich re(|uire the Naiiction of tlu; iiicmlx'rs, coiisisls of those who iisscinldc :if any nieeliiif^ rcf^nlaily called and warned, althouj^h such nnnd)er may be a niiiiorily of the whole, in which case a majority of those who assend)le may elect, unless there is a diirerent rule established by statnte or valid by-law." 34 Cyc. 1127, note, (^noted in Barton v Fitzi)atrick, 05 S. (Ala.) 390. Silence on Taking- Vote, Effect, ^\'here a society is com- posed of an indefinite nund)er of jtersons, a majority of tho.se who appear at a regular meeting constitute a bores- ent who observe silence when a question is put concnr with the majority of those who actnally vote, that is, if the question be put audibly and explicitly. Worrell v First Presby. Ch. 23 N. J. Eq. 9G, citing Angell and Ames, sees. 497, 499. MEMBERS Admission, effect of by-laws, 317. Baptist, powers of congregation, 318. Dismissal, 318. Dues, effect of nonpayment, 318. Equality, 318. Excommunication, effect, 318. Expulsion, 319. Expulsion, damages, 321. Expulsion, evidence required, 321. Expulsion, notice, 322. Expulsion, rules, notice, 323. General duties, 323. How constituted, 323. Judicial control, 324, Law governing, 324. Letters of dismission, effect of, 324. Liability for debts, 324. Powers, 325. Qualifications, how determined, 325. Relation to society, 320. Rights, 326. Stated attendant, effect of nonat tendance, 327, Status, how determined, 327. Town society, 327. Transfer by Legislature, 328. Withdrawal, 328. Withdrawal, effect, 328. Admission, Effect of By-Laws. The charter of Die .soi-icty regulated the admission of inciiihcrs. This provision was subscqiKMitly rcjicalcd, and the society was atithori/.ed to make by-laws relative to the adniissioii of meiiibei-s. IJylaws were adopted aj)i)licable alike to existing as well as future members. It was held Ihat a ]»erson who was a inendier of the society uuder tlie provisions of their charter ceased to 317 ::iK Tiiio ('i\n. LAW AM) Tin: ("iiri:« ii 1k! ;l liK'iiilx'i- by i'ailiiij; to coiiijily wilh (In; coiidilioiis of the by-laws. Taylor v Edsoii, 4 CuhIi. (MawH.) 522. A by-law ])rovirovided that the non])ayment of dues shall render the delinquent member liable to expulsion, he retains his membership until corporate action is taken. Davis V Cong. Beth Tephila Israel, 40 A. I). (X. Y.) 424. Equality. Each member of a church organization, or of any other voluntary association, is the equal of every otJier member, and has the absolute right, which the courts will protect, to have the property controlled and administered according to its organic plan, and to participate in its affairs in harmony therewith. Clark v Brown, 108 S. W. 421 (Texas I. Excommunication, Effect. Civil courts cannot decide who ought to be members of the church, nor whether the excom- municated have been justly or unjustly, regularly or irregu- larly cut off from the body of the church. We must take the fact of exi)ulsion as conclusive ])roof tliat the jiersons ex- l)elled are not iiow nuMubers of the repudiating cliurch : for. whether right or wrong, tlie act of excoiiiiiniiilcatioii must. as to the fact of membership, be hiw to the court. Shanuoii V Frost, 42 Ky. 253. Excommunicated members, wliose names liave Ixmmi. ]»y the valid action of the church, expunged from the roll of mem- bers, cannot stand foi' and represent nuMubers. They are not of the same class. Nance v Bushby, J)l Tenn. :!0:;. In this case it was alleged lliat mcmlters were excommunicated without notice or any opportunity to be heard. The court asserted the rule that "no man's civil or i»r, 181(2, hastily, unjustly, and ruthlessly excommunicated, under the leadeishi|» of his pastor, by a pitiful vote of nine inend>ei*s out of a total ol' alioiit titty, and this was done in pursuance of a preconcerted, secrt't cau- cus agreement of the past<»r and a few niend>eis, t'litered into the night pi-evions thereto." Tiie rouit said thai every jterson uniting with a r>a|)tist chur«-h imjtliedly or e.\]U'essly covenants obedience to its laws, and by that co\»'nant this appellant is bound. 4'lie (onil i liararteri/,c(| the e\|inlsi(in as a jtetty, unfair, and unjust e\ hi bit ion ol leligious t vrann\ . ;!L'o 'nir: cinii. law and 'i'iii; cm jirii The pliiinlill". Mllcr liriccii years riom the •M-eclioii of the church, and alter his expulsion, brought an action to estah- lisli a chiini against the society for the amount advanced by him in (he erection of tlie building. The court hehl, among other things, that his riglit of action was barred by the statute of limitations. He was therefore not entitled to recover the amount due him. Dees v Moss Point Baj)tist Church, 17 Ho. Kep. (Miss.) 1. The trustees expelled a member of the church without notice to him. It was held that no projjerty rights were involved in the expulsion, and therefore the civil courts could not interfere. An injunction was refused. Pinke v Born- hold, 8 Out. L. Ee. 575. A Roman Catholic was married by a Protestant minister. He was thereupon ipso facto excommunicated, and ceased to be a Catholic. Barry v Order of Catholic Knights, Wis. 119 Wis. 3(52. If an incorporated religious society at a regular meeting called for the purpose of revising the membership of the society votes under and in accordance with an article of its Constitution, that certain persons whose names are crossed off from the list of members have worked against the inter- ests of the society, that they are for that reason expelled, and if the persons thus dealt with had proper notice and opportunity to be heard, the action of the society is final and cannot be revised by showing in another tribunal that these members had not in fact worked against the interests of the society. Canadian Religious Association v Parmenter, ISO Mass. 415. The law of New York does not allow a governing body arbitrarily to expel members of an incorporated church where i)roperty rights are involved. Holcombe v Leavitt, 124 N. Y. S. 980. A person was expelled from a church because he voted the Democratic ticket. In State v Rogers. 128 X. C. TuVk it was held that such expulsion was not an oft'ense under the statute l)i-()liibiting the oppression of any qualified voter because of MEMBERS 321 the vote s\icli voter may or nmy not have cast in any election. While he may have felt mortified or hnniiliated in beinj^ excluded from the fellowship of his associates in the exercise of the rites of that body of Christian believers, holding the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority, and to that extent injured and oppressed, yet he suffered no loss of property or gain ; nor was he in any way restrained of his liberty or otherwise controlled in the exer- cise of his personal coners, it cannot expel mend)ers, it cannot prevent the church receiving or expelling whomsoever that body shall see tit to receive or ex]>el. It was held that the action could not be maintained. The corporation was sued for a tort, which it neither committed, nor had the jtower to prevent. Whatever was done to the injury of the plaintiff was done by the i-eligious society over which, in this respect, the corporation had nc) control. Harbison v First Presby terian Society, 4(1 Conn. ~}'2\). See also Ilanlin v Ba]>tist Church, ni Mich. i:57. Expulsion, Evidence Required. While the civil courts will stmliouslv give rull ciVcct to tlic Judgment of :ni ecclesiasti<-al :v2'2 Tin: ('i\ il law and tiii: ciiii^cii coiii'l wIh'Ii iiijillcrs cci-lcsiMst i(;il only ;irc involvcil, wlini civil rijilils .is lo property jirc invnUcd tin- ciNJl conrls will insist tli:il :in accnsjilioii be iiijidc, lliiit notice he jjivcii, and an ()j)p<>rtnnity to i)ro«ln«o witnesses and defeinl Ixi afforded, befoie tliey will «rive etfect to an expiilsion or hus- pension of the kind here attempted. West Koslikonon*^ Conj^. V Otteson, SO Wis. ()2, eitinjj; llotlinan's Kcelesiastical Law, 27(5, 277. In the above case one faction assumed to declare another faction sns]>ended or expelleulsion. A by-law of a religious society ]»i'ovided that if a per- son should fail regularly to attend i)ublic worship for one year, or during the same period should fail to contribute regularly for the sui)i>ort of the church, his uame might be dropped from the list of members. It was held that his name could not be droi)ped, except by a vote of the congi-egation. Gray v Christian Society, 137 Mass, 329, Expulsion, Notice. For a note on the right to expel with- out notice a member of a benefit or benevolent society see Ryan v Cudahy, 157 111, 108. The society received a conveyance of laud on which it erected a valuable church. A controversy arose between two factions in the church, involving the title and possession of the church })roperty. The complainants claimed to be the only adherents of the original society, and that the defend- ants were seceders therefrom. Various acts w^ere attributed to defendants, showing an abandonment of the faith and order of the original Primitive Baptist Society; that they had assumed control of the church property and the right to exercise spiritual authority over all members of the society. They had also assumed and exercised the right to expel certain members, including the complainants without notice or hearing. It was held that the church had the power to determine for itself whether notice or an oppor- tunity to be heard should be given to the expelled members. MEMBERS 323 "They have as a judicature adjudj^ed that they had jurisdic- tiou and that the usage and hiw of the church did not de- mand other trial or notice than such as attended the public action of the diurch. The law of the church ])rovides for no appeal to a higher tribunal." The complainants, having been regularly excommunicated, had no standing in the court to assert any title to the i)roi»('rty conveyed to the society. Nance v Bnslil)y, 1)1 Tenn. ;>():5. Expulsion, Rules. Notice. A church organization may make rules by whicli the admission and expulsion of its members are to be regulate. General Duties. Every person entering into the (hurch imjdiedly at least, if not expressly, covenants to conform to the rules of the church, and to submit to its antliority and discipline, Lucas v Case, 9 Bush (Ky.), 297. See also Mack V Kime, 129 Ga. 17. A religious society usually adopts a constitution, by-laws, and form of government. A member, when he enters the organization, voluntarily assumes the duty of obeying the laws of the association. As to all matters ]nirely ecclesias- tical, he is bound by the decisions of the tribunal tixed by the oi'ganization to which he belongs, as an ai'biter to (Ja. 1. How Constituted. To constitute a member of a ciiurcli at least two things are essential, namely, the profession ol its faith, and a submission to its government. lirooke v Shack lett (Carter v Wolfe), VA (Jratt. (\'a.» :W{). To constitute one a mendH'i- of a church, or an individual societv a member of a general synodical organization, at :;2i Till'] ("i\ iL i>.\\\ AM) 'I'm: cm iicii IcMsl two tilings jire essHCMitial — a profcsKion ol' the acccph'tl faith and a snluiiission to its goveniineiit. CajKi v I'lyiiionlli Coiif^rcjfatioTial Church, KJO Wis. 174. Judicial Control. It nnist be conceded that the courtH have IK) i»()\\(M' to revise ordinary acts of church discipline or pass upon controverted rights of niend>ership ; but while the courts cannot decide who onglit to ])c inend)ers, tliey nuiy incjuii-e whctlier any disjtuted act of tlie chnrcli affecting proj)erty rights was the act of the churcli or of persons having no au- thority, (lewin v Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church, lOG Ala. 345. Law Governing. Mendjershij) in a church is an ecclesias- tical matter dei)ending iii)on the law of the church itself. Jackson v IIo])kins. 78 A. 4. (Md.) Letters of Dismission, Effect of. Certificates of church membership and dismission, coninionly spoken of as letters of dismission, do not, under the Presbyterian system, ipso facto, terminate the membership of the person receiving them in the particular church granting them. To give them this effect they must have been acted upon and the holder have been received into some other particular church of this denomination. Kor do such certificates, ipso facto, termi- nate the functions of ruling elders of a Presbyterian Church. First Presbyterian Church, Louisville v Wilson, 14 Bush (Ky.) 252. ' Liability for Debts. A judgment was recovered against the second parish of Kittery, Maine. Membership in the parish w^as held to be voluntary, and the person was at lib- erty to withdraw in the manner provided by law, but he continued liable for debts incurred on behalf of the parish prior to his withdrawal. The seceding member ceased to be liable for parish debts. The remedy for the judgment creditor was limited to the levy on property of persons who were members of the parish at the time of the rendition of the judgment, or, at most, at the commencement of the action. Fernald v Lewis, (5 Me. 264. The society having become indebted, a judgment was obtained against it, and occupied property was sold and MEMBIOKS 325 applied on the judgiiient. An ellort was then made to sell the property actually occupied for church pur])oses to satisfy the deficiency judgment. The court refused to permit this sale, but declined to enjoin the collection of the deficiency. Thereupon an action was brought by the original plaintiff against the uiend)ers of the society as individuals to collect the deficiency on the former judgment. It was held that such members of a religious society were not individually liable for its debts, unless such members had originally and individually authoriy.ed the creation of the debts. First National Bank, I'lattsmouth v Rector, 5!) Neb. 77. In Bigelow v Congregational Society, Middletown, 11 Xt. 283, it was held to be the duty of the society to api»ropriate its property for the payment of its debts, and in case of a neglect to do so and the property is waste renie 'I'iii; cm i;rii oIlVi'tMl l),v 111*' ('((Icsiiisl icjil l)»)(ly hcloic tin; coiiris will con- sider the questions involve*!. Uncttncr v Frazer, 100 Mich. 171). Relation to Society. TIm' rchilions of ii mcinher to his church are not conlractnal. Xo hond of contract, express or implied, connects him with his coniniunion or dcterniincs his riglits. Cliurcli rclationsliiji stands ujion an altogcthei- higher plane, and church nieniber.ship is not to he compared to that resulting from connection with mere human associa- tions for i)rotit, i)leasure, or culture. The church under- takes to deal only with spiritual interests. Admission to its fold is prescribed alone by the church professing to act only upon the AVord of God. Nance v Bushby, f)l Tenn. 30;j. AVhen a i)erson becomes a member of a church he becomes so upon the condition of submission to its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and however much he may be dissatisfied witli the exercise of that jurisdiction, he has no right to invoke the supervisory power of a civil court so long as none of his civil rights are invaded. This doctrine inevitably results from that total sejiaration between church and state which exists within the limits of the United States, and is essential to the full enjoyment of the guaranteed rights of American citizenship. White Lick Quart. Meet, of Friends v White Lick Quart. Meet, of Friends, 89 Ind. 136. One joining an organized society, such as a church hav- ing a rejjresentative form of government under the super- vision and control of judicatories known as church courts, agrees by the act of membership to abide by the rules, orders, and judgments of such courts properly made, and consents that whatever rights and privileges he may possess as a member shall be controlled by such rules, orders, and judgments. Hayes v Manning, 172 S. W^ (Mo.) 897 (902). Rights. Every participant in a voluntarj' organization has the absolute right, which the courts will protect, to have its i)roperty controlled and administered according to its organic plan and to ])articipate in its affairs in harmony therewith. Spiritual and Philoso])hical Temple v \'incent, 105 N. AV. (Sup. Ct. AVis.) IOlM;. 127 Wis. 9;*,. MKMHICKS .'?L>T Where a society has heconic incoi-poraliMl for the purpose of inaintainiiig; religious worshij), I lie rights of a iiieinher of the corporation are one thing and his rights as a nuMiihci- of the church worshijiiug in the huihling owneon the law creating the coi-jtoration. Nance v IJushby. *.tl Tenn. 'AO'A. Stated Attendant, Effect of Nonattendance. A |»erson who for more than a year had ceased to be a stated attendant at the church of which lie had been a mend)er, and whose name had been dropped from the roll of members, was held not entitled to maintain an action against the society or its trustees to restrain an alleged illegal use of the church property. Smith v Bowers, 57 App. I)iv. (N. Y.) 252, afhrmed 171 N. Y. (!(»!>. As to the effect of withdrawal see also Cammeyer v I'nited German Lutheran (Miui-ches, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 208. Status, How Determined. In a case of a religious t(»ngre- gatiou, what are the doctrines, adherence to which is a con- dition of membership, must be determined by reference to the rules, constitution, or by-laws of the congregation. Where a congregation in its constitution adopts certain books as the exjjonents of its faith and doctrine, and there subsequently arise honest dilferences of opinion as to (he interpretation of the statements of «loctrine in such books, and the constitution is silent as to such matter of interpre- tation, and ])r()vid('s no mode for determining the ditVerence, the civil courts will not hohl that adherence to either inter- ))retation dissolves, ip.so facto, a member's connetiion wiili the congregation, so that he ceases to be a mendter of tiie corporation it has formed to hohl any a special act. Up to that time tlie town acted as (»ne parish, and was called the Coiigiegai juiial sociely. ('ertaiii prop :!L's 'iMii; ("i\ II. LAW AM) 'I'm: rm imii cil.v Ii;mI Itccii idiivcycMl to I lie town loi- llic iis(? of this so- ciety, and iu'loic the above act of incorporation the jiroperty was vestetl in the ('onal effect of the incorporation was to authorize the society to act in a parochial form, which hcfoie it had not done, but had acted in its public capacity as a town. Any inhabitant of the town might, on complying with certain iirescribcd conditions, become a member of the society. The act did not create ji new corj)oration. I'ar.sons- ticld v Dalton. 5 Me. IMT. Transfer by Legislature. In Tha.xter v Jones, 4 Mass. 570, it was held that the Legislature might, under the Massa- chusetts statute and bill of rights, set off a member of any religious incorporation to another religious incorporation, whether of the same or of a different denomination. Withdrawal. Members of a religious society may volun- tarily withdraw from it, and enter another more consonant with their views, but when they do so they must be con- sidered as abandoning to the adherents of the original con- stitution their rights to the property of the society which they leave. Manning v Shoemaker, 7 Pa. Sup. Ct. 375. Ceasing to attend the religious and secular meetings of a parish, and attending the worship and supporting the min- isters of another denomination, for any length of time, will not alone amount to a renunciation of membership in the parish thus left, the only mode of withdrawing, without a change of residence, being by notice in writing under the Maine statute of 1821, Ch. 135. Jones v Gary, 6 Me. 448. Withdrawal, Effect. To constitute a member of any church, two points at least are essential; a profession of its faith and a submission to its government. Persons who withdraw from a church can no longer be deemed members of it, even if continuing to profess the same faith and doctrines. Den ex dem. Day v Bolton, 12 N. J. L. 20<). MENNONITES Organization, 329. Majority may control propcrtj', 329. Organization. The several Memioiiite conjifregations of Eastern Pennsj'lvania, of which the (.\)lel)r<)()kersuasion. The discnssion of these differences between the two parties, known as tiie Old and New Mennonite Church, gave rise to great dissension in the Conference, and finally culminated in 1847, when the Over- holtzer, or New Party, fornnilly withdrew from the Fi-;in- conia Conference, and organized a new jndicitory. The schism extendeaiMlis Appe;il, lOL' i'a. St. 4(17. Majority May Control Property. I'roni 1 7!>() to is 17 the Menonnite society occupied ])ro|»erly which Wiis nseil I'oi- religious purj)oses accoi-ding to the rnles and cnstoms of the sect. About the latter yeni- a schism occnired. Tlu> majority and minority continued to occupy the (iMnrh |»rop- erty alternately without fi'iction for ;d»ont twenty nine years. The majority which ((inliMued In jidhere to Ihe organization, doctrines. ;i ml ih-.m-I ices ol' ihe s(m jet y |iro|tosed oJ'.t ;;;:(> Tin: ("i\ IL law and 'imii: (•iiri;( ii t«> (TitI ii new Immis(* of worship :iimI olTcrrd iIm* iiiiiiority llic rij^lit lo (K'cnpy it iis Itcfoi-c, jiroxidcd the minoi-ily \\()iiM not iiilrodiicc imisi(;il iiisj niinciils into tlic scrvitcs iioi' Miiylliiii;; else ol>J('cl ioimltlc to llic iii;ijoiil y. The iiiiiiotily rcCiiscd (lie ollVi' ;niei'ty and that the minority were only tenants by sniferance and not tenants in coinnion with the majority. Landis Appeal, 102 Ta. St. 4G7. METHODIST CHURCH OF CANADA Historical Sketch, 331. Form of government, fixing status of minister, 331. Historical Sketch. Tin's clmrch scjcirated from tlu> Meth- odist lCj)iscoi>al Church and was erected into a distinct organization in 1828. As earlj^ as 1804 the Upper Canada districts were inchnh'd in the New York Ann\ial Conference, and continued as a ])art of it, the same as other districts, until 1812, when these districts, and also the Lower Canada districts, w'ere incln(h*d within the (Jenesee Cotiference. In 181(J the Lower Canaihi districts were embraced within the New York and New England Conferences; in ISl'O both TTp]>er and Lower (^mada were again included in the (Jene- see Conference, and in the sanu» year the bisliops were authorized, with the concuri-ence of this Conference, to establish an Annual Coiiferen, (Cir. Ct. Dis. N. Y.i. Form of Government, Fixing Status of Minister. "The min- isters and members of the Methodist Chur<-h are incorpo- rated by that name, by an act of tlie Dominion Parliament, 47 Vict. Ch. 10(}, and the niattei-s invohcd in the actitice, 35f>. Separation, title to local property, 356. Separation, 1844, home rule as fo future relation. 357. Separation, when property cannot be transferrfHl to Church South, 357. Tennessee Annual ConfiTcncc, 357. Organization. The McllKMlist Kpiscoicil Cinii-cli of tlie United Stales \vas established in its jjonci-iiiiicmI. (bicliiiM'. 333 :;:;i Tin; cinii. law am» Tin: riiri:(ii .•Hid (lis(i|iliiM' Itv ;i < !ciici-;i I ( 'onrciciicc of the I ruvcliiif^ lircMclici's ill I lie ciMiiiiniiiioii in ITSI. I)()\vii 1<» lliat liiiic the Mclliodist societies in Aiiiei-i<;i li;i| the testator devised to the Methodist l-litiscojial Chnreli in Berryville, in Baltimore ('onfei-eiice, a house and lot. In l»e used for a parsonage or for dtlier piuns purposes. In isdl the BaltinH)re Confei-ence .severed its connection with the Methodist IC]iiscoi)al Church, and united with the Methodist Episcoi)al Church, South. Cei-tain menihers of tlie local church attached themselves to the Methodist l]|»is<(»pal Churcli, Soutli, ami elected trustees, thereup»»n claiming to be the successoi-s of the trustees (tf the original M»'thodist Episcopal Church at Uerryville, anti tliei-efore etilillii! lo :{:;(; Tiiio cixiL law and Tin: ciiLUcii the projuM'ty acity had any power to take such a devise. A grant to either (leneral Conference would have been void. The (jeneral Conference had no power over this ]>ro])erty. The award by the commission was, therefore, a nullity, and was not binding on the local society. It was further held that the trustees of the local society who had attached themselves to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, had no claim to the property. Box well v Aflleck. 70 Va. 402. Land was conveyed to the societj' in trust that the trustees should buihl, or cause to be built, thereon a house or place METHODIST i:i'lS( 'ol'AL ('111 K('ll :i;;7 of worslii]> for llic use oi the meiiihers of the Methodist lOpis copal Chiii-ch ill (lie Tiiited States of Aineriea, aecordiiiji to the rules and discipline which from time to time may be agreed upon and adopted by the ministers and ])reachers of the said church, at their (Jeneral Confereuees in the United States of America; and i»eruiit sucli ministers and ]>reaehers belonroperjy lo ilie um's of the local society, and substantially all the use that could be nuide of it would be by nuMubei's of thai society. 'IMie ju-i- mary object of the whole transaction niusi neccssaiily have been to ])rovide and secure a ])lace of \\(uslii|» a«(;anization, but as to its projierty and all other i)rovisions incident to its relation to the church organization. Brooke v SliacUlcft (CaT-lcr v Wolfe i 1:5 (Jratt. (Va.) :'»(M). Baltimore Conference, Separation of 1844. Tiiis Conference was one of the border (J'onferences in the i)lan ot sejjaration, and was therefore entitled to determine whether it would remain connected with the Methodist ICpiscoital Church or join the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. This Confer- ence in 1845 elected to go with the Church North. This determined its ecclesiastical status. A movement for the change of the Baltimore Conference from the Church North to the Church South was initiated at the Annual Conference held at Staunton, Virginia, in ISGl, and consummated at the Annual Conference held in Alexandria in 1SG(3. This action did not affect the status of the Conference which had elected to go with the Church North. Venable v Cotfman. 2 W. Va. 31. Bible Society Discontinued. The organization known as the Bible Society of the Methodist F]piscopal Church, which had existed for many years previous to 1836, was in that year dissolved u]wn the recommendation of the General Conference of that church. The (Jeneral Conference at the same time recommended to the Methodist Episcopal Churches to unite with the American Bible Society in carry- ing forward its object; and contributions \\ere thencefor- ward taken up in the Methodist Episcopal churches through- out from year to year in aid of the American Bible Society. Since 1840 members of the Methodist Episcopal Church have been niendiers of the board of managers of the Amer- ican Bible Societv, and held oflice in said societv. There is METHODIST El'lSCOl'AL CHUKCH 3',ii) another association belonging to the Methodist (Muirch, a part of whose action is devoted to the circnlation and dis- tribution of Bibles called the "Methodist Book Concern,!' and there are other societies besides the American Bible Society that have the same general object. Bliss v American Bible Society, 2 Allen (Mass.) 334. Bishop's Authority to Consolidate Churches. This society was created by the consolidation of three other Methodist societies in Norwich, known as the East Main Street Meth- odist Episcopal Chnrch, the Sadiem Street Methodist Episcojjal Cliurch, and the Central Methodist Episcopal Church. The consolidation was effected by an order made by Bislioj) Walden at a session of tlic New lOngland Sontliern Annual Conference, held in Providence in Ls!),"). This action by the bishop was taken under the authority assumed to be vested in him ''to fix the ap]M>intni(Mits of the ]»reachers" by section 3 of paragraph 170 of the Book of Discijtline of the Methodist Episcopal Church as contained in the Dis- cijdine of 18t)2. and in foi'ce at the time of the order. In Trinity' Methodist Episcopal Chnrch v Harris, 73 Conn. 216, it is said "that other b*isho])s of the church have put the same consti'uction on that |iart of the Book of Dis- cipline, and that churches have been in the past on many occasions so united; and, so far as appears, the power and authoi'ity of a Idslioii ])r('sidiHg at an Annual Confei'ence to make such consolidation has never been called in ques- tion. We understand that this construction of the Book of Discijtline is in accordan<-e \\itii the nniform and uni\ersal practice of the Methodist lOpiscopal Church. It agrees with the common understanding of the practice of tlial chnrch." vjriie action of Bisli<»]» ^^ aldcn was binding on every mendier of the churches so consolidated. It was held that, accoi'ding to the rules, usages, ani-et lireii, llieir widows and orjtlians. The fonndalion of this charily is peculiar and novel. The lr;i\eliii^f pi-eaclieis ai'c liolli the founders and the heiieli- claries. They are the i>roprielors of the e the terms and conditions upon which Hie proceeds or jtrolits should be distributed, and the ])ersoiis to whom, ami which when prescribed furnislies the law of the case for the court, these jiroceeds and protits have been devoted to the relief of distressed, traveliug super- uumerary aud worn-out ju-eachers in the connection of the Methodist ICpiscoj)al Church, their wi(b)ws and orphans. The sixth restrictive rule ]»rovides that tlie General Confer- ence "shall not ajtiu-opriate the jiroceeds of the Book Con- cern, nor the charter fund, to any i)nrpo.se other than for the benefit of the travelinj? supernumerary and worn out jireach- ers. their wives, witlows. and children." The division of the chur(h in 1S4I, and the erection of the Methodist l>])isco]»al Church. South, in lS4r). did not deprive the latter church and its ministers, nor their widows aud children of their rij>lit to share in the distribution of the proceeds of the Book Concern as jirovided by tlu' sixth restrictive rule. It is this descrijition of persons to ^^hom it is destined by tlie adjiidication of the court. They are not only within the description, but are also the very jtersons heretofore in the enjoyment of it, and for whom it was orijjiually intended, drantiuji; that these jiersous have done no wrongful act, hut are still laborin«; in the church as heretofore, except under a dilTereul merely territorial orijanizatiou. they are covered METHODIST KriSCOl'Al. (Ill K. ((Mr. Ct. Dist. of N. V.K Church Extension Society. A l)e(iuest of ^1(),00(> was made to this society, incorporated under the laws of rennsyl- vania, "to be nsed as a jtart of the Perpetual Loan Fnnd of said society, and to bear the name of the Durham Loan Fund.*" In (Mnircli Ivxlension of the ^[etliodist Kpis- copal Church v Smith, ."it; Md. ;!(!li, this becpiest was held void, the court observin"; that while the legatee was duly incorporated and cajiable under its charter of taking the bequest for the general i)urposes of the association, the testatrix had chosen to declare the particular use and pur- pose to which the fun<] should be ai)plie<|. I*,y a rule of the society any person making a donation of ^5,000 or more to a loan fund, might designate the name by which said contri- bution shall be known. The loan fund was set apart to be loaned to necessitous churches of the Methodist Kpiscoi)al Church, erected from time to time, within the limits of the Fnited States and its territories, the authorities of the society selecting the beneficiaries. It was held that the legacy was not given to the corporation for its own use, and could not be used for its general ]tnri>oses. The elTect of the will was to constitute the society a trustee charged with the duty of emjdoying the fund only for the use and benefit of necessitous McMliodist elnirches in the United States. Such churches wei-e the real beiieticiai-ies for whirh the leg- acy was given, and the conit hehl that such a trust was so indefinite that it could not he enforced. The corporation by failing to ai)])oint an ai»propriate committee, or by fail- ing to designate churches as beneficiaries of the fund, could practically divert the fund to uses not contemplated i)y the donor, and no one would have the power to invoke the aid of a court of equity for the euforcemeut of the trust. Church Investigations. In Tul»l)s v Lynch, I Harr. (I>el.) 521, it was held that a church investigation by a committee ;:i2 'iMii: civ il law A.\h 'I'lii: ciirinii ;i|>|)()inl('(l liv tlic piistor lo cuiisidcr various coinplai nis liy liuMiibcrs of llic cliiircli had im» l»';,'al rllct I in a <(tiirl n\' law. jumI tliat llic (•oiiimilh'c's rc|»<»rl was not l)iinlin;i and final even in IIk' clinrcli. I»ii( was sniijcci to review and revision hy appropriale clnircli trilinnals. Tlu- action of tlie clinri li is desi^^ned to have a inoiai and not a le<;al residl ; the ])en- alty of not aindin}; by it is no other than cliiirrli dis(i|»line; and to jiive it a h'^al ( onsecinenee or efficacy woiihl l»e to coniitid nienduM-s of that society to suhtnit Iheii- i-iuhts to tin* decision o\' a Walden in IS!);") declared to be the successor to three Methodist I^iiiscojjal churches in Norwich, which were vow- solidated by him to form the new society. This action by the bishop was hehl binding on the (Mvil Courts of Connecti- cut. Trustees of Trinity M. E. Church v Harris, 7:5 C(nin. LMC. Corporators, Cannot Evict Trustees. A portion of the cor- l)orators alleged to constitute a majority took possession of the property and assumed to contiol it and i>rescribe and regulate the religious services to be held in the cliurch. Such action by tlie corporators amounted to an eviction of the trustees who did not consent to such occupancy, and the trustees were held entitled to maintain an action in the name of the corporation to recover ])ossession of the l)roperty. First M. E. Church in Attica v Filkins, 3 T. & C. (N. Y.) 'J7!>. Division. In Hi-ooke v Shacklett, Ki (Jratt. ( Va. ) :}00, the court, referring to the division resulting from the action of the (leneral (\)nference of 1S4+. said: "If this division of the church was lawful, it is obvious that the members of the local societies in the Southern Organization of the church stand in the same relation to the (lenei-al Conference, the Annual Conference, the bishojis, i)a.stors, rules and dis- METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 343 cipliue of the Methodist Episco])iiI Church, South, that they occupied belore the division, in respect to those of tlie Meth- adist Episcopal Church. There lias been no chan<;i' of faitii, no change of doctrine, no change of discijiline, no change in the mode of administering it; all remain as before. The General Conference of 1S44 had power to |)rovide for the division. '*Tlie ministers and preachers, in whom resided the supreme i)ower, liad, when they ass»Mnbh'd in 17S4 to frame a government for the cliurch, full power to place it under one or two, or a still greater number of general organ- izations, if they had believed that the interests of the church would be thereby- promoted. And I do not see how it can be said that the General Conferences of ITIH'. 1 ?!)(;, 1800, 1804, and 1808, comj>(>sed, as they were, of the body of the ministers and preachers, did not each have the same power. And when they deterniineer. Ct. (iL'4. General Conference, Power to Divide Church. The (Jeneral Conference, coni])osed of all the traveling jireachers, and who established the government, doctrines, and discijiline of the church, possessed the power to reconstruct and reor- ganize the government, ecclesiastical and tenii)oral, into two or more separate and distinct organizations. These traveling preachers represented the sovereign power of the government, aud were responsible to no earthly tribunal for mi:tii()I)Ist i:i'isc()|'ai. cmucii ;;ir. llie iiuxlc and iiiaiincr of its exercise. The traveling; iiicadi- ers assoiiil)le(l in (iiMieral Conrerence emlMMly. ami in ilieni- selves, the sovereign jyower, and we liaxc n<»\\liei-t' seen llieii' consent to any liniilation or rest liel ion till all come down, in the history of their administration, to the Conlereiice of 1808. We must have some evidence that thej' have jKirted with a j)ortion of tlieir soverei<>n ]>ower tliat confessedly Ijelonged to them at the first oi'j»anization since that jteriod ; and that Ihey assembliMl in tlie sid)seqnent Confei^MUM', snh- ject to the disahility, before tlieir power can he dislini;nislied I'rom those ori_i;inally ])0ssessed. As it respects tlic jiowers of the (Jeneral Coniei-ence since the modilicalions of ISOS, it is the same as previously existed, subject to the six re- strictive articles, and neither of them has any connection with or beariuij; u|»on the question we havi> been consider- ing. The connection of the Annual Upi)er Canada C\yati v Hcnson, L':J Barb. (N. V.) '.\'2~, foi* a history of nioxcmenis in Is."*.') an llu* snl>J(Ml to liislutp Miilllicw Simpson as arbitrator. The court liolcis, aiiMtii;; otlici- tliiiij^s, that triistees of a rciij^ious corporation cainntt, on their own motion, and without a vole son of any (luestion relating to the sale of the jtroperty was invalid, for the reason, as stated by Judge Davies, that 'Mt was not competent to submit the (piestiou as to whetlier or not the church shoubl be sold, to any tribunal other than that pointed out by law"; that the court could not without the consent of the corjioration direct a sale of its projjertA', and no arbitrator could be given i)ower to say that church ])roperty should or should not be sold. The court also said that the question whether certain j)ersons Avere the legal trustees of a religious cor- ])oration could not lawfully be submitted to an arbitrator, for the reason that the law i)ointed out the only method by which the title to an ottice could be determined. Wyatt V Benson, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 327, considers various questions relating to a movement in 1850 growing out of the organization of the first church, for the sale of the John Street Church property, and the removal of the society to an nptown location. It was held, among other things, that the trustees could not on their own motion institute a pro- ceeding to procure an order for the sale of the church i)rop- erty, and that such a sale could not be directed by the court excei)t with the consent of the corporation. Maine, Preachers' Aid Society. Preachers' Aid Society v Rich, 45 Me. 552. sustained a bequest to this society, al- though at the time of making the will the society was not incorporated, but was incorporated after the testator's death. It was held com])etent to show that the society was the beneficiary intended by the testator, and the railroad bonds constituting the legacy were directed to be delivered to the society. Methodist Preachers' Aid Society, Baltimore. Maryland. A MKTIIODIST El'lSCUJ'AL CHLKCH ;i47 devise of land in I'ennsylvania to this society was sustained in Tlionii»son v Swoojie, 24 I 'a. 474. Ministers, How Appointed. According to the constitution and l)iscii)line ol' tlie Metliodist IOj)isc()j)al Church of the United States, its preachers, denominated deacons and elders, are not called by the societies to which they preach, but are ai)pointe(l to stations, and to travel in circuits by the presiding' bisliop of the Annual Conference. Tlie jiower is lodged in him, but from a practical necessity lie ads w iih the advice of liis council of presiding elders, assend)led a I the Annual Conference. The Annual Conference was com- posed of the deacons and elders and the traveling ministry within the respective Conferences, i)resided over by a bisho]>, or superintendent, as oi-iginally termed, assigned to liold the Conference by the board of bishops. The General Confer- ence consists of delegates elected by the Annual Conferences from among the traveling preachers, i)resided over by the bishops in turn, and holding its sessions quadrennially. The Annual Conferences are divideective boundaries. Over each district the bishop, at the Animal Conference, a]>p()ints an elder to preside, who travels his district four times a year, and ]>resides at tlie Quarterly Conference in each circuit or station, comjiosed of the traveling and local preachers, exhorters, stewards and class leaders, trustees, anointnient. As t(> the ])articular building or bouse in which services shall be statedly held, tiiere is nothing definite in the IMscipline, an|M»int nieiits ol serxiee. which must intei- in tlie Disciidine on this subject. The (2"''i'**''''y ^'onfei-ences must secure the ground on which chui-ches ni-e to be built nccoi-din;; to the deed ol' seltlemenl. ;nid ("in iidiiiil no chni'ter i,v deed tli:it does not secure tlie rij^hls of the i)re;ichers of tJM' chni-ch in Hie ministration of ils .services accfu-diuLC to the true nieanin;^' of the deed of seltlcnieiil, the form of which is pre- scribed. Henderson v Hunter, ">*> Tii. St. ,">.'>."). Minister's Salary. Tlu; laws and regulations of tlie chuicii, enacted by ils General Conference, and contained in its "Hooks of Discipline," are bindinj; ujxni its churches ami its ministers. It is the duty of the bishop to fix the appoint- ment of the preachers, of the church to accept the jtrejicher thus assigned to it, and of the ]>reaclier to serve as minister and pastor according to his appointment. It is also pro- vided that the amount necessary to furnish a comfortable suj)port to the ]>reacher should be estimated by a committee appointed b}' the Quarterly Conference within whose juris- diction he was stationed, without regard to the pecuniary ability of the society, or the probability whether a greater sum could be raised for the object, and that certain persons called stewards should proceed by such method as they judged best to raise the estimated amount. None of these functionaries are officers of the society, nor are they selected or appointed by it. It is also in the same way provided "that in no case should the church or Conference be holden accountable for any deficiency as in case of debt." It is apparent that the minister who renders service, does so, not upon an ag^-eed salary, but u])on an allowance for the sui)i)ort of himself and family, to be raised by voluntary and not enforced contributions, and those coming not wholly and perhaps not at all from the society or church to which he is appointed. Neither the Discipline of the church nor its principles recognize any contract relation between the minister and the society. Its entire policy is opposed to it. It regards its ministers, not as hirelings, but as ])ilgrims METHODIST i:i'lS("(H'AL (III KCll ;!1!» and sojoiniiers, and its societies as Noluiitai-y cuiitiib- utoi's to a general fund. From the fact, therefore, that service is rendered and service received, no iini)lication can arise of any promise of comi)ensation. Both parties must, in the absence at least of some valid express agree- ment, be deemed to have acted under tlie obli^Mtion of duty ijuposed by the rules to wliicli they had assented. Land- ers v Fraidv St. Church, Kocliester, I»7 X. \. 11!>, also 114 N. Y. c.i't;. Missionary Society. A devise t<> this society was held void on the j;i-ound that at the death of the testator the society had not been incoTj»orated. The devise took elfect imme- diately, and it was not aided by the subseipient incorpora- tion of the society. It was also held that the society was not a forei<;n missionary society, its object being, as stated in its charter, "to ditVuse more generally the blessings of education, civilization and Christianity throughout the United States and elsewhere." Chittenden v Chittenden, 1 Am. L. Keg. (N. Y.) 5:i8. A devise of land in rennsylvauia to this .society was su.s- tained in Thonii)son v Swoojje, 24 Pa. St. 471. This society was held not a religious corporation within the New York Transfer Tax Law as ameuiled in 1!M)(). and therefore not e.\em]>t from the ]>aynient of a tianslVr lax on a legacy. Ke Watson 171 X. Y. 1*5(;. Missionary Bequest. A becpiest to the "Methodist lOpis- coi)al Missionai'y Society of Maine" was directed to be paid to the "Trustees of the I^ast Maine Conference," it apjiear- ing that there was no incoi-poiatcd missionary society an- swering the descri|»lion of the will, and that the ICast Maine Soc-iety was incori)orated and was within the territory in which the testatrix resided. Straw v I'ast jNIaiue Conf. M. K. Ch. (17 Me. 19:5. Missions. Testator gave tlic i-csiduc oi' his estate to the Methodist 10]>isco])al Mission at r>ond»ay, India. Tlicie was no such mission, but (here was a general missionary society of the church carrying on ojierations in India, with ;!."■)(> Tin: ri\ ii. law a.\i» 'riii; cm kcii its lic;Hl(|ii-irl('rs ;il I Jickiiow. It ;i|»|»c:ii-<'(l lli:it t lie Icstjitor Wiis r.-iiiiiliiir witii llic ;^ciicr;il iiiissioiuiiT oiicnif ions in Indi:) and liixl iniidc lil>(*r:il coiit rihiitioiis in aid (if the (Mi(('fi»i-iso. He was deemed to have intende*! to devise his estate to the (Jenei-al Society, the proceeds to he nsed in carrying; on its work in India, and the devise was therefore sustained. McAllister v McAllister. 4(1 Vt. 272. A becjuest of the proceeds of a sale of real estate to the (Jeneral Missionary Society was sustained in Missionary Soeiety Methodist lOpiscojial Chnich v Calvert, '.')'2 (Iratt. (Va.) .'{57. The provision in the bequest that the fund should be a|)propriated to the India mission did not make it void for uncertainty. Testator gave one half of his residuary estate to the "Missionary Case of the M. K. Church." The word "case" was construed to mean "Cause.'' The Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcoi)al Chuich sonjiiit to obtain the fund on the p,round that it was the general agency through which missionary oj>erations in the denomination were car- ried on. The court held that the society, not having been named in the will, was not entitled to the fund, but the bequest did not, for that reason, fail, and the court sug- gested that further proceedings would be necessary on the equity side to determine the disposition and management of the fund, for the purjiose of perpetuating the testator's intention. Missionaiy Society Methodist Episcopal Church V Chapman, 12S ]\Iass. 2(1,"). New York, 9th Ward, Bequest for Purchase of Coal. A bequest of the residue of an estate to the Metliodist Epis- co])al churches in the ninth ward in the city of New York, according to the number of members, to buy coal for the l)oor of said chniches was sustained. The testator coutem- ])lated no trust, but simjdy made a betjuest to the churches, and the same was valid. Bird v Merklee, 144 N. Y. 544. Ohio Corporation. This church was incorporated under the laws of Ohio with Iwtdve trustees — six ministers ami six laymen — one half to be chosen bv the General Confer- METHODfST KI'ISCOI'AL CHURCH :i51 ence quadi'eiiniMlly. Tlie corpoiatioii was <;ivt'n jiowcr to take and hold, manage and convey property and administer trusts for the benefit of the denomination, and the c()rj)ora- tion was declared to be subject to the supervision of the General Conference. The testator bequeathed a portion of his estate to the ''Methodist Episcojtal Church to bt* used 1)V said deuoniiualion for the spread and furtherance of tlie gospel." It was held that the Ohio corporation was entitled to receive this bequest and that it could not l)e i)aid to a local society of the deuoniiiuition. Ke Jiouser's Estate, 8 l*a. Sup. Ct. 188. Oregon Mission. The Oregon act of 1818 confirmed the title to lands, not exceeding 040 acres, then occui»ied as missiouary stations among the Indian tribes of said terri- tory, together with the im])rovements thereon, in the several religious societies to which said missionary stations resjtec- tively belonged. From 1838 to September, 1847, the mis- sionary society of the ^lethodist E])isco]>al Church main- tained a mission among the Wascopum Indians on the south bank of the Columbia River, at the lower end of the Grand Dalles thereof, at a place since called ''The Dalles," in what is now Wasco County, and on Jidy I), 187,"), received a patent from the United States, under section 24-17 of the Revised Statutes, for a tract of land containing (>4.'»..*)7 acres, including the ground occupied by the improvements made at such mission. For some years ])rior to the ])assage of the Oregon act of August 14, 184S, there were three religions societies en- gaged in missionary labors among the Indians in Oregon — the Methodist l']»iscoj)al, rresbytcrian, ami the Roman Catholic. The first missionaries of the former <'anie to Ore- gon with Weytii in 1S:'>I. and established a mission at W'al- lamet below Salem, whicli was afterward removed to the latter ])lace. Snbse(piently their nnndxM's w<'re increased, and they established missions at I'he hnlles. Xes(|nall_v. ami Clatsop. In tile Spring of 18:58 the Rev. Daniel Lee and Kev. ;;r.L' Tin: cinii, law .\.\h Tin: ciii K'cm 11. l\. W. rciUiiis. iiikIci- tlic (liicci ion (d llic lic\. .lasoii !.(■(', Ilic sii|»('i'iiil<'ii(]('iil (if I lie (Icrt'iMhiiil ill Ofcj^oii, estab- lislicd a mission williiii llic liiiiils ol the (ra<-| (Icsci-ibL'd in the palcnt lu'i-e at a j»la<(' flicn called Wascopiini. In the fall of the same year il was stocked with cattle fi'om the AVillaniette Valley. The place was favorably situated for trade and intercourse with the Indians and ininii«jrants rr(»iii the east — llie latter iisnally at this point cxdianjied their wagons lor ]»oats ami ol'teii haiterini;' llieif poor oxen for supjdies, such as fi-esh beef and llie like. In 1840 M. 11. B. Brewer went to reside there as a farmer for the mission. IVi'kins and Lee left the mission for the East in 1S44, an\'hitman, to- gether with the sale of a canoe, some farming utensils, grain, and houscliohl funiilurc for ilic sum of SdOO; and between Septendtcr 1 and 10. 1S17, Messis. Waller and Brewer, the agents of the missioimry society, delivered the possession of the premises to Wliitm;in. \\lio took actnal possession thereof, and i)laced his nejiliew, Teiiin B. Whit- man, a youtii of seventeen years, in charge, while he pi-o- ceeded to his mission station at Wailatpu. Dr. Whitman was not a ministei-, but at the time of the transfer of this station to him it was understood and expected that religious services and instruction would in some way be kept uj) thei-e for the benetit of the Indians; but there was no legal obligation to that elfect, nor did the missionary society, or its agents. li:ive any intention or exj)ectation of returning or occupying the station, if such services and instruction were not furnished, nv otherwise. In pursuance of the settled |»oli( y of ilie niissionaiy society, the station was absr. Whitman ami others were inurrovisional govern- ment until they were withdrawn from the country as stated. Thereafter the premises remained unoccupied, except occa- sionally by passing travelers and immigrants, until the si)ring of 1850, when a military post was established there by the United States, and the premises included in a mili- tary reserve. The court held that the missionary society had not acquired the title to this station on August 14, 1848, under the act of that date. It had abandoned the i>lace volun- tarily and without any expectation or intention of reTurn- ing, and was no more within the i)urview or operation of the act than if it had never been upon the ground. The grant under that statute applied only to such stations as were occupied on August 14, 1848. Tlie missionary society did not then occupy the i)remises. Prior to August 14, 1848, there could be no such possession of lands in Oregon, because the legal title was in the United States. Occupancy or actual possession was the only interest anyone then had in the lands in Oregon, and when that was given up or abandoned, the relation of the party to the land was abso- lutely terminated, and it was open to occu])ation by the next comer as though the foot of man had never been upon it. The grant by the act of 1848 applied to stations then occu- lted for missionary purposes. METHODIST HPISCOI'AL (HI K('ll 355 By an art of (Congress passed on ilic Kiili day of .hine, 18G0 the iiiissioiiaiy society received from the United States 120,000 ill satisfaction of its claim for one half of the prem- ises, and the value of the imiirovements thereon, whet her destroyed by the volunteers under the provisional govern- ment, or Indians, or the United States troojis. and estiiiinted by it at |4,000. The court said that the patent obtained by the missionary society in 1875 was wrongfully issued, and the society was not entitled to retain the property, but was reijuiivd lo release and convey it to the persons claiming title to it in this case. Dalles City v Missionary Society M. K. Church. 6 Fed. :{5(;. Property to Be Held in Trust. Under the terms of the Dis- cii)line it is i)i()vidcd that conveyances of real estate for the erection of houses of worship shall be in trust, to be used, kept, maintained, and disposed of as a place of divine wor- ship, etc., subject to the discijiline, usage, and ministerial appoinhnents of said church. Trustees of a local society who have advanced money or are responsible for any sums of money on account of building a house of worsliij) or are obliged to ]>ay such sums of money, are authorized either to mortgage or to sell the premises after notice given to the pastor. The local trustees are to hold all the church prop- erty. Bushong V Taylor, S2 Mo. (i(iO. Separation, Church South, Plan Final. It is manifest that the plan of separation was a plan of peace, to end strife; and the relations of the (,'ouferences, churches, stations, and societies along the defined and .sj)ecitied border, hcin^ (uice settled by the choice of those authorized so to icI. I»y adher- ing to the one side or the other, was linal and conclusive, and could never after be changed, or counteracted, nntler or by virtue of that plan and authority. Now it is contem- jdated to keep tlu; (piestion oi)en to be shifting tr(»ni siile to side, from time to time, as one side or the other may have a majority. Such a const rnct ion wonhi lu* to defeat the end in view of i)eace and settlement, increase the di.sseu- :ir.(; 'I'lii: cix ii. law .\.\i» riii; ( iii i:( ii sioiis .1111(111^ llir |M'o|»l('. .'Hill iii;il<(' «(Hiril^i(Ml \\(»I"S(' coil- roniidcd. \'cii;iltN' v ( 'oIliiiM ii, 'J W . \';i. .".10. Separation, Church South. Holston Conference. T'ollow iii}; (he sei);irali()ii in ISll, iiinl ilic crccliiMi of tlic M<*tli(Mli.st l'>I»is<'(»]>;il (Miurcli, Soiilli, ill ISI.^), Ilic Holston CoiilVi-ciico, one of tlic Border (Jonfereiices, dosciilx'd in tlie jilan of separation, adhered to the Church Soutli, and became a part of tliat oi-^a nidation. The hjcal cliurch in .Fonesboro, Ten- nessee, was ill this Conference, and Ibis society continued to be a part of the Churcli South until 1805, when sonic of its members, including llirce truslc<'s, withdrew from the Church South and joined the Methodist I'^pi.scopal (Jhurch, North. They formed an organization and took possession of the local society's property, claiming it for the Cliurch North. The trustees who remained in the Church South brought an action against the trustees of the Church North to recover the property. It was held that by the action of the Holston Conference, deciding to go with the (/hurch South, the title to the local property passed to lliat organ- ization. This situation was not affected by the withdrawal from the local society of a large number of its members, including three trustees and their subsequent connection with the Church North. The effect of such withdrawal was to lose all iutere.st as beneficiary of the ])roperty. The trus- tees who were connected with the Church South were held entitled to the posset^sion of the local church property. Reeves v Walker, S Baxt. (Tenn.» 277. Separation, Title to Local Property. Pending a controversy over the title to the church property between representa- tives of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, the county court appointed trustees of the local society repre- senting the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States. In an action of ejectment by these trustees against persons claiming the property as representing the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, it was held that the plaintiffs could maintain an action although ajipointed by the court. METHODIST lOI'lSCOI'AI. ClirRCH :):>! That their appoiiitmeiit was a sulijoct ol a]>i>i3al, but couhl not be questioned collaterally nor in the pending action. Kreglo V Fulk. :! W. Va. 74. Separation, 1844, Home Rule as to Future Relation. By the plan of separation it was agreed that wirliiii the territory of any of the Borih'r Conferences a iiiajorily of the society, or Conference within which any church property lay, might determine for itself to which body it would become attached. Venable v roirniaii, 2 W. \'a. .".lO. Separation, When Property Cannot Be Transferred to Church South. In 1851 ])roperty was conveyed to this society to he u.sed for religious purposes according to the rules and dis- cipline of the Methodist Episcojial Church. In 18(i<) live of the trustees of the society joined the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and attemjiled to transfer the property' to that denomination by opening the hou.se of wor.ship to its ministers, and submitting to its Discipline. In ISdd ilie Quai'terly Conference adopted a resolution art of the Church North. The seceding trustees were removed by the court, and other trus- tees were ai)])oiuted in their place. \'(ii;ihh' \ ColVman, 2 w. \'a. :no. Tennessee Annual Conference. Test ;H or iKMiueailicd .i por- tion of his estate to the Tennessee Annual Conrereuic, foi" the benefit of inslilutions of learning under its superintenA\v AM) Til 10 cmijrii TciiMcsscc |t;iss('(I ;i privah' ad iii((»rj)()j'al iiig certain \H-y- sons as Inislccs to irccive this bequest. The deviHe to the ('(Hircrciicc was lichi iiiojx'rativc and void, for tlie n-aHoii that the devise exliihited only a general indefinite imrjiose of cliaril.v I)olli as lo ])ei-sons an. (Tenn. i 170. METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH Origin, historical sketch, 359. ( )iguuization, 3G1. Baltimore Conference, 3til. Book Concern, Methodist Episcopal Church, interest in, how adjusted, 'M\il. Border society, 3G;3. Church edifice, change of site, effect, 304. Corvallis College, Oregon, 304. Liability for local debts, 364. Missions, 365. Property, division of general church, effect, 365. Property, secession, effect, 305. Property, when withdrawing members cannot change title, 367. Property, who may enforce trust, 368. PubU.shing house, ta.xation, 308. Origin, Historical Sketch. In Gib.son v Aiiu.strong, 7 B. Moil. (Ky.) 481, the Court of Ai)i)eals of Kentucky coiisij out of the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church following the General Conler- ence of 1844, resulting in the erection of the Methodist Epis- copal Church, South. The division was one of the conse- quences of the agitation concerning slavery, which had con- tinued several years, especially in llic NortlitMii States. This agitation cidniinated in the action of the (Jeneral Con- ference of 1844, which in ciVcct authorized the separation (»r the Southern jiortion of tlic chmcli. and the organization of a new cliui'<-Ii in the slavclioldiiig Stales. Many resolutions an 'riii; -nining the same organi/.ation and name as the original church, is not only a Methodist I^]iisco])al Chui-ch but is in fact to the South, the Methodist Episcopal Church as truly as thi' other church is so to the North, and is not the less so by the addition of the word 'South' to designate its locality." Cibson v .\rm- strong, 7 B. Mou. (Ky. ) 4S1. Baltimore Conference. This Conference was not ii-pie- .KiL' Till'] (IN ll> l>AW AM) Tin: ("III liCII sciiIimI ill |Im> (-oiivciiI ion iicM in liOiiisvillt*, Kciil iicky, in Ma}', IMo, wliicli oi'fjanizcd tlie MctliodiHt Ki)iHcopal ('hurch, Soufli, and hcinj!; a hordrr ('onlVrcnco, under the jtlan of st'pai'adon a How. (U. H.) 288, in- volved qiiestious relating to a division of the property known as the Methodi.st Book Concern, conse(»ok Concern. Border Society. A church edifice was erected on land con- veyed to trustees in 18.'i.'>, within the limits of tiie territory which afterward became the Baltimore Conference of tlie Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The conv<'yance was not for the use of the chui-ch at large, but f(»r the use of a particular congregation of that churcii, in tlie limited and local sense of the term; that is, foi- the mendn-rs as such, of the congregation of the Mi'tiiodist l>j)iscopal Churrh, who from theii* residence at or near the place of worship may be expected to use it for that |)uiiM)se. The local society, when the deed was made, was a jKirt of the Methodist lOpis- copal Church. Tiiis local society was ut){ a lioider society within the meaning of the plan of se|>araiion adopted by the General Conference of 1844. and hence had no authority to determine, by a majority of its meudu'rs, its adherence to the Church South. The |»roperty of the chui«h was held to belong to those miMubers who a]>iscoj>al Church, South. The college accepted the statute. In 1885 the Columbia Confer- eiu-e aj)pointed trustees of the college. In 188(> the trustees adopted a resolution directing a conveyance of the college farm to the State, and the conveyance was executed accord- ingly, but without consideration. Several persons, mem- bers of the Methodist l^piscopal Church, South, brought an action to set aside the deed. It was held that under the charlei' the college had no i)Owei' to make this conveyance. Liggett V Ladd, 17 Or. 81). Liability for Local Debts. In Methodist Episcopal Church, South. V Clifton, :U Tex. Civ. App. 248, it was held that the Methodist l]])iscoj)al Church. South, was an unincorporated voluntai'y association, against whiih no judgn\ent could be rendered unless for the ]>urpose of enforcing some etjuitable right which plaintilfs had against some i)roperty held by that association. Tlie action was to recover the amount of a debt contracted in the erection of Waco Female College, in Texas, under the authority, as claimed, of the Northwest Texas Conference. It was held tliat the church owned no jtroperty directly connected with the enterprise in which the contractors were interested, nor any fund which could METHODIST EPISCOrAL CHURCH, SOUTH .^OS be charged with llic dcUl ; lliat wlialt'vcr jnojiciMy was owned by the deuouiiiiation was held lor ]);trti(ul:ii- cliaiit- able uses, wliicli could Dot be diveitcd to the itayincnl of the debt in question. Missions. Testator gave all his i>ro])erty to the Meth- odist Episcopal Church, South, to be used in carrying on foreign missions. The devise was sustained. The Kentucky statute limited to fifty acres the (piantity of land wliirli might be held by any religious society, and s|tecilied the I)urposes for which such land might be ac(piired and used. The restriction in the statute was intended to pr<'vent a church from iaking ju-operty tor its own use. In this in- stance the i>roperty was given to the church in trust to be used for foreign missions, and was not for the benefit of the local societ3\ It was held that the limitation of the statute did not apply, and that the devise was valid. Kinney v Kinney, 86 Ky. 610. Property, Division of General Church, Effect. In 1S4() land was conveyed to the local society at Mt. (Jlivet, Kentucky, for church purposes, according to tlie laws and Discipline of 1he Methodist hvpiscojjal Church. In 1S4t the church was divided, the Southern Conferences assuming the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. This society ]tasseurn side, 4 Bush. (Ky.i 21.-). Property, Secession, Effect. In 1S,")1 land was conveyed to trustees intended for a jiarsonage tor tiie use of ministers of this society, which ha use ol' the (iciioiiiiiia- lioii {i^encrally. l»nl only loi- tlicf local society. A diviHion ai'osc ill tlio clnircii diiriii^i; lii«; Civil War, some (55 incnihcrs wilJKlrawiiijL;, iii(lii"(riii<; llic Inistccs named in the r<)r('al Cliurch oC the United States. The i-ein;iinin<^ niendxTs, altout 'M, adhered to the Church South and ke|)t up their orj^aniza- tion and retained control of the old house of woi-ship. The trustees named in the deed of the parsonaj;e ju-operly, and who had seceded and joined the Church Xoith, obtaineerty luider the Kentucky statute. McKinney v Ciriggs, 5 Bush. ( Ky. i 101. Property was conveyed to the local society in 185S, to be used for religious purposes under the general jurisdiction and suj>ervision of the Methodist K])iscopal Churcli. Sourh. In 18(55 some members of the local society withdrew and set u]) for themselves as an integral ])art of the church or- ganization, known as the African Methodist I'juscopal Church of the United States. In 1866 the General Confer- ence of the Methodist Episcoj)al Church, South, iidoi>ted a resolution "that whenever entire churches and congrega- tions shall have voluntarily left us and united witli tlie African Methodist E]>isco])al Cliurch, the trustees be. and they are hereby advised, to allow them the use of the house of worship heretofore solely occui)ied by them as before they left our church." The members of this local church who withdrew took ])ossession of the house of worship and used MI'/niODlST lOriSCOJ'AL rilLK("ll, SOI Til :;(i7 it uutii a }iaii of ilic colttrcd jd'oplc were cxchiilcd loi- llicir adherence to the MiMliodist j^pisco));!! ('Imirli, Sontli. troiii ANorsliipiiig- (JH'ie. l\ ^va^^ held that (lie secedeis had no ri<»ht to the possession or use of Ihc church i)roperly, l»nt that such title and use remained in the nicndx'rs who ad- hered to the Methodist I-lpiscojial (Muirch, South. IJrown v Monroe, 80 Ky. 4-1:5. Property, When Withdrawing Members Cannot Change Title. In Se])teud»er, iSlo, the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church iu Savannah made a deed ot certain land to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, under an arran«'enient bj- which the latter trustees ji^reed to erect on the land conveyed a house of worsiii]) for the use of the colored members of the Methodist Ej)isco])al Church, South. The trustees, grantees in the deed, erected a Intuse of worship, and called it Andrew Chai»el. Tiiis occnjiancy continued without interruption until the cai»tuie of Savaniudi by the Federal forces in ISti."). I'oUowiug the capture of the city several members of Andrew Cha|>el joined the African Methodist Episco|>al Church, and ihe trustees of the Church South permitted the African Meth- odists to use the cha]»el. In December, l.SO."). the African Methodists ai)i»lied to the (Jeorgia Conferemc \\)\- a deed of Andrew Chai)el, but the Conference replied thai it had no jjower to make the conveyance, for the reason that the title to property used by colored Methodists was vested in trus- tees for the use of colored nuMubers of the Metliodist lOpis- copal Church, South, so that the (Jeorji;i;i Confei-ence has no i>o\\('r to convey the ])ro|)erty to any olliei- oi'>i;nii/ai ion whatevei'. The African Methodists continued to occujiy the propei-ty, and in Septendter, 1S()S, tlie trustees of the ("Iniicli Scuilli served on the African Methodists a notice to iinil. but they declined to vacate the properly unless compelled (o do so by law. The trustees of the ('huicli Soutii ilien lte;^;iu summary ])roceediu<;s t»> recover possi'ssion of tlu' property. It was held that the title to the propJM-ty ration. Oodfrey v Walker, 42 (Ja. nci'. Property, Who May Enforce Trust. Land was convejed to Inislees foi- Ihe use and licneiit of the colored niendx'rs of llie Methodist l]|iis(()|»a I (■Jiurcji, Soiilli. according; to the lilies and I)isci]>line of that denomination. In ISt;.") the Ohio Conference of the African Methodist I'>|»iscoj)al Church, having extended its jurisdiction over that pai't of Kentucky embracing Danville, the members of this local society uiuin- inioush' voted to attach themselves to tlie latter organiza- tion, aud became subject to its rules and Discipline, receiv- ing the ])astors appointed by its authority, and otherwise exercising the functions and powers of a local congregatiou. Some time afterward two menibers were expelled frou) the new society, and thereujton the Quarterly Conference of the Church South, in the district end)racing Danville, ap- pointed trustees of the original society. These trustees bi-ought an action in equity to recover possession of the church i)roperty. It was held that the deed was for the benefit of colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, residing in Danville, and that there being no such i)ersons, either members of the Danville church of white people, or iu a separate organization in connection with the Church South, it did not ai)pear that there was anyone entitled to have the trust enforced. Newman v I»roctor, 73Ky. 318. Publishing' House, Taxation. This institution, located at Nashville, Tennessee, was incorporated by the Legislature in 185G, for the manufacture of books, tracts, periodicals, etc. The cori)oratiou was placed under the numagement and control of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, accord- ing to its laws and usages adopted from time to time. By the Discipline the object of the coi-poration was to advance the cause of Christianity bv disseminating religious knowl- METHODIST loriscorAi. ciiiKcJi. SOUTH ;:(;i) edge and nseliil literary and siteal of First Methodist Protestant Church, Scranton, 10 Wkly. Cas. N. (Pa.) 245. Property, Forfeiture, Free Seats. Woodworth v Payne, 74 K. Y. 11)(), considers a provision in a deed of land for a church, declaring that seats in the church should always be free, and if such seats were rented or sold, tlie title to the i)roi)erty should revert to the grantor. The church being in debt, sold the property by order of the court, to its min- ister, and services were continued as before the sale, the seats being free. It was held that the sale and change of title did not under the circumstances create a forfeiture and liie property did not revert to the grantor. Tliis dee. 11(5; affirmed 211 N. Y. 515. Property, Secession, Effect. In ISr.O land was conveyed to trustees for the exclusive use and IxMietit of the local con- 370 MI<:T1I01)IST 1'Kuti:stant CHUKCII :;7I gregatioii. In 1S71 a jtait of tlie local soL-iely witlKlruw theiefi'oin and joined the Methodist Ki)iscoi)al Church, South. The luinoiity retained the organization ol" the Meth- odist I'rotestaut Cliurch, and continued to oicnpy llie i>i<»|»- erty, until 1880, wheu they were excluded Ironi it, and i In- doors of the church were locked against them. The minor- ity, who had adhered to the Methodist I'rotestant Clinnli, were held eutitled to the property. Fiuley v Brent, nT \ a. io;5. Property, Title in Trustees, Effect. J^and was conveyed to certain trustees in trust for the members of the Methodist Protestaut church of (Jeorgetown, to be holden by them and their successors in otllice for said church forever, h* the proper use and beiioof of said church, agreeably to the Methodist Protestaut Church I)iscii)liue. The Book of Dis- cipliue ])rovideastor, the ;;7i Tin; ri\ il law A.\h Tin: ciirKcii olliccrs will iiol he rccniiicd to mcuiiiit lo the Ici^jil jiwstor" for the moneys i-eccived by lliciii :is voliiiil;n-y coiitrilnitions for tlic support of the jiaslor to wIkmii tlicy adlirrcil. Thoy innst, however, aiMonnt foi- tlie emit ribut ions and colhMtions for general |»nrposes of the churcli (•or])oration, such as mis- sionary, educational funds, etc. Hliem v Schultz, 170 I'a. 50:?. Calvinistic Baptist Societies. It is the usage of Calvinistic Baptists to ordain their clei-gymen to the work of evangel- ists or ministers of the gospel at large, and not as ministers of any particular churches or congregations, and they pi-each the gospel and administer the ordinances by virtue of that general authority, and not in consequence of their connec- tion, by church membershiji, with a particular church. Baptist Church, Hartford v Witherell. '.i T'aige. Ch. (N. Y.) 290. Changing Religious Belief. If the minister adopts a new system of divinity, the jiarish retaining their former reli- gious belief, so that the minister would not have been settletl on this present system, the parish have good cause to com- plain. By the change in the opinions of their minister they are obliged to hear doctrines which they disapjuove and which they do not believe. Such a situation presents a proi)er case between the minister and the parish for the advice of an ecclesiastical council. Burr v First Parish in Sandwich, 11 Mass. 277. Contract. As the public laws subsisting at the time and place of the making of a contract, and iu force where it is to be performed enter into and form part of it, so the ecclesiastical laws and usages of a particular religious de- nomination enter into and form ])art of e\Try contract under which the status of the pastor of a church of that denomina- tion is created. Arthur v North field Congregational Church. To Conn. 718. It was held in Charleston v Allen, «J Xt. 083, that the engagement of a minister was of a tenqiorary and not a permanent character, and he was therefore not tlie first MINFSTKKS :j7r> settled iiiiiiisler williin llie iiiciiiiin^ of the N'erniont clKirler, and was not iMilitlcMl to tlie land set ajiart for the ministry. Contract, Dissolution. When a minister eeases to be able to perform his ministerial duties, in eonse(i\ienee of any immoralit}^ or a church censure for such immorality, it may afford a sufficient reason for the parties mutually to dissolve the relation, or for one of them to treat the contract as forfeited and rescinded by the other. But when both parties to the contract are satisfied, and neither desires the relation to be dissolved, it is not for this court, at the instance of others, not parties to the contract, to seek for understandin«2;s and imjdications by which to avoid it, or to inquire whether it would conduce to the satisfaction of others to have a more acceptable minister, or one more closely connected with the denomination to which he belonjjjs. Smith v Nelson, IS Vt. 511. Covenant, What Constitutes Breach. The society made ati agreement with a minister which jn-ovided, among other things, that he should not "vary or go oil' from said establish- ment without a nuijor part of the church and society," The church was established on the Saybrook platform. In an action by the society against the minister for a breach of covenant the court said that it did not api)ear that the cove- nant had been broken. They might, if they saw lit, release him or alter their establishment ; but otherwise he was bound by this covenant to continue their minister anoint. It was no breath on his part that the church, for whose conduct he had not stipulaled, whose proceedings he had no jiower to direct or negate, passed certain votes, and declared cei-tain claims of the consociated churches in JJtchlield County nnscriptnral. It did not appear that the defendant has ever icfused t«» sub- mit to, or administer discipline in said chnrcli, or to j»erform the other duties of a |»astor thereof, according to the rules :!7(; IMII: ("l\ II. LAW AM) TINO <'in:K('lI ('sl;il)lislu'ersonality of the Holy Ghost ; in regeneration by the Holy Spirit, but not in a supernatural regeneration ; that the Scriptures contain a divine revelation, given by inspiration of God, and a per- fect and the only rule of faith and practice, but in no other sense in the full inspiration of the Scriptures; in the future but not in the eternal j)unishment of the wicked ; in the depravity of men, but not in the total depravity of the entire mixisti:ks .".tt race; nor in llio doctrines of election, jM-edestination, the perseverance of the saints, and jnstitication, as they are set forth iu the Assembly's Catechism." Attorney General ex rel Abbot v Dnblin, riS X. II. 459. Defined, Massachusetts. A teaclier of piety, rclij^ion, and morality is a minister of the gospel within the meaning of the Massachnsetts Declaration of Rifi,hts. Baker v Fales, IG Mass. 4SS. Deposed, Cannot Occupy Church. This society was organ- ized nnder tlie act of 1S1:{, by the name of ''The Trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Dunkirk, "N. V.," and in the certificate the incorporatois declared theniscdves to lie persons belonging to a church in which divine worshij) is celebrated according to the rites of the rresbyleriaii Church. At the time of the commencement of this action the society was in })ossession of church ]»roperty in Duidvirk, in which religious meetings were held. The j)astoi', 31 r. Adams, was duly installed according to the rites and eere monies of the PresbytcM-ian Chui-ch. In the summer of ISSO he was, by the action of the Bulfalo Presbytery, of wliith body he was a mendier, deposed from his lioly otlice on a charge of nnsoundness in faith and do(trin<'. Put notwith- standing this deposition Mi-. Adams claimed the right to olli- ciate as pastor of this clmnh in Dunkii-k, and perrorni all the offices incier. It was held that his expulsion from the ministry was not the sub- ject ol" review or criticism in this action, but the court must accei)t the fact of his dej»osition, and determine tin* matter in controversy accordingly. The acts of 1875 and ISTtl do not refer to the local society, but to the church or denomina- tion at large. The duties of the trustees relate to the gen- eral denomination though administering the property owned by the local society. The Dunkirk society had no local usage or custom ditferent from that of the general denomina- tion. The trustees by attempting to maintain a deposed minister violated the duty imposed on them by the statute, and an injunction was proj)erly granted restraining them from allowing the use of the church edifice by a deposed nunister. Isham v Fullager, 14 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 363. Deposed, Status. In Kobert.sou v Bullions, 9 Barb. (X. Y. i 64, aflBrmed 11 N. Y. 243, it was held that a court of equity might, upon the application of a portion of the corporators in a religious society, restrain the trustees from applying the temporalities of the corporation to the sujjport of a person as minister, who has been deposed from the ministry, by the proper ecclesiastical tribunal, and who is still under sentence of deposition. Dismissal. In Sheldon v Congregational Parish, Easton, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 281, the court said there were three estab- lished causes of forfeiture. First, an essential change of doctrine; second, a willful neglect of duty; and, third, immoral or criminal conduct. The contract is a mutual one. Its obligations are reciprocal and dependent. If the pastor neglects or voluntarily renders himself incompetent to per- form his duties to his parishioners, they are absolved from their obligations to him, and thus the contract is terminated. It is not every trifling deviation from duty, every aberration MTNISTIORS ::7:» from strict propriety which will warrant llie disiiiissioii of a minister. The refusal of a minister to comply with the request of his j)arish that he would make exchanges with other ministers in the vicinity is not a suflicient ground for a recommendation by an ecclesiastical council that his con- nection with the parish be dissolved. A clergyman has a right to select his own associates, and to regulate his own intercourse, whether social or professional, without incur- ring a forfeiture of his otlice. Whether he shall officiate in his own puljtit wholly himself, or invite others, and whom he shall invite, are matters which he may, within reason- able bounds, regulate by his own discretion. A minister of the gospel or preacher who is employed for a given time by his congregation is entitled to be retained as the minister of the church unless be loses that right by some fault of his own, and for cause; he may be dismissed by the parish, but he cannot be dismissed arbitrarily, as there is no legal distinction between a contract witli a min- ister and his congregation and any other civil contract for personal service. Congregation of the Children of Israel v Peres, 2 Coldw. (Tenn.) G20. Dissolving Relation. A pastor was called and accepted the call in the form required by the constitution of the church. It was held that the contract w as not terminable at the mere option of either party, but that it was to remain in force until terminated by mutual consent or in some of the modes specified in the constitution and prescribed by the laws of the church. Coiniit v KeformcMl Protestant Dutch Church, 54 N. Y. 551. A dissolution of the pastoral relation Ky onlcr of the classis was sustained by the (leneral Synod. A written declaration by certain mcinhcrs of the consis- tory refusing longer to serve as deacons or elders was not equivalent to a resignation, esjjccially where they were after- ward recognized by the jtastor and continued to act in their official capacity; therefore a subsequent attempted election or ai)i)ointni(Mit of oniccrs to lake tlicir idaccs was invalid :',s(> 'iiii: ("i\ iL LAW A.\i» 'I'lii; cin kcii 1111(1 iiu'llccdial. (.'oiiiiil v Ivd. I'loN'shint iMitdi ('liiircli, 54 N. Y. 551. Ecclesiastical Council. In ;i proper (.-ase hcl\v(;<'n a iiiiii- isler and his parish lor the advicit of an ec( lesiastical conn- ell, if either party offer to the other sneh a council, to be nuitually chosen, and the othei-, withont snfhcient canse. refnse to join in the choice, the party ottering may choose au ecclesiastical council, and the advice of the council thu.s chosen, and actinji^ fairly and lionestly, will justify either party in adopting their result. Burr v First I'arish in Sand- wich, 9 Mass. 277. Education. Tlie training of young men for the Christian ministry includes that education and advancement in learn- ing which form the preliminary preparation and discipline for the sacred office of i)reacliing the gospel. Field v Drew Theological Seminary, 41 Fed. ;{71 (Ct. C. 1). Del.) Examination and License. Before a student for the min- istr}' can be licensed he must be examined by the classis to which he belongs, and from which his license is to emanate. Every condidate for the ministry is under the immediate direction of the classis, and is to preach where it directs him. He is not permitted to refuse a call from any congre- gation without first consulting the classis for proper advice. He is to be admitted and ordained to the full mitnstry after examination b}^ the classis. Before his ordination he is required to subscribe to a formula, promising, among other things, to teach the doctrines of the church, and that, in case he has any difficulties about such doctrines, he will first reveal his difficulties to the consistory, classis or synod, that the same maj" be there examined, and that he will, on pain of suspension from his sacred office, submit to the judgment of the consistory, classis, or .synod, and that either of those bodies can, upon sufficient grounds of su.s- piciou, require of him an explanation of his sentiments respecting the doctrines and faith of the church. No min- ister relinquishing the service of his own church, or being unattached to any jiarticular congregation, shall be per- MINISTHKS 3S1 mitted to preacli indiscriminately from place to |)lace with- out the consent and authority of the classis. No minister can be called to or dismissed from a congregation to accept a call elsewhere without the permission of the classis. When a minister, from old age or other infirmities of niind or body, becomes unable to fulfill the duties of the min- istry, the classis can declare him einrritiis, and excuse him from further services, and still require his congregation to furnish him a supi)ort. Connit v Kef. l*rotestant Dutch rhurch, 54 N. Y. 551. Exclusion from Church Edifice. In Ackley v Irwin, 71 Misc. (N. Y.) 2:i9 it was held that the vestry had no power to exclude the rector from the possession and control of the church edifice. It was further held that the rector of an incorporated Protestant Episcopal church was a member of the body corporate and could not be removed by a vote of the vestry. Following m]>('l the chui-ch to receive him as its ])ast()r. There was no civil right involved, but only an ecclesiastical question, for which the denomination furnislicd jid('(|u:ii(' tribunals. This society (Zion's (Miurch, Bay City, Michigan) was organized in 1878, as a branch of the Evangelical As.socia- tion, and for a time received the jiastor and jtresiding elder appointed l»y the Michigan Annual Conference. In 1882 land was conveyed to tliis society. In 188U a new house of worshijt was erected by the society with funtls raised by subscrii)tion from members of the denomination, preachers, and others. Tlie cornci- sdnic \\:is laid according to the ceremonies jn-escribed by llie general deiKtniination and was dedicated by a bishojt of that denomination. In 1889 the Michigan AuimkiI Conlcrcnce approi)riated :?50() to aid in the erection of a jiarsonauc liy Ihc Zion Society at ::sL» Till': ("I\il law and tiii; , it appeared that the pastor had temlered liis resignation, but thai at a nu-et- ing of the church, regularly called, a resolution was adopted recpiesting him to withdraw his resignation, and it was w iili- drawn. He thereby continued to be the regular ]>astor of the church, and he, and those desiring to attend upon his min- istrations, had the right to occupy the chnrcli editice for the purj)Ose. The trustees closed the church and jncvenled its use by the jtastor and those aHiliating with him. It was held that the trustees had no j)ower to close the chui-ch. and an injunction was accordingly granted restraining them fi-om interfering with the regulai- use of ilie cliiireh. ;;si 'I'lii: cin ii. law and 'riii; cm k<"1i Lainl was (((iiNcycd lo Inistccs of llu? I'"'irst (jerniaii Socicly of llic Mc'lliodist Episcctpal Clinrcli of Wyandotte, Kansas, in trust to er<'(l on sncli land a lionsj? or j)la('e of worship for the use of the members of tlie Methodist ICpis- coi)al Church in the United States of America, according; to tlie rules and discipline wliich from time to time niay be agreed upon and adoi)ted by the ministers and preachers of the said church at their General Conferences in the Uuited States of America, and in further trust that they shall at all times, forever after, j)erniit such ministers of the gosj^el and preachers belonging to the said church as shall from time to time be duly authorized by the General Conferences of the ministers and preachers of the said Meth- odist Episcopal Church, or by the Annual Conferences authorized by the General Conference of the ministers and preachers of the said Methodist Episcopal Church, or by the Annual Conference authorized by the said General Confer- ence to preach and expound God's Holy Word therein. A church edifice was erected accordingly. By such con- veyance and the erection of the building a trust was created which a court of equity would enforce. It was held that the trustees could not lawfully exclude a regularly appointed pastor from the right to liold service in tlie church. A writ was granted compelling the trustees to admit the pastor to their church edifice, and to permit him to occupy and preach in its pulpit, and to refrain from all interference with him in the discharge of his duties therewith connected. Feizel v Trustees of the First German Society of M. E. Church. 9 Kan. 592. Under the Methodist Episcopal Church system neither the trustees nor a majority of the congregation can lawfully exclude from the local house of worshij) and pulpit a min- ister regularly appointed to the charge according to the rules, regulations, and discipline of that denomination. The society owned and occupied a hou.se of worship which was built on land conveyed to trustees for the use of the members of a Metliodist Episcojial Church according to the MINISTERS :{S5 rules and discipliue prescribed liy the (.Jeneral CoiilcitMue. The trustees, assuming to represent a majority of ilie mem- bers of the congregation, excluded from the rliunh editite a miuister regularly appointed to that charge, and prevented his occupying the house for the purposes of worship. On behalf of the minister a mandatory injiiiu-tion was granted restraining the tiustees from interfering with the use of the house by the minister or the people according to the customs of the denomination. Whitecar v .Michenor, M X. J. Eq. G. In People ex rel Peck v Conley, 42 Hun. (N. Y. ) 1)8, :{ N. Y. S. K('i». :'.T:!, it was held that it was the duty of the trustees of the First Metho 'IIIK (III i;is(i|»Iiii(', wliicli i-cliisjil ;nil lioii/.cd llip issniii;;' of ;i iMTciiiploi'v iii:ni(hiiiius (■oiiiiiiiiiitliii*; tlicni to iidniit (lie jmcik-Iici- IIiiis iiitpoiiilcd into llic (-iiiirch. Tlio i)ivsi(l('iil (>r nil Aiiiiiiiil ('oiifVi-ciM*' lins llu* rij;Iit dur- ing 51 recess of ji ('onfereiice to employ ;iim1 slatioii niiiiisters or to till a vacancy witli\ ilie laws and usages of the church. Excommunication, Expulsion. The (jnestion whether a Ko- man Catholic ])riesl was regularly exconimuuieatejl and expelled was held not to be within the jurisdiction <»r a court of equity, but was exclusively a (luestiuu for the church itself, and the judgment of its regularly constituled tii- bunal was binding on the courts. St. Vincents Tarish v Murphy, S:*, Neb. r,P>0. Excommunication. In Mason v Lee, 96 Miss. ISO, it was held that a general counsel consisting of representatives from several local churches had no jtower to excoiiiniunicate a minister for heresy of one of them, without proof that the counsel had authority over the particular local church, which was congregational and independent in its organiza- tion and form of government. Exemption from Jury Duty. A person who was a regularly ordained minister of the Methodist KpiscojKil (*hurch, luit not settled over a particular church, but belonged to tiie local connection and was required to officiate wlienev« r called ni)on to ]>reacli to any chui'di of his c' iiHliictcd. TIic |)i'()j)ci-| y of tlic cliiii-tli, i(s I'cvcinics, its jj;U'l>o, its parsonafj;!', if it liavf? any, its (•liiii-cii edilicc, and llie like, belong to the corporation, and the clergj man has no rifjhts or estate in any of them, otlier than such as are conferred 1)y exjiress contract, excei)t jjerhajis the control and i)ossession of the churcli during divine serv- ice, as long as the building is retained by the society for tliat purpose, altliough even tliis would rather seem to appertain to the vestry. Youngs v Eansom, .*]1 Barl). (N. Y.) 49. Heresy. If a minister ado])ts and advocates religious views at variance with the articles of faith of the denomina- tion to which he belongs, he forfeits his riglit to use the church edifice for their dissemination. Isham v Trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Dunkirk, G3 Howard's Pr. 465. Intruding into Cliurch. The church edifice occupied by the society was leased from the Warburtou Avenue Baptist So- ciety under a contract which authorized the lessor to termi- nate the lease at an^* time in case of any disagreement in the congregation or the board of trustees of the lessee, or other cause which in the opinion of the trustees of the lessor might make such termination expedient. There was dis- sension and dispute between the minister and his congrega- tion. The pulpit was declared vacant by the lessee church and the minister excluded from the church edifice. After- ward the nuuister, on an occasion when the house was open, entered the pulpit and insisted on occupying it and conduct- ing the service. He was removed by a trustee of the lessor and brought an action for damages. The facts showed that the keys of the church had been surrendered to the lessor and that this society and its trustees were in actual posses- sion of the property. It was held that the removal of the minister was justifiable and that even if, as claimed, the contract between the lessee and the minister had been unlawfully terminated by the cliurdi, the minister had no right to enter upon the premises, but must resort to an MINISTIOKS 88!) action against the society lor daniaj^es. Conway v ("ar- peuter, 80 Hun. (N. Y.) 42!). A clergyman wlio is a mere tres[(asser or intruder in a church, the congregation of whicli does not aeeejit his reli- gious doctrines or teuets, may he treated as any ordinary trespasser. Kex v Wasyl Ivai)ij, 15 Manitoba Ke. iL'l. Land Granted for Support. Tlie oljject of tiie government in granting a right of hind to the first scithMl ndnister was to encourage a minister to settle, and preaeh ihe gospid among the people of the town, while tlie lands were nneulti- vated and the inhabitants few in iminhcr and nnaide to eon- tribute largely for the i)ecuniary su]>i»ort of a ndnister. This must, of course, answer the double purjxjse of encour- agement to the minister to settle among them and assist the people to pay him. The i)eople have no control over tliis property directly, so as to give a deed that would convey it; yet it produces as much for their benefit as would the same amount of any other i)roperty which a minister might receive on settling in town. The people of the town have an important interest also, for the nature of its grant will permit them to exercise it, in selecting a minister whose tastes and numners, talents and piety, are calculated to render him useful among them. It is not snflicient lliat a nmn who is a minister should take up his residence in town and abide there, even during life. It is not sufficient that he should be settled in town, as a nmn, or as a farmer or nu'chanic, but he must be settled as a minister. The settlement must be for the life of the minister. There must be ordination and also a contract. Dow V Town of Ilinesburgh and AA'eed, 2 Aikens (\'t.) IS. Lutheran, How Chosen. This society ^^as incorporated by a special act in 17!)4, and was composed of all those wiio "now are, and all those who shall be hei-eafter, duly admitted or become members" of that society according to llie rides, orders, and constitution of the same to be formed. In February, 1788, the Legislature incorjiorated fiffiH-n churches in the back part of the t^tate, under the name of :vM) tin: cix ii. \..\\y am> 'riii; ciiiijcii The Kccl('si;isli(;il riiioii of llic ScNcriil (iciiiiiiii I'lvdcshiiit Coiigivjjjitioiis, coniiioscrl ill jcirl ol' Liitlicniiis, in |i:ii-1 of ollu'T" (}('i-iii;ni I{(>r<)i-iii('(l, or rr('sl)yt<'ri;ins. Ill ISl't ;i new synod \v;is oi'<;;nii7,('(l coniitoscd in jcirt <»r representatives of the ori«;;in;il synod of ] TSS, hut it did not appear that St. I'eler's \\;is rcprcscnicil in this syn<»d, hnt became attached to it. In ^S'^^ the rela1i<»n bclwcM-n tlic synongre- gational Cluiirli was considered to be the mere induction of a i)erson into the office of minister for a certain church, and after the termination of this pastoral relation that the virtue or effect of the ordination ceased also. But in lOTU "the nei«;hl)oring ministers at Cand)rid}fe" passed a vote tliat one of their persuasion once duly elected and ordained as a minister in any Evangelical church should be ac- knowledged in all of them as an ordained minister. Under this rule a minister ordained in one church was entitled to become a minister of another church without a new ordina- tion, and finally it was held by the church that the force and effect of the first ordination always continued after the pastoral relation was dissolved. The Presbj'terian Church in New England did not apply the rule of ordination so strictly as the Congregationalists, but held, in substance, that a minister once ordained con- tinued in this relation without a reordination until his ecclesiastical relations were dissolved. A Presbyterian min- ister in New Hampshire who had been elected as public teacher in a local church, but whose ministerial functions had there been discontinued, but who afterward occasion- ally performed ministerial duties, although not settled over any particular church, performed a marriage ceremony in the county where he resided. In an action to have the mar- riage declared void it was held that the minister probably had authority to solemnize the marriage; but if not. the marriage was Valid as a civil contract, and was sustained on the ground, among others, that the statute of New Hamp- shire did not require a soleninization by a minister or a magistrate. Town of Londonderry v Chester, 2 N. H. 268. Member of Association. The minister in a legal point of view is a voluntary member of the association to which he belongs. The position is not forced upon him ; he seeks it. He accepts it, with all its burdens and consequences; with MIMSTEKS 39:] all the rules, laws, and canons, then subsisting, or to be made by competent authority, and can, at pleasure and with impunity abandon it. If they were merciful and regardful of conscientious scruples, he knew it; if they were arbitrary, illiberal, and attempted to chain the thoughts and con- science, he knew it. They cannot, in any event, endanger his life or liberty ; impair any of his personal rights, deprive him of property acquired under the laws, or interfere with the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, for these are protected by the constitution and laws. While a member of the association, however, and having a full share in all the benefits resulting therefrom, he should adhere to its discipline, conform to its doctrines and mode of worship, and obey its laws and canons. If reason and conscience will not permit, the connection should be severed. Chase v Cheney, 58 111. 501). Obligation. A minister of the gosjc,'! is separaled from the world by his public ordination, and carries with Iiiiii constantly, whether in or out of the pulpit, sn[>eri()r ohli^ia- tions to exhibit in his whole deportment the i>urity of that religion which he professes to teach. Sheldon v Congrega- tional Parish, Easton, 24 Tick. (Mass.) 281. Office, Not Public. A minister who was regularly called and settled, was held not liable to taxation under the Penn- sylvania act of 1841, providing for a two per cent tax on official salaries in excess of .*200. Tlie minister did not hold a public office. Commonwealth v Cuyler, 5 Walls & S. (Pa.) 275. Office Not a Vested Property Right. A ch-rjiyman lias no vested property right in his office to exercise the fnnctions of his ministerial office to the end that he may earn and receive a salary for liis services. The right to receive the salary is dependent ujjon the continued performame of his duties as minister; and if he becomes disiiualilied by sus- pension or erhaps, suf- fice; but in some shaj)e the shepherd must contract an obli- gation to abide by the flock, or he will not be entitled to the rewanl. Cliarleston v Allen, tJ \'t. ().'>:). Parish, The plaintilf, who was ordained according to the usage of the sect to which he belonged, but not as minister of any particular church, settled in the town of Harmony and was received as pastor of a church composed in part of inhabitants of that town and in part of inhabitants of other towns. But this relation did not make him a minister of the town or parish. That relation could not be assumed except by the consent of the town or parish. It was held that he was not the first settled minister of the town of Harmony under the provisions of the statute, and was not entitled to the property set apart to ministers. Bisbee v Evans, 4 Me. 374. Parish, Incumbent's Title to Property. Under the Massa- chusetts parish system a donation of land to the use of the ministry and of a parsonage for the same purpose are for ministers in their official capacity', and are held by the min- ister of the parish or corporation for whose particular bene- fit the gift or appropriation is made as an estate in fee simple to him and his successors. Brown v Porter, 10 Mass. 93. The minister of a parish, settled for life or for a term of years is seized of an estate of freehold upon condition in the ministerial land. He is answerable for waste and may main- tain trespass. The right of action being vested in him per- sonally, an action commenced by him before may be prose- MINI STICKS 'AU7i cuted to final judgineiit arter the ministerial relation has been dissolved. Cargill v Sewall, 10 Me. 1*88. Pastoral Relation. A minister ought to be acquainted with the people ot his charge, that from a knowledge of their cir- cumstances, liabits, and characters, he may adapt his in- structions to their profit. His duty it is to reprove vice, to discountenance tolly, and to stem the torrent of corruption wherever it appears; and when, by a life of exemplary piety and diligence, he is borne down by sickness or the infirm- ities of age, it is fit and desirable that he should have his way smoothed by kind offices, and a competent su^tport, and not be dismissed to i)overty and neglect. Whitney v First Ecclesiastical Society, Brooklyn, 5 Conn. 405. Pastor Defined. A jiastor is one who has been installed according to the usage of some Christian denomination in charge of the specific church or body of churches. First Presbyterian Church of I'erry v Myers, 5 Okl. SOU. The term "pastor" is correlative to flock and is an expres- sive metaphor. The flock is composed of all whom it is the ministei's duty to instruct and reprove. And these are the inhabitants of the parish; they compose the flock, of which the minister is the pastor. Burr v First Tarisli in S;nid- wich, 9 Mass. Re. 270. Pastors' Opinions. The individual opinions of the ])astors placed in authority and chai'ge over the various churches of the deuominations respectively should be the pi-o])er subject of ecclesiastical control and discipline, to be treated of and regulated by the various authoi'it.-itive church bodies and jurisdictions to which each respectively belongs. l'"'irst Presbyterian Church of Perry v Myers, 5 Okl. .SO!'. Presbyterian Rule. The .selection of a pastor is primarily in the congregation, but must be approved by the presbytery and accepted by the minister selected; and its trustees are not vested with nuy jwwer ex officio to employ ministers or to contract as to salai'ies. This jiower ni.iy ho exenised by them onlj' when authorized l»y tliicct vole of the < ongrega- tion, composed of those who ;iic ;iiilliori/.ci| hy the l;i\vs of :!!m; Tin: (MNII. LAW AND 'I'lli: CIK'KCH llic cliin'ch l<> jKii I i(i[»;ilt^ in siicli iiicclings. But a Kta(«,'(l supply is not a pastor. His selection is made by the presby- tery. He niny be comniissioncd as a missionary by the mis- sion bojird, and his compciisalion fixed in wliole or iu part by the board. Stated supplies are under the charge and control of tlie presbytery in whose jurisdiction they work, and liave only such rights and prerogatives as niay be ex- pressly conferred on them by the I'resbytery. Myers v First I'resbyterian Church, 11 Okl. 544. Priest's Profession His Property. A man's profession is his property. The profession of a priest is his property, and a prohibition of the exercise of that profession by his bishop, without accusation or hearing, is contrary to the law of tlie land. The right of a priest to the revenues of his church derived from pew rents and voluntary offerings, though un- certain in amount, and there is no si)ecified salary, is a right of property which the law will recognize. O'Hara v Stack, 90 I»a. St. 477; see 98 Ta. 213, where this case is explained. Protestant. The term "Protestant ministers" means those who profess Trinitarian doctrines. Attorney-General v Drunimond, 3 Dr. & War. (Eng.) 1G2. Public Duty. In North Carolina it was held that ministers of the gospel residing in an incorporated town are not ex- empt from performing the duty of patrol, when required to do so by the proper authorities, according to the corporation ordinances. There was no statutory exemption from this service, and the objection that it was inconsistent with the minister's duties to his church was overruled, there being no evidence to show how the police service would interfere with his ministerial duties. Corporation of Elizabeth City V Kenedy, Bush (N. C. Law) 89. Regularity of Appointment. Two men were appointed as pastors of the same church by rival bodies, each claiming to be the regular Annual Conference of the Evangelical Associa- tion. The title to the office was held to depend on the ques- tion as to which of the two bodies claiming to be the Annual Conference was in fact the lawful and regular Annual Con- MINISTERS 397 fereiice, and the (lecision of this (luestioii was held to depend on the action taken by the (ieneral Conference. Sehweilier V Husser, 140 111. :;!)!). Relation to Church. A minister has no partic-nlar relation to his church (Congre;;ationalj but as a niend)er of it, and his right to administer the ordinances he claims from his ordination, which riglit may remain after his dismission from the church. Burr v First Parish in Saudwich, !) Mass. Ke. 270. Relation to Society. In the Methodist Ei)iscopal Church the relation between a minister appointed to a parrnular charge and the society to which he is appointed is noi tlial of master and servant. He was not hired by the local cor- poration, and having been appointed according to the rules of the general church, there was no contractual relation be- tween him and the local society. While the church couM not itself, through its own officers, exercise power over iis ministers, it was not without the means of relief from his ministrations when, for sufficient cause, they should become otherwise than religiously lit for or satisfactory to the con- gregation. Bristor v Burr. 120 X. Y. -127. Reinstatement, Not Proper Remedy. It is settled that mau- damus will not lie to icsjore a minister to his clerical rights and functions, where he has been wrongfully excluded there- from by the trustees and congregation of the church, if he has no temporal right in such office, and no fees or emolu- ments are thereto attached. Mandamus lies foi- tlu' enforce- ment of legal rights only, and not for those of a mere spir- itual or ecclesiastical nature. Man Deuio (N. Y.) 11(5, it was held that if a minister oAvned property worth more than f 1,500, an action would not lie by him against the assessors mak- ing an assessment to recover damages on the ground that they had refused to give him the benefit of the e.xemption. The minister having proi>erty exceeding the exemj)ted amount, the assessors had jurisdiction to make an assess- ment, and it would be presumed that they had made the «le- duction required by law. A person ordained as a Congregat ioiml ministri' in Cim- HID Till': CIX IL LAW AM> Till: (llli;*"!! iM'cliciil. (lisiiiiss(Ml ill ri'i^iiliir sliiiKlin;;; :iimI iiishillcd ()\<*r ;i low II ill lliis State, is within the statute of 1821, chap, 107, sec. (I, exempt iiig settled ministers from taxation, A person was settled as a Coiigre<5atioiial minister over a town with leave to dissolve his connection upon giving six months notice. Some of his parish formed themselves into a new nnincorjiorated society, and his church voted to unite them- selves with them. The new society gave him a call to settle with them, which he accei)ted. He then gave notice as above mentioned to the i)arisli, and after the six months expired he preached with the new society as their minister, but without any new ceremony of ordination or installation. Soon after he so began to preach the church was, by an ecclesiastical council, formed into two, without precedence to either, one of which was united with the new society and the other with the parish. It was held that such minister by virtue of the statute of 1811, chap. G, sec, 4, and statute 1821. chap. 107, sec, 6, was exenii)ted from taxati(m for the amount of property specified in this last statute. Gridley V, Clark, 2 Pick. (Mass,) 403, In Vail V Owen, 19 Barb. (N. Y. ) 22, it was held that the assessors have jurisdiction even if the minister's property is all exempt and that they are not liable in an action to re- cover back the tax paid by the minister, overruling Pros.ser V Secor, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 007. A minister in good standing but who by reason of old age and acc<)mi)anying infirmities, including growing impair- ment of vision which resulted in total blindness, had foi- fifteen years withdrawn t'roiii the active duties of his pro- fession but during all that jteriod had jierformed its func- tions occasionally as opportunity otlered. He was not en- gaged in any secular occupation. It was held that, being a minister and engaged in no other calling, he was en- titled to the exemption, notwithstanding he was disqual- ified for active duty by age and infirmity. People v Peter- son, 31 Hun (N. Y.) 421. The estate of an ordained minister of the gospel not. MIXISTKKS 401 settled over a cor])orate society is not exoiiijd from taxation. Kidder v French, Smith N. H. 15."). In Massachusetts an ordained minister not settled in any particuhir parish is not exempted from taxation under the act of ISll, dutp. (). Kugj»;les v Kindjall, 1- Mass. '.Vol. See also article on Taxation, subtitle Minister. Tenure. The settlement of a minister over a Congrega- tional church and society, witiiout any limitations as to its coutinuance or any express stipulations as to the mode of its dissolution, is a contract for lif(\ determinahle only in the uianner and for the causes established hy law . Sheldon V Cougregational I'arish, Easton, 24 Pick. iMass.j 281. A minister settled in a i)arish for an indelinite term does not hold his oflice at the will of the parish. Avery v Tyring- liam, 3 Mass. IGl. Where an ecclesiastical society voted to call the idaintilV, who was then a i)reacher of the gospel and a candidate for settlement, to settle with llicui in the anoiU of the gospel ministr3% and to ])ay the sum of sixty-live i)ouiids annually as a salar}', and the sum of three hundred poumls as a settle- ment, payable in Ihice annual installments, tin* plaiiitilf accepted the call, and agreed to settle with such soiicly on the terms proposed, and in February, 175(>, he was duly ordained and set apart to the work of the gospel minisiiy as pastor of sudi society and of the church therein ; it was held that the pastoral otlice, with which the i»lainlilV thus became vested, was an office not determinable al the will (»f eilliei- party but for the life of the incumbent. ^^'Ilinley v I'irst Ecclesiastical Society, Brooklyn, 5 Omn. I(ir>. In Arthur v Norfield Congregational (Muutli. 7:'. Conn. 71S, it was held that the original contract between the par- ties constilute(l a settlement for the tei-m of the minister's life, subject to the i)rovision lor terminating tin' itasloral relation on three m()nths notice, and also to any i-iglii w hit li the church might have of terminating it Un- cause, in con formity to the rules and usages of the Congregational de- nomination of Christians. A snb.se(|neiit arrangemenl by 1(12 Till-: ('I\II. I. AW AM) Tin: Cllllfril wliicli tlur jiiistor was eiiiploycMl for one year was <1('('iim'(| a iiiodification of the original settlement. Terminating Relation. Considering a clinrcli, gafliered in a r^'ligious society in the sense in which it is used, and in which alone it can be used, in lliis nlntion, it seeinH to fol- low eonclnsively tliat when a minister ceases to be the teacher of piety, reli^ioti, and morality in snch society he ceases to be the pastor of such c Imrch. Stebbins v Jennings, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 171. MISSIONS Mission defined, 403. Missionary defined, 403. Bequest, uncertain, 404. Legatee not capable of taking bequest, 404. Taxation of bequest, exemption, 404. Testator's intention, 405. Mission Defined. "The word 'mission' is well iiiulerstoo«l ill coinmou language. For more than forty years the ditt'er- eiit American churches have been engaged in establishing and maintaining missions in various parts of the heathen world. Hardly a religious denomination exists which is not employed in one or more of such benevolent enterprises. The purpose is to civilize, Christianize, and educate the natives of those countries where the missions are estab- lished. This is accomiilished by preaching, by oral instruc- tion, and by schools." ''The whole machinery of the work at a selected spot in a foreign laud is called a mission. It is, in fine, a Christian school." A legacy to a mission is sutticieiitly definite. Domestic and Foreign Missionary So- ciety's Appeal, :\0 \\i. St. 425. Missionary Defined. The word "missionary," whether as a nonn or adjective, I'lnbraces ii(»t only the conci'ption of a religious, charitalile, or educational work or worker, but also of such a work done through jdiilanthroidc motives, for the welfare of others too poor, too unappre< iative, or too inditferent to do it them.selves, and by persons sujiported or means furnished in jiart at least by some agency of which those for whom the work is done do not form a sustaining part. The derivation of the word implies a sending, and so it is that in both technital and common speech the idea of a sending forth, and sending forth to the service of others, the 403 101 Tin: ('IN iL LAW A.\i> Till: ('iiri{cn in;i ol" ;i work lor ollin-s, is iissocinlctl witli its tiiciinin^. Jiulkclcy V Woidiiii^lon lOcclcsijislical Society, 78 Conn. Bequest, Uncertain. A iMMpiest 'Mo IIm> piopjij^wlion of the gospel in forcij^n lands" was held void loi- uncertainty. Carpenter v Miller. :; W. \'a. 174. A bequest of a fund in be ajtidicd to foreiffii missions and to tlie poor saints, to be dis]»oscd of as the executor may think the proper objects according to the Scriptures, the greater part, however, to be ap])lied to missionary purposes, ^^ illi a further residuai-y ])rovision for home missions, was held too indetinite and therefore void. A be(piest for reli- gious charity must be to some definite purpose, and to some bodj^ or association or persons having a legal existence, and with capacity to take. Or it must be to some such body on which the Legislature shall, within a reasonable time, con- fer a capacity to take. The kind of foreign missionaries or home missions is not specified, and the poor saints are not defined. The provision in the will lacked defiuiteness of description, and was therefore held incapable of execution. Bridges v Pleasants, 4 Iredell's Kq. ( N. C. ) 2(). Legatee Not Capable of Taking Bequest. A bequest to the Diocesan Missionary Societies of Maryland and Virginia was held void as to Maryland for the reason that there was at the time no incorporated missionary society capable of taking the bequest, but it was held valid as to Virginia, there being in that State an incorporated missionary society. Brown v Thompkins, 49 Md. 423. Taxation of Bequest, Exemption. Certain ])roperty in Eng- land was conveyed to trustees in trust to apply the income for the jmrjjose of promoting and supporting missions to heathen nations, of maintaining and educating cliildren of ministers and of missionaries, maintaining and snpi)orting certain establishments for single persons and widows belong- ing to the Moravian brotherhood. It was held that the income so applied came within the exemption in favor of charitable purposes in the income tax act of 1842, sec. 61. MISSIONS 105 Income Tax Commissiouers v i'emsel, 01 L. J. Q. B. (N. S. i 205. Testator's Intention. A devise of a portion of the estate to "tlic missionary society of Foreign Missions" was held not void for uncertainty. Tliere was no such society, but the court held that it was competent to show by extrinsic evi- dence that another society answered to the description <»f the society named, and that the devise was intended for tlie benefit of the American Board of Commissioners for Forei'i:n Missions. Brewster v McCalTs Ex'rs., 15 Conn. 274. A bequest to tlie Foreign Missionary Society of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church was held to be intended for the Missionary Society of the Methodist Ei)iscoj)al Church, there being no society bearing the first name, and the latter having charge of the foreign missionary work of the church. Re Bryson's Estate, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 024. MORMONS Church, disincorporation, effect, 406. Creed, judicial notice, 400. Incorporation, 407. Independence, IMissouii; Church of Latter Day Saints, 409. Jehovah Presbytery of Zion; Preparation, Iowa, 411. Marriage, divorce, 411. Marriage, 412. Name and succession, 413. Church, Disincorporation, Effect. In U. S. v Church, S lUah ;'>10, it wiis s.iid that the ])ersonal iji-operty of the dis- iiicorpoi'ated Mormon Church wa.s devoted hy the donors to general church purposes, one of which was the propagation and encouragement of the practice of polygamy, others of which were legal, such as the relief of the poor and the bnilding and repair of houses of worship. When the church was disincor])orated its real estate was escheated to the United States, but no dispo.sition was made of its personal lu'operty, which was left without an owner; held that such property should be vested in a trustee to be used for church l)urposes which were legal, such as the relief of the poor and the building and rei)air of hou.ses of worship: Zane, C. J. dissenting on the ground that the church having ceased the encouragement of polygamy, the property should be vested in the first presidencj' of the church, w^ho were desigiuited l)v the church generally to hold ])roperty for the church, to be used for churcli purposes which they selected as the relief of the i)oor and the building and repair of houses of worship. Creed, Judicial Notice. Courts will take judicial notice of matters of history, of the contents of the Bible, of the fact that there are various religious sects, of the creed and gen- eral doctrine of each sect, and hence will take notice of the creed and general doctrine of the Mormon Church, and of 406 MUILMONS 407 the principle of telestial marriage i)eculiar to tlu' ^loniion sect. Hilton v Koylaiice, 25 Utah IL'I). Incorporation. The Church of J^atter Hay Saints was in- corporated in 1851, under an act of Assenibly of the provis- ional j^overnnient wliich they set ujt in Ttah nndcr the name of the State of Deseret. The jireliniinary act of Con- gress erecting the Terriloi-y of I'tah was jtassed in 1S5(), hut the territorial government was not organized until after tlie passage of the church charter. The territorial Legislat\iic adopted a resolution October 4, 1S51, confirming the clnircli charter. The charter was also reenacted by the territorial act passed in 1855, included in a revision of the statutes. In 18(12 Congress juissed an act pi'oliibiting polygamy in the tei'ritories and disapproving and annulling the heserel charter and also the confirmatory acts passed by tlie I'lali territorial legislattire. Additional [)roliibitory legislation concei-ning polygamy was enacted by Congress in 1SS2 and 1887. Proceedings were instituted on belialf of the Cnited States for the dissolution of the Mormon Church cy the act of Congress jtassed in 1SS7 tlie charter was dissolved, and the acts creating and confirming the corporation were repealed. It was hehl that Congress had power to rejK'al the Mormon Cliuich charter; tliat the corporation existed under a so- called ordinance of the State of Deseret. This oidimince had no validity excejtt in the voluntary acciniescence of the peojde of Utah then i-esiding lliei-e. Deseret. or Ctah. had ceased to belong to the Mexican governinenl by the treaty of Cuadalui)e Hidalgo, aiul in 1S.~)1 it belonged to the Inited States, and no government wiih(»ut authority from the United States, express (»r implied, had any legal right to exist there. The Assendily of Deseret had no power to luaUe any valid law. Congress had already ( lS."»Oi passed the law for organizing the Territoiy of liah into a goveruineut, and no other govenuueiil was lawful within the bounds of KKS Till; ("l\ IL LAW AM) Tin: (III K:iy Saints v United States, VHi U. S. I ; see also I !(► T. S. (iti."). Independence, Missouri; Church of Latter Day Saints. Tlie property iu (piestion was oiii^inallv acciniicd Itv an anient of this ehurch, for the imi-jtose of ei-ecting Ihi'icon a teniph-, designed to be the New .lerusalein of this religious order, from which the eyes and yearning desires of this people, through sixty years of exile and wandering, have never been turned nor diverted. To them it has been as the New .Ier»i- salem to the Israelite and as Mecca to the Moslem. V*>v sixty-two years it has been known to this sect, and the people of Western Missouri as tlie "Temple Lot" on which in the fullness of time, and the fnltillment of the prophecy, was to be erected a sjileiidid temple for the gathei-ing of tlie believers for religious worship and exaltation. Edward Partridge bought this land with funds contri- buted by the members of the church, and held the title in recognition of the trust. Its accpiisitiou by him was in fulfillment of the revealed will of God, as accepted by him, as a member of the ehurch, in the liook of Doctrine and Covenants. He was a bislutp of the Central (Miurch, then at Kirtland, Ohio. As such he lo«)ked after its tenipmalilies. The stress of this religious sect's environments rendered it expedient that they should .seek asylum in the then remote West, where, as thej^ suj)pose(l. unvexed by those who desjiitefully used them, they might tabei-nacle in peace. Bishop Tartridge received *o,0U0 raised by c(uiliibution, and went to Independence, Missouii, to acciuiic lands for the temi»le and a settlement of the people of his religion, and until his death iu 1841 he aneared that such transfer was without con- sideration, other than the jtromises ma by Thomjtson. The court decided that Thomjtson was trustee for the mem- bers of the society and held ;ill tlic pritprrly received by him as teacher, leader, and agent <»l ilic society, in trust f«»r the use and benetit of the mendnM-s of tlie society, and deci-eed the cancellation of conveyances by Tliomjtson as above men- tioned. Also that the estate should be closed. ;i receiver a])])ointed, and a disti-ibution made acconling to the rights and ('(piities of the niendiers of llie society. Scott v Tlioniji son. 21 la. f)!)!). Marriage, Divorce. I'nder a tenet ot the Mormon Cliui'h Ml' tin; (M\ii. i>.\\v am> tin: (•iiiikii :i iiinii :iii(l woiiiiiii nii^lil Ix' snilol so lli;il llicy uoiiM Im- liusband :iiiarties was exe- cuted in the manner prescribe.'ow and then, by thi« and that person, it was called "The Church of Christ," "Church of Latter Day Saints." The terms were employed interchaM<,^('ably. The temple built at Kirtland, Ohio, the central rendezvous between is.'.O and 1835, was inscribed on the portal with the words "Thr Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Tiiis was the public authoritative recognition of the name by whit li they chose to be known. If human testimony is to place any matter foi-evei- at rest, this church was one in doctrine, government, and pur- pose from 1830 to June 1844, when Joseph Smith, its founder, was killed. It had the same fedrral head, govern- ing bodies, and faith. During this jjeriod there was no schism, no sece.ssion, no parting of the ways in any niaiirr fundamental or affecting its oneness. The only authorized and recognized books of doctrine ami laws for the govern- ment of the church from 1S:50 to ISKi were the Bible, tin- Book of Mormon, and the Book of Docti-ine and Covenants. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which consisted prin cipally of claimed divine revelations to .Joseph Smiih, was the edition published at Kirllaml. Oliid. in \s:\~> and at Nauvoo in 1845. Jo.seph Smith was killed a I Cartilage, lllin<»is. in .lime. 1844. He was the ju-esident and the inspiring spiiit of the church. His violent death strmk with dismay the liearls of his followers, and oiit of the confusidii incident thereid w<'re born disorder, schism, and ambition [m leadershiji. iMsin tegration .set in, and the cliur
  • . Its first appearance as a dogma of the church was in the Utah church in 1852. This doctrine was based upon an alleged revelation to Josei»h Smith in IS-lo. No such revela- tion was ever made public during Smith's life. A considerable number of the officers and members of the church at Nauvoo did not ally themselves with any of the factions, and wherever they were they held on to the faith, refused to follow Brigham Young to Utah, and ever repudiated the doctrine of i)olygamy, whidi was the great rock of ott^^euse on which the church split after the death of Joseph Smith. In 1852 the scattered fragments of the MORMONS 11". cliurcli, the remii;ni(s of those wlio hehl lo llie I'urtiiiics (»!' the present Joseph Smitli, son of the so-called inaiiyr, jiath- ertMl toj^ether sutticiciitly I'oi- ;i iiiich'us of oi-jfjiiii/^itioii. They took the name of the '•K«'oi-w;iiii/.('Sm) in number. Concerning the claim that the complainant, the Keorgan- ized Chnrch of the Latter Day Saints, had a new Bihh-, tiie court said: "The basis for this is that .Joseph Smith, the founder of the chnrch, was, as early as l&iO, engaged in the translation of the Bible, which he is alleged to have com- pleted about 183o or 18;J4." The evidence shows that this manuscript was kept bj'^ his wife, and delivered to the pres- ent Joseph Smith, her son, and was published by a com- mittee of the church. It is not claimed by Joseph Smith that this translation is a substitute for the King James translation, nor has it been made to appear that it incul- cates any new religious tenet different from that of the ancient church. Reorganized Church of .lesjis Christ »)f Latter Day Saints v (Jhurch of Chiist, ;;7 (W. D. Mo. Cir. Ct.) MORTGAGE Condition broken, right to foreclose, 41G. Court order, 416. Leave of court, 416. Priority as between mortgage and mechanir's lien, 417. Validity; Ai-chbi.shoi) having no title to the land, 417. Vahdity, executing without authority, 417. Vahdity, extent of trustees' authority, 418 Vahdity, legitimate debt, 418. Validity, meeting of trustees; purchase money, 418. Validity, trustees afterward ousted from office, 418. Vahdity, trustees no power to mortgage property, 419. Condition Broken, Right to Foreclose. The society gave a inortf>age to the IJoard of Cliurch Erection Fund, Gen- eral As.senibly I'resbyterian Church, to secure a loan, containing a con.'. Y.) 5l*, it was held that a religious corporation might mortgage its property without au order of the court. Leave of Court. A religious society ]mrchasing real prop- erty may give a mortgage to secure the purchase ])rice with- 416 MORTaAGK 417 out leave of the court. South Baptist Society v Ckipp, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 35. Priority as Between Mortgage and Mechanic's Lien. A mechauic'.s lien on a church i)uihliii<^ was loreclo.sed, and the decree directed the sale of the building without the laud. This was held error. There was a jirior niortpi.ue on the land. It was held that the niortgaj-or had tiie lirst claim on the land, and a lien on the building, subject to a mechanic's claim; and that the mechanic's lien attached t<> the land subject to the mortgage lien. Separate apiiraisals of the land and building were directed, and the proceeds of the sale of the entire projK'rty were ordered divided between the mortgagee and the mechanic so far as needed to pay their respective claims, according to the ratable value of tlie two parts of the property. North ri-eshylei-iaii (1iui-(h, Chicago V Jevne, et al :V2 III. 214. Validity; Archbishop Having No Title to the Land. Testa- trix gave land to the clniich, and the Archldshop of Louis- iana assumed authority over the land, and directed the exe- cution of a mortgage thereon by a subordinate officer. The moi'tgage was held v<)i4 la. 31. Validity, Legitimate Debt. The society received a convey- ance of land on which it erected a house of worship. The deed contained a provision that the society should not alienate, dispose of, or otherwise incumber the property. The society gave a mortgage on the property to secure a legitimate debt. This mortgage was held valid. Magie v German Evangelical Dutch Church, l.j N. J. Eq. 77. Validity, Meeting of Trustees ; Purchase Money. A mortgage given by a New York religious corporation was executed by all of the trustees except one, who had resigneroperty was to be conveyed to the church, though unauthorized, was deemed to have been ratified by the congregation. But the contra:: the court refused to autliorize an aiiu'iKlment to a cliurrli charter which i)roi)ose(l to vest in tlic trustees the power to apjtoint an organist, subject to the aj>proval of the session, on the ground that, according to the rides of the I'resltyte- rian Church, questions rehiting to worship arc witlnu the exclusive jurisdiction of the session, and that this tiiiiciion couhl not projterly be vested in the trustees. NEW THOUGHT CHURCH Described, 424. Described. The i)lainliff was organized by the name of llie "New Thought Cluircli." It sought to enjoin the defend- ant from conducting services under the name of ''New Thought Church Services." It claimed to teach a form of religion based upon what is termed "New Thought," but it was conceded that it coubl not successfully claim a monoj)- oly of the words "New Thought" or of the word "Church." but it claimed the right to monopolize the combination of those words. "The plaintitf apparently has founded a new system of religion based on a new creed." It surely is not in a position to successfully claim a monopoly of teach- ing this form of religious faith by means of organizations known by the generic names of churches. The injunction was denied. New Thought Church v Chapin, 151) A. D. (N. Y.) 723. 424 NORWEGIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH Organization and form of government, 425. Independent society, division of property, 426. Property, division, elTect, 427. Trustees, controversy over election not a schism, 428. Organization and Form of Government. At a nieetiiij^ in January, 1851, composed of representatives of the Nor- wegian Evaiigvlical J^utlieraiis o\' Scuidicrii Wisconsin :in(l Northern Illinois held at Luther N'alley, in liock County, a constitution was adopted containing, among other things, the following jirovision : "TIio doclrinc of llic clinrch is tlic one revealed in the Uoly \\'or|>e;il, upon all matters of the church; to select a superinleiiast(>r, at the ret[nest of tilty-one members, called a meeting for the consideration of this question. That meet- ing adopted, by a large majority, articles of confession on the subject of electi()n. After May 17, 1.SS5, a portiim of the minority separated from the congregation and worshii)ed in halls and private houses under the ministrations i>\' \\\r pastor who had been discharged by vote of a large majority of the congregation. March :^, 188G, the i)ortion of the minority who had so withdrawn held a meeting and clecicd trustees, and directed the trustees .so elected to demand i he- books of the society. An action was commenced by the minority trustees against the majority trustees to have the minority trustees declared the rightful ti-ustees of the so- ciety, and for the possession of the church proj)erty. The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the minority trustees, but this was reversed on api)eal, and the majority held to be Ihe true church and entitled to the po.ssession and control of the property. Fadness v Braunborg, 7:3 Wis. l*r>7. Property, Division, Effect. For several years pri(»r to Feb- ruary, 188!), the title to the church in which the mend)ers of the association worshiped was vested in trustees named in the deeds, and their successoi's in of1ic«'. I<""or several years two factions had existed in this society, but had worshiped together until January 9, 1888. On that day both factions met together at the regular annual meeting of the associa- tion. At that time all the trustees and a lai-gc majority of the association belonged to the faction known as the Anti- Missourians, rejtresented by the defendants; lint Ihe ndn- ister and a minority of the association belonged to the inac- tion known as the Missourians, represented by the |>l;iintilis. At this meeting the Missourians withdrew and elected trustees in place of those claiming to have been deposed. For the next year both tactions held services at dilVerent times in the same chnn-h, each under its own pastor. February 7, 188!), a corporation was foimed, which was iL's Tin-: <'i\ I L LAW .\M> Tin: ciukcii lu'id lo iiirliKic l)()lli I'lK'l ions, :iimI the oM-ponit iuii thiMM-hy became vcslcd willi llic lillc lo tlir |tr<»i»»'iiy jtrcviously licld by Ihe s(K-i('(y. "^riic j(l;iiiilill', llic Missoiiri;ni i);irly, iillcr- ward organi/.ed aiiollier coi'iioration, bul litis was licdd not to affect the powers of the corporation loinicd in I'chiiiary, ISSO. TTolin V Holm, SI Wis. '^~^. Trustees, Controversy over Election not a Schism. J'roperty was acquired by the society uuder a general agreement that i( slioidd be lield and useany, and by direction of the court the jurj' asses.sed the damages at six cents. In a similar action brought by the trustees of the same society against another railroad com])any (First Baptist Church in Schenectady v The Utica & Schenectady Railroad Company, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 313), it was held that damages claimed by the society resulting from the dejtrecia- tion in the value of the church property in conse(pience of ringing bells, blowing off steam, etc., could not be recovered against the i-ailroad company, such damages being ten) remote. An individual nuMuber of the congregation cannot maintain an action for damages for disturbing divine wor ship. 429 OATH Defined, 430. Jew, \M. Defined. "An oath is well (Iclincd to he tlio solciiiii iiiv(»c:i- lion of the vengeance ol" the Deilv it the jtei-son sworn <1<) not rejjanl the iHMjnisitions ol' the oath." Ainohl v Aiiiohl, 13 vt. :'.(;;5. Jew. A .Few may take an oath on the Ohl Testament. Rex V Boswoi'th, 2 Str. (Eng. i 111;'; see article ^Vitness, snbtitle idolater. 430 OFFICERS Conunittee, tenure, 431. De I'acto, 431. Eligibility, when presumed, 431. Holding over, 432. Committee, Tenure. A conunittee to take action on a .spe- cific object was a])j)ointecl from among the vestrymen of the society. Afterward the members of the committee were ousted from office as vestrymen. It was lield that the right of these persons to act as a committee depended on their continuing in office as vestrymen, and when they ceased to be vestrymen their right to act as a committee was termi- nated. People ex rel the Kector v Bhukhurst, 00 Hun (N. Y.) (;:{. De Facto. I'ersons wlio had been chosen to various church offices by the members of the society in the usual way aiid in conformity with the statute, were deemed to be the oiily officers on whom valid jtrocess could be served in a ]»roceed- ing against tlie society. They were at least de facto officers. Berrian v Methodist Society, New York, 4 Abb. I'r. ( N. V. i 424. To make one a de facto officer he must be acting as ;in officer under color of liaving been rightfully elected or ;ip- pointed. A minority of a congregation, a.ssuming to li<»ld ;iii election, cannot give to trustees chosen by them e\cii tin' color of office, and such trustees are not de facto olliccrs. Trustees v Ilalvorson. iL* Minn. 50:5. Eligibility, When Presumed. If eligibility dciicnds on a person's qualitications as a voter, and his vote is received at a church election witliout challenge, he is presumel<*r, jiimI tlicrcfoi-c not ciilillcl to IIm' (.nice. Re Willi;niis, 57 Misc. (\. V. t .".L'T. Holding Over. The iomniittee elected by ilic (Imicli in ^[jircli, 1S;I(>, for one yciir was held to coiitimic in otlice after the exjtiratioii of the year and until another coniniittee was elected. Thei-e was a meetin*^ of the society in M:ii( h, 18'{2, but this was liehl ii-i-ej^nlar foi- lack of ]>roj)er notice, and the committee elected at that meetinj^ could not take the oflice. Congregational Society, Bethany v Sperry, 10 Conn. 200; see Trustees and Vestry. PARISH Business, how transacted, 433. Clerk, 433. Committee, contract, 434. Defined, 434. Dissolution, effect, 434. Division, effect, 434. Ecclesiastical council, 435. Massachusetts, 435. Massachusetts, history, 435. Meetinghouse, may bo leased, 436. Meetinghouse, title after division of town, 436. Members, habihty for debt, 436. Member, reimbursement for claim paid, 437. Memberslup, 437. Minister, 437. Muiister, how appointed, 438. Minister's title to property, 438. Minor, taxation, 438. Parishioner, 438. Parsonage, 439. PoU Parish, 439. Powers, 439. Protestant Episcopal Church, defined, 439. Roman Cathohc, 440. Taxation, 440. Business, How Transacted. Tt was tlie niicient custom of Massacluisc'tts where a town consisted of one i>arisli to transact their i)ai'ochial concerns at town meetings, makinj; no (liffei'ence in the foi-ms of their ])rocee(liii<>s, when actlMUj upon those subjects or ni)on matters of mere mnniciital or jjolitical concern. Austin v Thomas. 14 Mass. 338. Clerk. A |)arisli ch'i-k having; been disinissed frcmi his ollice by the rector, thouy;h irre<;nlarly, ami another ap- jjointed, the former entered tlie » hmc li before divine service had comnuMH-ed and took jxissession of ll.e cliM-k's .seat. It was held that the clini-cliwardens were jnstitied in riMiioviiig him from the clerk's desk, and also onl of tlie church, if they 433 i::i Tin; ri\ii. i.aw and Tin: ciii kcii li;iil I'ciisoiiiihic ;;rniiii«ls I'of hclicN in;:; lli;il Im' \v«»iii. Defined. In I'ennsylvania the term "|»arish" lias no esjx*- cial lej^al siiini Ileal ion ; it is usesen('e of a state church here, howevei-. the status of a i)arisli is rendered comi)aratively unim- portant ; if used in ecclesiastical divisions, it has just such impoT'tance and ])articular sijipiification as may be given it under ecclesiastical regulatious. The rules of a church or- ganization constitute the law for its government, and the civil court will, in general, recognize and enforce the.se as any other voluntary agreement between the parties. But what nmj' be the law of the church government is a matter of fact in courts of law, and must appear in the proof. Tuigg V Treaty, 104 Ta. 493. Dissolution, Effect. The omission of a parish for one year to elect i)arisli officers does not necessarily oj)erate as a dis- solution of the parish ; and if it did, the ])arish property would not, therefore, vest in the town, although the town held the i)roi)erty in its parochial capacity before the parish was separately organized. Tobey v Wareham Bank, 13 Met. (Mass.) 440. " Division, Effect. A debt incurred by a town comprising one jiarish lor building a meetinghouse was held to be due from the whole town after a part had been incorporated as a second j)arish, the meetinghouse being within the limits of the first parish. Eager v Marlborough, 10 Mass. 430. Where lauds, which had been originally granted to a town for the use of the ministry were sold by virtue of a resolve of the Legislature and the money put at interest by the 1>ARISH 435 town, the annual income to be applied to the use of the niin- isliv; and afterward, a number of the inhabitants being incorporated into a separate religions society, the residue became a distinct parish ; it was held that this residue, those forming a distinct i)arish, succeeded to all the jiarochial rights and duties of the town, and were entitled to recover of the town the money and interest arising from the salrs of such land. First Parish. Winthroj* v Town of ^^■illtl^•oll. 1 Me. 2()S. Ecclesiastical Council. As to the effect of the action oC :iii ecclesiastical conncil recommending the dissolution of tiic relations between the i)astor and Jiis ]>ai-ish, see Bedfortl case in the article on Congregational Church. Massachusetts. Originally, all our religions societies were corporate bodies. The town at first exer<'ised ]tar(»(lii,il powers, most of the ]>eople of this State being of one de- nomination. But as vai'ieties terT-itorial |)ai'islies. and each parish was a corjioration. In many cases towns ionsti- tuted parishes; that is, each town was a coi-poration. com- bining all tlie i»()wers and functions both of a parochial ami of a mnnicijial corporation, and imder one organization provided for the erection of meetinghouses, the support of ])ublic worshi]). and incidental expenses. Large towns were sometimes \..\\\ .wh 'I'lii; cm iicii oi'f^jiiii/nl ion ;iii;iiisli system wliidi ;i|)plied genci-illy llirou^flioii( lli<- Stnlc, did not apply to Boston, ''pivthjildy lu'cjinsc its nnniiicis in- creased so rajn easement in it, for siuh use is presumed to have been with the c(»nsent of the town in its ])arochial character, and an adver.se right or an ease- ment cannot glow out of a mere ])ermissive enjoyment. First Parish, Medio rd v Pratt, 4 Pick. ( Mass. i '222. Members, Liability for Debt. It is generally true that an. individual mend)er of an aggregate cor])oration is not liable for any debts or demands against it. The towns and par- PARISH 437 ishes in Massachusetts are an oxcejjtioii. For on sncli an execution the body or estate of any inli;ihitaiit may l)e taken to satisfy it. Chase v Merrimack Bank, 1!> IMck (Mass. i 5(i4. Member, Reimbursement for Claim Paid. Where a judgment is recovered against a member of the i»arish on a chiim against the parish, and the parishioner paid the judgment, he is entitled to recover the amount from the parish. Keitii V Congregational Tarisli, Easton, 21 IMck. (Mass. i 2()1. Membership. Under tlie Massachusetts statute any per- son wishing to become a member of the parish must express his desire in writing, and the parish, by a direct vote or by an act of an authorized agent, must accede to the a])plica- tion in order to constitute him a member. First Parish, Sudbury v Stearns, 21 Pick. (Mass.) I-IS. If a person separating from one religious society and joining another files with the clerk of the society left a cer- tificate of the fact under the liand of tlie clerk of the society which he elects to join, it is conclusive evidence of his hav- ing ceased to be a member of the former society. Gage v Currier, 4 Pick. (Mass.) ?,0J). Where a member of a religious society having, pursuant to the Massachusetts act of 1811, chap. 0, filed a certificate of his membership with the clerk of the town in which he lived, removed before the passing of the act of 1S2:{, chap. 106, to another town, it was held that he was not obliged to file a certificate under tlie last statute, with the clerk of the oldest religious society in such town in order to exemj>t him- self from taxation by that society; and it was further luld that a tax levied on his property by that society might be recovered back bj' an action of money had and received brought against the society. Sumner v First l*;irish. 1 >or- chester, (1820) 4 Pick. (Mass.) 3(11. Minister. Where in a new town a Congregational min- ister was settled as the minister of the town, and after his death another minister of the same denomination was settled, this latter was held to succee*! to ;ill tlu' rights of the former minister, and t(» he enlitlcd to possession of ihe IMS Tin: cniL LAW AXh Tin: (in i:<'ii ininislciial l.-iiids of tlic town; :i I lli()ii<^ii a itiajurity of llir lowii were IImmi of <)lli('r (Iciioiniiiat ions or* pci'siiasioiis. Jewt'tt V Jinri'onjflis, 15 Mass. H!l. Minister, How Appointed. In Maine it was licM that witli- (»ut tlic express coik iirrence or assent of llu* town or i>arisli in their eorporate capacity no one can become tlieir min- ister or be legally recognized as such. According to the ecclesiastical nsages ol" the count i-y, the church is generally jtermitted to nominate a minister, who may be a])prov74. Minister's Title to Property. When a minister of a town or parish is seized of any lands in right of the town or j)arish. which is the case of all parsonage lands, or lands granted for the use of the ministry or of the minister for the time being, the minister for this purpose is a sole corporation, and holds the same to himself and his successors. And in case of a vacancy in the oflBce the town or parish is entitled to the custody of the same, and for that ])urpose may enter and take the profits till there be a successor. Every town is considered to be a parish until a separate parish be formed within it; and then the inhabitants and territory not included in the separate parish, form the first parish; and the minister of such first parish by law holds, to him and his successors, all the estates and rights which he held as minister of the town before the separation. Brunswick v Dunning, 7 Mass. 445. Minor, Taxation. Personal property belonging to a miinu- nuist be taxed in the parish in which the guardian resides, although the minor may reside in another parish and at- tends jijiblic worship there. Baldwin v First Parish in Fitchburg, S Pick. (Mass.) 494. Parishioner. The word "parishioner" included not only inhabitants of the parish but persons who are occupiers of lands liable for parish rents and duties. Attorney General V Parker, :] Attk. (Eng. ) 57(). PARISH 4;jl» Parsonage. The fee of lands in a town reserved for parson- age or ministerial lands, vests in the minister of the town when one is settled, and the tennre cannot be changed by a vote of the town, even though the minister assent thereto. And wliatever rights the town may acijuire in relation to the use or enjoyment of the protits must be under him and in subordination to his legal title. Inhabitants of Bucks- port V Spofford. 12 Me. 487. Where property was conveyed to a town for parsonage purposes the ministers of the town were entitled to the use of the pro])erty and became seized successively, in i-ight of their parish. A conveyance by the i)arish to a minister in fee, for a valuable consideration, was held void for the rea- son that the property was conveyed to the i)arish in trust. The parish (in this instance the town) had not the fee of the land, and therefore could not convey it. Austin v Thomas, 14 Mass. :«S. Poll Parish. Poll parishes are voluntary, and when unre- strained by their articles of association, or h\ their act of incor})oration, if incorporated, are, of course, fully at liberty to prescribe terms of membership from time to time, which terms will be of binding authority on all connected with the l)arish, and they may make by-laws declaring what shall constitute membershij), and what shall operate to cause a forfeiture of membershij). and such by-laws may as well apply to ])resent as to future members. Taylor v Edson, 4 Cush. ( Mass. ) 522. Powers. A parish has no authority to grant moneys except for setlling ministci-s and building houses of ](iil)lic worship, and for ])urposes necessarily connecte51. Taxation. Parish taxes can be assessed only on the polls and property of niend)ers of the j)arish. A tax levied on unimproved i)roperty owned by a nonresident was, there- fore, held to be invalid. Dall v Kimball, 6 Me. 171. The erection of a second j)arish in a town does not pre- vent the town authorities from assessing parish taxes. Ashby V Wellington, S Tick. (Mass.) 524. Persons assessed for the sui)port of public worship in a parish, who have a right to have their moneys i)aid over to a minister other than the parish minister, must notify the parish of their desire to have their moneys so i)aid over, and the minister must denuind the moneys within a reasonable time after the assessment is made ; and a year from making such assessment is a reasonable time, but in particular cases the time may be extended. A person leaving the society in which the itarish worship, and honestly and in good faith joining one of another reli- gious denomination, is entitled to have his money paid over to the teacher on Avhose instruction he attends, although he may have no conscientious scruples on the subject. Montague v Inhabitants First Parish in l)edham. 1 Mass. 200. Where the assessors of a religious society assess a tax on a person who is not a member they are liable to an action of trespass; for they do not come within the provision in St. 1823, chap. 138, s. 5, that in certain cases they shall be responsible only for their own integrity and fidelity. Gage v Currier, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 31)1). PARSONAGE Massachusetts rule, 441. Ministers' occupancy, 441. Town land, 442. Trust for, when invalid, 443. Use, 443. Massachusetts Rule. In Massachusetts a iiiiiiister holds j)ai"soiia<;e lands in lee simple in the rigiit of the i)arish nv church, and, therefore, on his resignation, dcinivation. or death, the fee is in abeyance until there be a successor. Dur- ing a vacancy the parisli or cliurch have the custody, and are entitled to the profits of the parsonage. It llie minister alien with tlie assent of his ]»arisli, or of the vestry of tlie church, the alienation will bind the successor; if withoni such assent, it will be valid no longer than he continues minister. An alienation of tlie jiarsonage by the town, dis- trict, ijrecinct, or vestry is void; for if there be a minister, the fee is in him ; or if there be a vacancy, the fee is in abcy a nee. Weston v Hunt, 2 ^fass. 500. Ministers' Occupancy. The society employed a jtastor tor a cash salary, and also the use of the parsonage. He took pos- session of tlie ])ars()nage in 1S70, and occupied it until his death. In 1877 the society was divided, and two new so- cieties were organized, one kiu)wn as the East Norway Lake and the othci- as the West Norway Lake Norwegian Evangel- ical Lutheran Society, and the old society was practically abandoned except for closing u]; its alVairs und disposing of its pro]) Trii-: ciinicii lord :iiiy tlic lo<"il society is not ;i sei-v:inl of llie trustees nor of the society in the seiis(! that he conhl he ti-e;ite(l Jis ;i t resjcissei- on his refnsjil to hMve it. 'i'lie pliiintitf, a nienihei- of the Xewai-k ('onference, had Iteen appointed ]»i-eachei' at S|»rin;i X'alley. and while ofhciat- inj;' in that cajtacity o<-cnpied the i»arsona;:;e provichMl l)y the local society. In -Tanuaiy. iSSti, he was sns]»ended from all ministeiial and chni'ch |>i-iviloj;es. The trustees of the h»cal society ejected the pastoi- from the parsonajie. In an action hy the pastor aj'ainst the trustees, allepnj^ an assault and forcible exclusion of himself from the house and the conversion of his jjoods, it was held that the min- ister was in lawful possession of the parsonage, and the use of force by the trustees to expel him from the house was without justification. Bristor v Burr, 120 N. Y. 427. Town Land. The proprietors of a new township appro- priated a lot of land for a parsonage, at the same time vot- ing that they would endeavor that a Congregational min- ister should be settled in the town. Afterward a Congrega- tional society was incorporated in the town as a poll parish. It was held that the said society was not entitled to the use of such parsonage, but that the same remained to the first parish, whether of the Congregational order or not. First Parish, Shapleigh v Oilman, 1:1 Mass. 100. A town, owning land in fee, and managing its parochial affairs as a municipal corporation, voted in 1712 to fence in three and a half acres for the use of the ministry. The next year they voted to take uj) and fence \u four acres in lieu of the three and a half acres. From that time they exchanged, sold, leased, or managed themselves the lands which they called ministerial, just as they pleased, until 1741, when they voted that certain lands, including the parcel of four acres, should belong to the first ])arish. In 1777 the tirst parish conveyed this parcel to an individual. It was held FAR NONAGE \\:\ that this parcel was not technically parsonage laiid. it not being plainly shown to be the intent of the town that it should go to the ministers of the ])arish in succession, and so the conveyance made by the parish was valid. Kmerson V Wiley, 10 Tick. (Mass.) 317. Trust for, When Invalid. In Carskadon v Torreyson. IT W. ^'a. 4o, it was held that a conveyanie of i)roper1y lo trustees, intended for a parsonage, for the use of the min- isters of the ^Methodist Episcopal Church in the Sonili Branch Circuit, >\'cst Virginia, was void for parsonage jnir- poses, unless for the benefit of a particular local congrega- tion. In this instance the circuit was composetts rule, 457. New building, 458. New pew, 459. Parish property, 460. Perpetual lease, 460. Pewholders' corporate rights, 460. Possession, mandamus, 460. Prescription, 460. Presimiption, 461. Real estate, 461. Rent, character of debt, 462. Rent, when preferred debt, 462. Repairs, 462. Roman Cathohc, 463. Sale of property, 464. Sale, 464. Taxation, 464. Termination of right, 465. Title, 465. Title, transferrable, 466. Trespass, 466. Historical Note. Tews constitute a subject of peculiar owiK'iship. They are tletined to be inclosed seats in 446 PEWS 447 churches, and it is said that, according to modern use and idea, they were not known until long after the Reformation, and that inclosed pews were not in general use before the middle of the seventeenUi century, being for a long time confined to the family of the patron. In lOngland the right of pro])erty in a jiew is a mere easement or incorporeal right, an!>:{. Assessment for Expenses. A pewholdiM- who bought a pew at i)ublic auction fi-ee of rent was held not ii.d)le afterward on an assessment for current exi>enses. Trustees 1st Presby, Cong. Hebron v Qnakeidtnsh, 10 .lohns (N. Y. ) 217. Changing, Injunction Refused. In Solomon v Congregation B'Nai .Jeshnrun, 4!) Uow. Pr. (N. Y.) 2(;;{, the court refused an injunction to restrain the church authorities from mak- ing alterations and repairs in the church edifice which would have the elfect of changing the pews and the seating arrange- ments of the society. Church Used for General Purposes. In Jackson v Kounse- ville, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 127, the court said it had beews in tiic «iiur«h among the parishioners, and may rcnioNc persons intinding on seats already appropriated. The trustees of a Free Church hnve the right to conli-ol the places where persons should sit. in liie absence of any proof that by usage or otheiwise rigiits were accpiired to 44.S Tin: ("l\IL l>A\V AM) '11 1 1: rin KCH special scats, and thai a iicrson ii|i(iii I'diisin^ to ~)l. In I'>ii}i;land pews are al(o<^elhei- a iiialter ot ecclesiastieal ref^ulation. It is the duty of the di n i( 1 1 wardens to distrib- ute them in the most convenient way so as to give to eacli jtaiishioner a seat. In this country we have no parish chnrches. With us they are corporations aggregate, made so by law. The lenipoi'al concerns are managed by trustees, who have power to dispose of the pews by sale and by letting them out to hire, fixing the amount of rent so as to produce a reventu'. The [)nrchase of a ]>ew gives a more permanent right than a mere hiring. A purchaser, as well as a hirer, pays a rent or assessment for the support of the establish- ment, but still the purchaser has a property which is trans- missible. The purchaser of the pew has no right or inter- est in the soil. His possession is not a possession of real estate. The trustees may at any time ])ull down or remove the building. In case of a sale and the erection of a new building the right of a pewholder in the old building is transferred to the new building. Matter of Brick Presby- terian (Minrch, :> Edw. Ch. (X. Y.) 155. Disturbing Possession. The owner of a pew in a church has an exclusive right to its })ossession and enjoyment for the purposes of public worship, and may maintain an action for disturbing his possession, even against the society or l»erson in whom the title to the land and building is vested. O'liear v De Goesbriand, 33 Vt. 593. The pewholders, in the ordinary cases of meetinghouses or churches built by incorporations under the statute, have only a right of occupancy in their seats, subject to supe- rior rights of the society owning the pew. Trespass is the proper remedy for a disturbance of the pew-owner's right. A pew cannot be sold on an assessment unless the shares are defined, are regularly assessed, and proceedings are in con- formity with the constitution and by-laws of the society. Terrin v Granger, 33 Vt. 101. PEWS 449 A persou liad ji prescriptive ri^hl to a seat in a clnu-cli. and being disturbed, niiglit sue in a spiritual court to have his possession quieted. Jacob v Dallow, '2 Salk. (Eng. ) 551. Easement. A i)ewholder's right of occujjancj^ is subject to the riglit of the meetinghouse proprietors to sell the church edifice and rebuild elsewliere. First Presbyterian Society of Antrim v Bass, C8 N. H. 33:{. Where the i)ews in a church have been purdiased and a title given to the purchaser he has but a cpialilied interest. His right is subject to that of the trustees or owners of the church, who have the right to take down, rebuild, or remove the church for the ])urj>ose of more convenient worship, with- out making any comj)ensatioii to the pewholders for the temporary interru])tion. Van Houten v First RefornuMl Dutch Ch. 17 N. J. Eq. 130. See also Van Horn v Talina.ue, 8 N. J. Eq. 108. A pewholder has an easement in and not a title to the freehold. He has a proj>erty in his pew and a right to its exclusive i^ossession. A pewholder has certain privileges by reason of his ownership, such as i>assing through the aisles, being addressed from the i)ulj)it, etc. He may own a j)ew and yet not be a member of the parish corporation. First Baptist Society, Leeds v Grant, 50 Me. 245. A house of worshi}) having been built on land owned by the society, it was held that the corjxuatioii and not the members of it became the owner of the ])ropei'ty, and that jx'wholders belonging to another denomination could not exercise any authority in the managenuMit and conti-ol of the property. A pewhohler's right is only an easenuMit. First Baptist Society of Leeds v (Jrant, 5!) Me. 245. The grant of a j»ew in ]»er|»etuity ew is entitled to com- pensation; but if the house is taken down as a matter of necessity, and because it has become ruinous and wholly unfit for the ])urposes for which it was erected, the owners of the house are not liable to make any compensation to tlie separate pewholders, but nmy take the avails of the mate- rials of which the house is built for the purpose of erecting another house in its j)lace. The owner of a pew in a meetinghouse may sustain an action of trespass on the case against one wlio nnlawfnlly disturbs him in the po.ssession of his pew. But he holds his pew subject to the right of the owners of the house to take down and rebuild the house, in case of necessity. without making him compensation. Kellogg v Dickinson, 18 Vt. 26G. Pew-owners have merely a ([ualified and usnfrnclnary right in their pews, subject to the right of the society to reuKxlel them and to alter the internal strnctnre ot the bnihling, or enlai'ge or remove it, or sell tiie editice antl re- build elsewhere. Colby v Northlield and Tilton Congrega- tional Society, (J.'J N. H. «.*}. A j)ew ac(piired from a town while it was acting paro- chially became the jnoperty of the pewhohler. Such i>rop erty, however, is not absolute, but (pudilied, and is subject to 451' Tin: r|\|L LAW AM) 'I'lli: (III IMIi i\ ri,ulil of liic palish lo jmiII down IIk* clnircli ami Itiiiid :iii- otiicr. \iy (he jk t of IcSlT tlu! pr<)|)ii('t()rH of tlu; incctiiij;- boiise were given jK)wer to tiik(' (lowii any i)ew when (leeiiieairin{j; or rebuilding the house. Daniel v AVood, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 102. In JOngland, where by si)ecial acts a local society was incorporated and the pewholders were declared to possess a fee siini)le lille in the pews, it Avas held that the i)roj)rietor of a pew di Me. 400 fol- lowing First Baptist Society in Leeds v Grant, 50 Me. 245, it was held that pewholders have only an easement, and that the title to the church property is in the proprietors. Pews in the society's church were held not subject to con- vcA'ance in fee by the society, and pewholders have only the right of occupancy. Montgomery v Johnson, How. Pr. (N. Y.) 232. The meetinghouse was erected by the town in ITIH. In 1839 the town permitted the Congregational society to malce alterations in the building so as to make an upper and lower floor, and in considerati<>n of this action by the churcli it was to have exclusive possession of and the right to control the up])er room as an audience room to be used for the pui'- pose of public worshi|». IVws having been const im led and sold, it was held that the owner of a pew licld it subject to the right of the society to make alterations and repairs on tendering compensation. .lones v Towne, 5S N. II. 4(12. English Custom. In l^ngland befoi-e llie Keformation the body arish church hut not to a pew. By later custom churchwardens had su])<'rvision and control of the (piestions relating to the assi<;nnient of pews, being presumed to act under the direction of the ordinary. \a\- ingston v Trinity Church, Trenton, 45 X. J. L. li.'JO. Execution, Sale. Pews which had not been sold by the cor- poration were sold on an execution issued on a judgment against the corporation for the amount due on certain bonds. By an amendment of the charter of the church, passed in 1842, it was declared that the purchasers of pews in fee simple should hold them forever free from any liability for debts, and that they should never be suscei)tible of any species of mortgage, and that the sale of such pews need not be recorded. The j)ews Avere, therefore, a distinct property, and when owned by an individual, not liable to be seized for his debts. They are quite distinct from the church and the ground on which it stands. City Bank. New Orleans v Mclntyre. 8 Rob. Re. (La.) 407. Forfeiture. A parish on October 1, 1828, sold the pews in their meetinghouse on the following conditions: ''The sum bid for choice, and one third of the appraised value shall be paid in cash, one third part in one year, and the residue in two years, with interest. The first payment to be forfeited if the other j)ayments are not made agreeably to the above conditions." The defendant purchased a pew, made the first payment, entered into possession, and continued in pos- session until October, 1831, but made no further payments. It was held that under the contract the defendant acquired no title to the ])ew but only a right to acquire a title upon a compliance with the terms of sale; that he had only a license to occupy, or a tenancy for a year, or a tenancy at will. First Parish, Quincy v Spear, 15 Pick. (^[ass. t 144. A pew-owner's right may be forfeited foi- nonpayment of PEWS 455 assessments. Abeniethy v Society of the Church of the ruritaiis, :5 Daly (X. Y. ) 1. The society owned its meetinghouse in fee simple, and was composed exclusively of successive ]»ewholdei's. A by-law contained a provision that a grantee should forfeit the jx'W to the society if he should leave the meetinghouse witho\it lirst ottering it to them f(U' a <-ertain price. A pcwlioldci- who ceased to worship in this clinrch and connected himself with another i-eligions society neglected to oll'er his p«>w lo the treasurer but rented i1 to another perscni. It w:is held that title to the ]>ew luul bi'conie forfeite«l lo Ihe society. The condition in the by-law regarding a forfeiture was not repugnant to the grant ot the pew and was valid. Franch V Old South Society, Boston, 106 Mass. 479. See also Crocker v Old South Society, lOt; :Mass. 480. Incorporeal Hereditament. A church ])ew is not assets in the hands of the administrator. A pew is an iucori>oreal hereditament. It is not mere i)ersoual property, but real property; although perhaps not real estate. The remedy of creditors is by bill against the heir, McNabb v Pond, 4 Brad. (N. Y. ) 7. Indemnity for Loss. Uide.ss a meetinghouse at the time it is torn dowm by a vote of the proprietors is not only untit for j)ublic worshi]) but so old and ruinous as to render its entire demolition necessary, a jtewholder is entitled to indemnity for the destruction of his pew. Gorton v Hadsell, 9 Cush. (Mass. I 50S. The parish has the right to make repairs to a cliui-(li building, or take it down ami build another, and iu doing this nuiy destroy a pew; but the jtewholder is enlilled to indemnity for the injury or loss. (Jay v l>aUer, 17 Mass. I.'..">. A meetinghouse was built n|)on land w itii the ]»eTiiiissi(Hi of the owner, who subseiiuently conveyed the laml to trust«'es in trust, to be occujiied for a meetinghouse connnon. or green, and for the continuation of a meetinghouse ther«'on, and wheti it ceased to be occui>ied for lh:il purpose to revert to the grantor. It was held that the failure to keep the ir.t; T\i\: cini i. law and 'nii; ciirijcii IwMlso ill siM'li rcp:iii' lii:il il could he occiijiiiMl i'or- [tiihlic worship wonM nol of ilscll" Icriniiiitc tlic ri^^lil (»!" ;i pcw- lioldor to his pew iioi' h'iivc him wiliioiit rij^ht lo iii;iiiit;iin an action for injury doiio ilieivlo hy a sti-anger, hut wouhl only make his right thereto less valuable, and therefore lessen the amount whicli he couhl recover. A 7)ewliol(l<'r cannot maintain trespass for the mere breaking and entry of the meetinghouse in which his pew is situated, but he may for the destruction of his pew, and tliis although he sue for the entrj^ with it, for the destruction of the pew is the gist of the action. A pewholder's right is only a right to occupy his pew dur- ing public worship and when the meetinghouse is in such condition that it cannot be, and is not occupied for public worship, he can recover only nominal damages for injury to his pew. Howe v Stevens, 4.7 Yt. 2()2. In Cooper v Presby. Ch. of Sandy Hill, 32 Barb. (N. Y. i 222, it was held that the trustees had a right to cliauge the structure or make such alteration as thej- thought best ; that a pew-owner had no absolute title to the pew, nor to the material of which it was constructed, nor to the soil under it; also that if a j^ew was altered or destroyed as a mere matter of convenience or expediency, the pew-owner's only remedy was by an action for indemnity or compensation. A parish may take down a meetinghouse, either as a matter of necessity or of expediency; in the former case they are not and in the latter, they are, bound to indemnify the pewholder for the loss of his pew. Howard v First Parish, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 138. The pewholder has an exclusive right to occupy his pew, and to maintain trespass, or a writ of entry, against any- one who disturbs him in his seat. But he does not own the soil over which his pew is built, nor the space above it, for there may be other pews in a gallery above him whose owners have an equal right with himself. The parish may take down the building and rebuild on the same spot, or may alter the form and shape of the building for the purpose PEWS l.")! of making ii more <-()iiveiiient. 11' this is done in j^ood laith, and the ])(i\v is destroyed, the j)aiish iiiusl jn-ovide an indem- nity for the pewholder on jnst and ecpiitable princiides. (iay V Baker, 17 Mass. 4:J5. Locking Pew. J.and was conveyed to the trustees for the use of the church and society for a place of i)id)lic religions worship for such church and society, and for no other use, intent, or ])urpose whatsoever. In the deed of i)e\vs the pro- visions of the y other pews. Jackson V Kounseville, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 127. Loose Bench. The general right of a i)ewholder does not apply in case of a loose bench which the church authorities permit to be placed in the church and used there by the owner, and he cannot maintain trespass against the trus- tees for its removal. Niebuhr v riersdorff, 24 Wis. ;51(). Louisiana Rule. A pew in a church being attached to the realty is of the character of a usufruct, ami must be classed as an incorporeal immovable. Succession of (Jand)le, 2."> l^a. Ann. 0. Mandamus. A mandamus against the trustees of a society is not the proper remedy by a pew-owner to recover ])os- session of it. ('ommonwealth, v Ilosseter, 2 Bin. ( Ta. ) :5»;(). Massachusetts Rule. Under the Massachusetts parish sys teni a j>art of the cluirch edifice was g(Miei-ally apjuoprialed to the erection <»r ]»('ws, which were usually sdhl and the ])roceeds a])i»lied lo the cost of erection, or to ihe selllemcnl and support of the minister, or other parish pnrposes. The right to a pew, except in Boston, was j-egardcd Ini many purposes as real estate, in. which the pr(>pi-i('l(»r had a free hold, for the invasion of which a writ of entry, trespass, and ir.S Till': CINIL LAW A.\l> 'I'lli; <||l kcii oilier IcjiJil i-ciii('«li('s ;nl;i|)tcil to \ iii«li("il(' lijilits l<» rcjil estate, wore evci- loniid in (•t Boston as real estate, and in Boston as personal estate, yet it is property of a i)e( iiliar nature, derivative and dependent. It is an exclusive right to occupy a particular portion of a house of public worship, under certain restric- tions. The owner of a pew is not a tenant in common of the estate on which the house stands; the legal estate is in the corporation, if the religious society be one, or in the trustees, if the property be vested in them to the use of the congrega- tion forming a religious society for public worshij>." At- torney (leneral v Proprietors of Meetinghouse in Federal St., Boston, ;•> Gray (Mass.) 1. New Building. An action was brought by a pew-owner for trespass for tearing down a pew. The church authorities justified on the ground that the edifice was in a ruinous con- dition and that the new building was necessary. The court held that this did uot necessarily appear from the facts and that there was no ijennaneut decay or unfitness shown. The plaintiff recovered judgment. Gorton v Hadsell, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 508. The grant of a pew in perpetuity does not give an absolute right as the grant of land in fee. The pew-owner takes only a usufructuary right. If the building be destroyed by cas- ualty, the pew-owner's right is gone. If the church has to be rebuilt on the same, or a different location, the pew-owner has no claim. Kincaid's Ai)peal, (>0 Pa. St. 420. It was held that the society might abandon its place of worshij) and erect a new building without subjecting it to any liability as against pewholders in the original edifice. Matter of Saugerties Reformed Dutch Ch., 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 239. AVhen a church edifice is destroyed by fire or ai«y casualty, PEWS 45!) or becomes unfitted for use liom age, or is deiiiolislied from necessity, the strictly legal rights of the pewiioider are gone, but in a new edifice built to replace the former he has an equitable claim to be reinstated in a position corresponding to his former one, upon bearing his fair proportion of the expense; and if his rigiits in that resjiect are disregardeil, he is entitled to compensation. It is tlie duty of the trustees to tender to the pewholder a pew in the new edifice corre- sponding in location to that which he owned in the former building, upon the payment of such a sum, as in ecpiity, he ought to i)ay if the cost of the new structure exceeds the proceeds of tlie sale of the old i>roperty together with the sums in the treasury of the society ; and ii they failed to allot him such a pew, he should be indemnified in damages for his loss. Mayer v Temjde Keth El, 52 St. Ee. (N. Y. ) (;:{S. A deed of a pew in a synagogue provided that if a new synagogue should be erected the owner of the pew should be entitled to a pew of the same nund)er in tlie new building. A new synagogue was erected, and the trustees allotted to the pew-owner a pew in the same relative location, but not of the same nnniber, which was in a different ]»art of the room. It was held that the i)ewholder was entitled to a pew of the same number as the old one without regard to its location. Samuels v Cong. Col. Israel Anslii roland. .■")*_' App. Div. (N. Y.) 287. If a parish abandon its meetinghouse as a jdace of public worshij), althongli it continne to be fit for thai ])urpose. and erect a new one on a dillerent site, it does not tiiereby snh- ject itself to any liability to tlie i)roprietor of a jtew in the old meetinghouse, it not ajtpearing that the ]>aris]i acted wantonly or with any intention to injure iiini. l"\isselt v First Parish, Boylston, 1!) I'ick. (Mass.) ;5(;!. New Pew. "Thongli seats be jjulled down in a chnrch, yet a i)rescrij)ti()n to have a seat remains to evei-v one, so tiiat if seats be bnilt n]> by the oiHinaiy where anothci' had an ancient one, oi- bnilt on part of it, it is legal. The defendant had as mncli .seat as she had bi'fore, Init not in I lie same [{■A) Tin: ai-i!shi()ner ap])eai-e(l to tlie decree and prayed a faculty niiglit not be j^ranted without a proviso that a i>ew, claimed to be held by him by prescription, should not be removed or altered. The prescription was denied. It was held that a prima facie title b}' prescription was estab- lished, and that the facultj' should be issued with the pro- viso. Evidence of rejjair of a pew claimed by prescrip- tion is not absolutely necessary, as no rei)aii' may have been made within the period of any one living. Kna])}) v Par- ishioners of St. Mary Willesden, 2 Robertson Ecc. Re. (Eug. ) 305, ;u;i). Presumption. l'ninlcrrni»(ed posses.sjon of a pew in tlu' chancel of a church foi- thirty' years is presumptive evidence of a prescriptive right to the pew in an action against a wrongdoer; and that presumption may be rebutted by })roof that the i)ew had no existence thirty years ago. Griffith v Matthews, 5 Durnf, & East. (Eng.) '2iH\. Real Estate. A pew in a church is real estate and title to it can be transfei-red only by a writing signed by the ])r()per parties. First Ba])t. Clnirch, Ithacu v Pigelow, 10 A\'eiid. (X. Y.) 28. In l)e\itsch v Stone, 11 Ohio Dec. 4:](!, a i)ew was held 1o be real estate, and not subject to attachment on ]»rocess issued by a justice of the i)eace; and the pew having been sold by the original owner after the attachment was issued, it was held the title i)ass('d to the ]»ni( Iimsci- notwitlistanding the attachment. The conrt s;iid llinl ilic pew w;is rciil estate, and its character cdiild not be clKiiigcd by agi'eement be- tween the society and tlie (»\\ nci-. In ibis case the convey- ance from the society to the (»wner dt'clnicd liiai ihe pew should be deemed a chattel as to the i)urchaser, lint real estate as to the society. Such an agreement could not chiingi; the essential character of the j»ew. A pew is real estate, and under the testator's will j»asses by a devise of his real property' to his widow witli i-emainder over. A person deriving title to the pew I'lom one who i(i2 Tin; ("i\i L I, AW AM» Tin; tin kcii I'cccivcd il ill iciiuiiiHlcr \\;is licid ciilitltMi lo llie piopfTl y. Bales V Sicincll, 10 Mass. :','2:\. Rent, Character of Debt. A pew in a ose of sale, lint the jx'w only is cliai-^ealde with 1h. Repairs. The right of a pewholder was s\ibject to such repairs and alterations of the church edifice as the church authorities might direct, and their action cannot be re- strained by injunction. Solomon v Congregation B'nai Jeshurun, 4J> How. Pr. (X. Y.) 263. The right of a iiewholder to a pew in a meetinghouse owned by a religious society is subordinate to the right of the society to repair or remodel the house. A religious society may alter, remove, or destroy a j^ew in its meetinghouse upon j)aying or tendering lo the owner f\dl comjiensation when it becomes necessary for the purpose of making needed alterations or repairs in their church edifice. A per.son wrongfully occuining a i)ew may be removed from it by a police officer, or by the owner of the pew, or anyone acting at his request. Jones v Towne, 58 N. H. 462. Where, uiuler the New Hampshire statute the ]>ew-owners, with the consent of the religious societv, made alterations PEWS 4G3 in the interior of the chinch, rcainmjiin},^ ;iim1 cli;niging the location of the pews, a subsequent assignment of pews to former occupants bj- a committee of j)ew-<)\viiers was sus- tained. Colby V Northliehl and Tilton Coii^ncgatioiial So- ciety, 63 N. H. 03. It seems that the Massachusetts act of 1817, c. 18!), l-elat- ing to the ai)pi'aisement of pews when about to be destroyed for the purpose of repairing and improving the meeting- house, aj)plies to a territorial jKirish, and in an action l»y a pewholder for destroying his junv it was competent to give in evidence the appraisement in connection with the testi- mony of the ai)i)raisers, in justification of tiic parish, and to show the value of tlie pew. Kimball v Second Congre- gational Parish, Kowley, 24 JMck. (Mass.) 347. Roman Catholic. In Aylward v O'Brien, KIO Mass. 118. it was held that title to i)ews in the Roman Catholic Chnrch. when convej'ed to individuals, was not held by them in any ditferent way than in the churches of other religious de- nominations. The j)arish, or the projn-ictors, may abandon the meetinghouse as a place of jtublic worshij) witliont any liabilitj' to ])ewholders, although the ]»ews may thei-cby be rendered nearly or (piite useless; and the fact that the meet- inghouse is still fit to be used does not render the parish or the j)ro])riet()rs liable. The right of the ])ewholder is held to be of snch a nature that he is entitled to an indemnity if the parish or the proprietors exerci.'^e their right to take down the churcli when it is in such a condition that its demolition is not aclnally necessary; bnt if it has become necessary to take down a meetinghouse, that is to say. if a meetinglionse has become so old and r-uinons that its Inrlher nse is not practicable, the jiarish or proprietors neelace of ivlii^ious worship, and loi- spiiitnal use, benefit, and behoof of the (lerinan Konian <'alholic Ii;i Tin; (M\IL LAW AM> Till: CIHKC"!! (Mnircli :inurpose was held invalid. First Methodist Episcopal Society v Brayton, J) Allen (Mass.) 248. The owner of a pew oflFered to sell it to the society. Ap- praisers were appointed, but they did not agree and made no report. The owner continued to occupy the pew. It was held that by such occupancy he must have been deeined to have abandoned the etlort to sell the pew to the society, and that he was, therefore, liable for a tax imposed on the pew. Curtis V First Congregational Society, Quincy, 108 Mass. 147. PEWS 4r,r> A pew-ow'iier is not liable ixMsoiially lor a tax levied on the pew unless tlieic be some special «;romi(l Iroin which to iufei* a contract or pi-oniise to j)ay. One tenant in connnon of a pew cannot bind the others by sierson who disturbs him in (lie possession. Sliaw V Heverid^e, :: Tlill (N. V.) LM;. ]^an LAW AM) Till: ('III l{('II Legiicii's <<) i»i<»iis uses jirc lintsc wliicli ;ii(' destiiuMl to sonio work ol" l>i<'I.V, or ol)j('<'t ol" cliiirily, iind have tlicir" motive indepeiKleiit of the coiisidciation which tlie merit of tlie legatees might procure ti-dinai-y legacies. l^egacies to pious uses are liighly favored hy tlie law on account of their motives for sacred usages and theii- ad vantage to tlie j»ublic weal. Williams v Western Star Lodge, :JS La. Ann. 020. Jews. In Straus v ( Joldsinilli, s Sim. i l]ng. i (111, it was held that a bequest to enable i)ei's(»iis professing the Jewish religion to observe its rites is good. Land, Devised, Right of Possession. It lauds l»e granted for pious uses to a i>erson or corjtoration not in being, the right to the possession and custody of the lainls remains in the grantor, till the person or corporation intended shall come into existence. Shapleigli v IMlsbury, 1 !Me. 271. Ministerial Land. In New Hampshire it was held that after a grant of land to a town for the use of the ministry, if the town be divided, and such land fall within the bound- aries of the new town, the title to the land still remains in the old town. The disposition of such land was not regu- lated by statute. Where the new town sold such land anoor of said respective churches may be cared for." The legacy was to pious uses within the Louisiana code, and was not indefinite. The churches en- titled to receive the benefit of the legacy are capable of ascer- tainment, and also the poor who are to be the direct bene- ficiaries of the testator's Itounty. Auch's Succession, 39 La. Ann. 104.'*,. PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD Affirmative, 470. NoKiitivo, 474. Church of England, 47G. General, 476. Perpetuity, 476. ReUgious use, 477. Superstitious use, 477. Time limit, bequest, 478. Transfer tax, 479. Affirmative. In Read v Hodgens, 7 Ir. Eq. 17, it was held that a bequest for masses for the testator's soul was valid and not void as a superstitious use. In Re Hagenmeyer's Will, 12 Abb. N. C. 432, it was held that a direction in a will that the executors pay from the assets a sum of money for the jjurpose of having masses said for the testator's soul was valid. Also a bequest in trust to a religious corporation for the same purpose. Testatrix gave the residue of her estate to two Roman Catholic clergj^men, one half to each, with the request that one of them, named, should say, or procure to be said, masses for the repose of her soul three times a week for one year after receiving the money, and the other half was given to another clergyman with a like request as to masses for the repose of the soul of the brother and sister of the testatrix for one year after the money was paid. It was held that no trust was created contrary to the Pennsylvania statute, and the executor was directed to make payment of the resi- due according to the terms of the will. Dougherty's Estate, 12 IMiila. (Pa.) 70. The testator bequeathed personal estate to his executors to be expended under the direction of the Archbi.shop of 470 PRAYEKS FOK TUK DIOAD ill Dublin. Tlic coiirl ordered the fund paid to liini on lii.s declaration that he intended to apply it in part for the main- tenance of Ivonian Catholic officiating clergymen, with direc- tions that they say masses for the rei)ose of the testator's soul. Blount V N'iditz, 1 Ir. Ke. (Ireland i 42 (1805^ Testatrix by her will directed her executor to use §100 of the estate for masses for her soul. She also gave her resid- uary estate to the Montro.se Avenue Catholic Church in Brooklyn, New York, to be used in saying some mas.^es for her soul and for charitj' institutions, as directed by the pastor of the church. The bequests were sustained. Hageu- meyer v Hanselman, 2 Deni. (X. Y.) 87. Testatrix beciueathed to a priest a sum of money to be used by him in saying masses for the repose of her soul. The bequest was sustained. Gilmore v Leo, 2^7 111. 402. Testatrix bequeatlied a sum of money to a Roman Catholic priest for the purpose of celebrating masses for the repose of the souls of the priest's grandfather and grandmother. This beciuest was said to be a direct donation to the priest, with an injunction for its use in a particular ceremonial. It was not a trust, and therefore not void becau.se incapable of enforcement by living beneficiaries. Harrison v Brojiliy, 51) Kan. 1. Testator gave certain ]»roperty, real and juMsonal. liie proceeds to be used in saying masses for the repose of his soul and the souls of si)ecified relatives. The gift was sus- tained as a valid charitable use. ITooftVr v Clogan. 171 111. 402. Testator becpieallicd a sum to his executor, a jiortion of which was to be used for liaving anniver.sary masses said annually "from tlu' day of my decease, for myself, my «le- ceased wife, and for her deceased sister, Lizzie." The be- quest was sustained. Webster v Sughrow, (»!) N. II. :?S0. Testatrix becpicathed a fund to each of two priests to be used by them in saying masses for the repose of her soul. On an accounting it ajtiieared that one of the priests had died since the death of the testatrix, but that the other J7L' tin: ("i\il law am» tiii; y the uni- versal i)ractice of the church such a legacy legally be- queathed belongs to the priest, and neither the church or any superior of the prit^st therein can call him to an account therefor. Ee Zimmeruuin, I'l* Misc. i^N. Y.) 411. I'lJAVi.Ks I- on Tin: I)i:ai) 4t:; A will contained llic lollowini; liccinrst : "1 jiivc .-mkI bequeath the sum of si, (►()() wliiili luy executor shall pay to the pastor at Newry, IJIaii- ("o\inty (i*a. i. Un- masses U>\- the repose of my soul aiul lor I lie repose of the souls ol my relatives and the repose of the souls of the faithful of my parish." The bequest was sustained, aiul the exeruior was directed to pa}' the whole amount to the ]>riest, who was k* use his discretion as to the time ami i)lace of saying the masses, and the number thereof. Seiberts Appc.il. IS W. N. C. (Pa.) 27(i. In Matter of Backes, 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 504, a provision in a will directing the executor to expend ni0Tu\y for masses for the testatrix and her deceased husband in a German Cath- olic Church iu Buffalo was sustained. In Brennau v Breunan, Ir. Rep. 2 Eq, 321, the cotirt sus- tained bcMpiests to be used iu saying masses for the rei)ose of the soul of the testatrix, and also the soul of her liusband. and the souls of his and her relatives. Testator be<|ucathed a sum of money for masses to be offered for the happy repose of the testator's soul, to be ajtportioned iu a i)articular manner between dergyuuMi named in the will ami the ofliciatiug clergymen of the city of Toronto. To the objection that this bequest was for superstitious uses and therefore void, the c«)urt said the gift was free from any taint of illegality. The testator miglit api)roj)riate money for this jMirpose if his religion had taught him thai it was important to his spiritual wel- fare. Elmsley v Madden, IS (Irant's (Mi. (Can. i MSii. The testator made a bequest to the clergj-man atiaehed to the parish of St. Peter's, ])rogheem. ( N. Y. ) 1«JI>. The testator <>ave his residuary estate to bis executors to be expended by them in i)rocuring i)rayers in a Roman Catholic churcli, "for the repose of my soul an500 to be used by them in having masses said for the repose of his soul. The bequest was invalid. Re Mcl^voy, (} Dem. Sur. (N. Y.) 71. Testator made a bequest for masses for the repose of his soul and the souls of his wife, son, daughter, father, and mother, ai)propriatiiig si»ecitic amounts for masses for each. This bequest was held void for the reason that there was no beneficiary or beneficiaries of the trust who may come into equity and enforce the iK'rlormance. It is evident that such a trust is not capable of execution, and no conit couhl take cognizance of any question in respect to it for want of a comi»etent party to raise and litigate any (piestion of abuse or perversion of (he trust. McIIngh v McCole, 1)7 Wis. l(j(). In Alabama (Festorazzi v St. .Iose])irs Catholic Church. 104 Ala. :>27 I the court declared void a biHinesl to a church for nmsses for the repo.se of testator's s«nil. It was not a gift to the chni'ch, nor was it a chai-itiililc use. noi- a privntc trust. -17(1 TIIIO ('l\IL LAW AM) 'llli: (IirKrH Church of England. TIic cliiircli li;is not |>r()liil»iic«] jtrayerH for llic ()I). General. For a case contaiiiiiiji a discussion of jn-inciplcs relatiiifj; to gifts for masses sec (lilman v iJcArdle, 12 Abb. N. C. 414, aiul cases cited, especially tlic Illinois case of Kelioe V Kehoe, 12 Abb. N. ('. IJTn. Father Browers, who was a priest in this conj^re^alion at the time of his death, left a will in which, among other things, he made a devise of certain real i)roj)erty to the Roman Catholic priest succeeding him in tiiis society, and to the successors of such priest, with a coiulition that mas.ses should be said four times a year for the repo.se of the tes- tator's soul. Father Fromm intruded into the property, took possession of it, and assumed to be the jdiest of the local society, but he had no authoiity from the bishop or other superior authority in the church. And it was held that he had no power to act and could not lawfully take possession of the iiroi)erty and receive the devise and execute the trust. Browers v Fromm, Add. Pa. Kep. 'M)2. Perpetuity. A testatrix bequeathed the dividends thence- forth to accrue on certain stock to be paid for the celebra- tion of masses upon every Sunday and other days stated in every year, in a certain Catholic chapel named, for the bene- fit of her soul and the souls of her parents and other rela- tives ; also for the purpose of keeping in order the tombs of certain relatives ; and the remainder of the interest to be paid to her daughters for life, and after their death to be approi)riated, while the world lasts, for the celebration of masses for the benefit of her soul and the souls of her rela- tives. The gift was held void as creating a perpetuity. Beresford v Jervis, 11 Ir. L. T. R. 128. A bequest in aid of a fund for the erection of a memorial church with an obligation that the i)nrish priest for the time being sh(mld celebrate masses at a particular time and place forever, for the repose of the soul of the testator and mem- bers of his family was held void as creating a perpetuity, and also because the obligation was impossible of perform- ]'Kavi:ks fok thi; I)i:ai) 477 ance lor the i-t'a;suii that the parish jtriest toiihl iioi celebrate the masses aceordiiig to the terms of the will without ueglecting other official duties. Branuigau v Murphy, 1 Ir. Rep. 418. The trust of a fuiHl was lo pay llic income to Roman Catholic priests forever, upon condition of their sajing masses for the repose of the soul of the founder. It was held void, and the fund ^^ iis ordered to be paid to the re])re- sentative of the founder. Re Blnndell's Trusts. :!0 Hoav. (Eng.) .3(10. Religious Use. In Ireland a I>e(piest to provic;i\. ( Iji;;. i 151. Tcslalor j;;iV(' Icj^jicics lo he used in s;i_viiiji iiuisscs ['(ti- the repose ol' liis own son) und the souls of oliici- iicisons, and for other pious uses. The lc;;a. Testator bequeathed a fund to a eliurch lo be use«l in say- PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD 470 ing masses for the repose of his soul, but the bequest was held void for the reason thjit under the Pennsylvania sta- tute a bequest for religious uses was invalid unless tlie will was made at least one montli before testator's d«Mlh. it api»earing tlmt the will was niadt- w illiin liiat time. Hliyiii- er's Ai)i)eal, J):5 Pa. St. 142. Transfer Tax. A bequest to a [)ast()r and to his siiccessois, to be used in saying low masses for the repose of the soul of the testatrix and others, was held subject to taxation under the transfer tax act. Matter of McAvoy, llL* Apj*. Div. (N. Y.) 377. A bequest to a Roman (.'atiiolic j)riesi. to l»e ajtplied to masses to be celebrated puldicly in a specitied Roman Catholic duirch in Ireland for the repose of the testator's soul and the soul of his Avife, is a valid charitable becpiest, and exemjtt from legacy duty under the '.\S\\\ section of ."> ^S: (I Vict. c. 82. Attorney-General v Hall, 2 Irish Re. 291 (ISOO). See additional cases on this subject cited in the note to Festorazzi v St. Josejili's Roman Catholic Church (104 Ala. 327) in 25 L. R. A. 300, and also in a note to Hadley v For- see, (203 Mo. 41S) in K; L. R. A. (X. S. ) 'Ml. PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Historical sketch, 4S1. Description, 4S2. (iovcrnnicnt, form of, 482. Association with Congro{j;ut ionul churchos, 483. Center College, Danville, Kentucivy, 483. Congregation, authority, 484. Consolidation, 484. Division of society, apportionment of ])n)perty, 484. Division, powers of Presbyterj', 485. Excomnmnication by General Assembly, 486. Free Portuguese Church, 487. Foreign Missionary Society, 488. General A.ssembh-, Southern, 4SS. General Assemblj', described. Old School, 489. General Assembly, division, effect on legacy, 489. General Assembly organized, 490. General Assembly, status, 490. General Assembly, when decisions binding on chui-ch, 490. Illinois Orphans' Home, 491. Indcjx^ndent Church not possible, 491. Joint ownership, 492. Local society, status, 492. Mercer Home for disabled clergymen of the Presbyterian faith, 493. Minister, character of office, 493. Minister, how called, 494. Minister, Presbj'tery's power of appointment, 495. Missionary house of rest, 496. Missions, 496. Old and New School; division of 1838, 497. Old School Assembly, claims bequest, 498. (^Id School, General Assembly, political deliverances, 498. Organization, 499. Organization and form of government, 499. Pastor, terminating relation, 500. Pennsylvania, English congregation, 500. Political deliverances, no effect on local property, 501. Presbytery, membership, 502. 480 PKKSBYTIOKIAN CHURCH 481 Presbytery of New York, powers, 502. Presbytery, relation to synod, 503. Property, how held and managed, 503. Publication committee, 504. Ruling elders, election, synod's power limited, 504. Scotch Presbyterian Church, 504. Scotland, 505. Secession of 1838, 505. Secession, effect on pastoral relation, 507. Session, 508. Session, jjowers, 509. Slaverj' agitation, 510. Sovereignty, not in membership, 511. Synod of secession church, 512. Synod powers, 513. Trustees, 513. Unconstftutional deliverance on political questions, 513. Westminster College, 514. Historical Sketch. The Presbyterian Churcli in Ihe United States!, unlike the mother ehuroli in Scothmd. lias not at any time been connected with the civil goveninicnt ; and in this and some other parlicnlavs it differed from llie niotluT chnrch in the iirincijdes and arrangement of its govci nmcnl before the ado])t ion of its const it nti<»n in 17SS. At tli;i1 time the Synod of New York and Philadelitliia was Ilic liiglicsi tribunal in tlie clnirch. It adoj)ted the constilut ion. and by it the General Asscnd)ly was ci-eated and established as tlie highest judicatory of the clnucli. The constitution defines and ])rescribes tlie ]»owers of a gradation of courts oi- bodies, in \\lii(li the spiritual govern- ment of the chuich is vested, consisting; of — First. The session, com posed of the ]>astor or pastors and ruling elders of a particnlai- conuiegation. Second. A presbytery, consistinii «»r all the luiuisiers and one ruling elder from each cougre^al ion witliii! a certain district. Third. A synod, composed in like manner as a presbylery of ministers and eblei-s within a laiger disi rici. inclnding at least Ihiee presltyteries. iSL' Tiir; (M\ii. \..\\\ AM) 'nil': ciii i;1. Association with Congregational Churches. In 1801 the Gen- eral Assembly adopted what was known as a Plan of Union for New Settlements. The avowed object of it was to pre- vent alienation; in other words, the affiliation of Presby- terians in other churches by sutfering those who were yet too few and too poor for the maintenance of a minister, tem- l)orarily to call to their assistante the members of a seel who differed from them in principles, not of faith, but of ecclesiastical government. To that end, Presbyterian min- isters were suffered to preach to Congregational churches, while Presbyterian churches were suffered to settle Congre- gational ministers; and mixed congregations \Nere alloweuni('nt of the fund arising from the sale of the other |>roperty. After hearing all the parties the presbytery divicU'd the society into two societies, one to be composed of the jtetilioners anosed church building was erected by contributions from membei-s and others, (d»ielly, it appears, from members of the Old School Presbyterian Church in other States, for the pur[»ose ot' building a church of the Old School Presbyterian order. In 1856 the Glasgow letter of dismissal was presented to the Sanganu>n Presbytery, and they were received into the presbytery. In 185S a schism arose, resulting from the question whether baptism administered to some of the mem- bers by the Koman Catholic Church in ^ladeira was sulli- cient, or whether there slnuild be an aroceediug against the majority t(t i-ecover jxtssession of the church i>roperty. It was held that whatever may be llie iss Tin: ("i\ I L LAW AM> 'I'lii: 111. 450, :",1 111. 1. Foreign Missionary Society. The Presbj^terian General As- sembly was incorporated in Pennsj-lvania in 177J), and by its charter it was authorized to take by devise. The incor- porating act transferred to the corporation all the property and funds of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, a body which, by the constitution of that church, was required to meet and did meet annually. The General Assembly in 1837 established the Board of Foreign Missions, charged with the foreign missionary o])erations of the church. This was held to be the only Presbyterian foreign missionary society in the United States at the time of mak- ing this will and at the death of the testator. This board was the creature of the General Assembly, and might have been dissolved at any time. A devise to the board was invalid because of lack of capacity to take, and a devise to the board could not be treated as a devise to the (leneral Assembly. A devise to the Presbyterian Foreign Mission- ary Society was therefore held void. Chittenden v Chitten- den, 1 Am. L. Keg. ( N. Y. » 5:58. General Assembly, Southern. Testator bequeathed the residue of his estate "to the trustees of the General As- sembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, commonly known as the Southern Presbyterian Church, the same, as he was advised, being a body corporate." It ap- peared that at the outbreak of the Civil War in ISGl the PKKSBYTKKIAN CHURCH 4S«) Pretibytei'iau Cliuixli in the United States was divided, llie Southern Presbyterian synods meeting to form a Southern General Assembly confined to the Confe I'a. St. MlM. General Assembly Organized. Antecedently to the memor- able year of 1788 the I'resbyterian churches in the United States, like their ])arental Church of Scotland, ruled by ses- sions, ])resbyteries, ami synods, acknowledged a connection between church and state; l»nt in that year, nearly .simul- taneon.sly with the aeison, which the Assend^ly is not. It is also established by law, which the Assembly is not. Neither is the Assembly a ]>articular order or rank in the cor]M)ration (the Trustees of the General Assend)ly of the Presbyterian Church), though the latter was created for its convenience. Ft is a consecrated association, which, though it is the repro- ductive organ of cor]»orate succession, is uot itself a mem- ber of the body; and in that respect is anomalous. Uoni- monwealth v Green, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 5:^1. General Assembly, When Decisions Binding on Church. The powers of this body are not divided but limited by the con- stitution. If it be true that the inferior courts and people of the church are bound to accept as final and conclusive 1'Ijesp,vti:kiax <'in'ROH 401 the Assembly's own coiisirmiion of ii.v |M»\\('rs. nnd siihiiiit to its edicts as oblij^atoi-y, willioiit imiiiirin^ wlicllici- ihcy transcend the baniers of the coiislii mion or not, the will of the Assembly, and not the constitnlion, becomes the Innda- mental law of the chnrch. But the const itntioii liavinj;' been adopted as tlie su[>reme law of tlie cliurcb, nnist be siiprciiic alike ovei- tlie .Vsseiubly and people. If it is not, and only binding; on the latter, the supreme judicatory is at once a j^overnment of despotic and unlimited i)owers. But we hold that the Assembly, like other courts, is lim- ited in its authority by the law under which it acts; and when rights of projjerty, which are secured to congregations and individuals by the organic law of the church, are vio- lated by unconstitutional acts of the higlier courts, the parties thus aggrieved are entirle2T. Independent Church Not Possible. Because unity of action, and the means of perpetuating itself, are es.sential features of the ]*resbyterian Church; and that the lirst of these fea- tures is preserved in that i)ortion of its oi-gani/ation which combines the whole church into one boen(lenl Presbyterian chnrdi is an anomaly whicli cannot consist willi the Presbyterian system. Wilson V Pres. Ch. ol" John's Island, 2 Kich. Eq. (S. O.) 11J2. Joint Ownership. Land was given to this society and also to the (lerinan Keformed Congiegation on an agreement that they were to erect and nse jointlj- a house of worship and establish a burying ground. The house was erected and used many years. The agreement was by parol, and there was no conveyance of the land. The transact ion was held to be valid, and the donors were declared to be triistees of the land, holding it in trust for the religious purj)oses to which it had been dedicated by the two congregations. Beaver v Filson, S Ta. St. 327. Local Society, Status. In the Presbyterian system a local church is but a member of a larger and more important reli- gious organization, and is under its government ami control. The session or local church is controlled by the presbytery, the presbytery by the synod, and the synod by the General Assend>ly. The general church is controlled and governed by a body of constitutional and ecclesiastical laws, and exercises legislative and judicial power. Questions of rule, usage, or custom atfecting the local church, or the relation of its members to the organization, are subject to the judg- ment of these several bodies, called judicatories, in the Older named, and the decision of the highest to which any ([uestion is carried is binding upon all. Gaff v Greer, 8S hid. 122. In the Presbyterian form of government a local congrega- tion is but a member of the larger and more important reli- gious organization, and is under its government and con- trol, and is bound by its ordinances and judgments in purely spiritual matters. There are in this system of church organ- PRESBYTERIAN ('HURCH 493 izatiou three jiidicalorii's, or icjtit'scniatiM' l»»Mlit's — the ses- sion, iH-esbvtiMV and (Jcneial Asscialdy. 'J'lie pui-jMjsi-. powers, and jurisdiction oJ' each are distincdy staled and promnlgated in the jtrinted books containinjj; its history, articles of faith, and orrohibited the sale, disposition, or encundnance of any i»art (»f the land, and the ai)plication of it to any otluM- use or jturpose than that speci- fied in the will. It N\as held that this did not i»r('\t'iit ilic court from granting an order on tlic ai»idicalion of the trustees of the Home, ])eiinitting a sale of a small portion of the land, the ])roceeds to be used lor the general |»ui|)o.ses of the devise. Such a «lisposition of the land was not deemed a violation of Die resti-iclion contained in the devise. Tlu' sovereign, the State, acting throngli its c(»nrts, li:id \isilor- ial su])ervision of the devise and its geneial purpose, and might exercise its discretion to ]»ermit a cliange of the cliai'- acter of the ]>r(»perly where this would nol l)e :in :itiii;il diversion of it lo an (Uitside ]»uri)ose. Ke Mei-cer Home for Disabled Clergymen of the Presbyterian Faith, Itll' I'a. St. 232 Minister, Character of Office. The minisleiinl ollice is nuide the lirsl in dignity, importance, usefulness in the convic- nil 'I'lii: ciN 1 1, LAW ANh 'I'lii; rinKcn lions (»l' lliis l»()(ly of ( 'li risi i;iiis. l\\ llicir liiilli. (I(»(iiine, .'iikI ordinances only duly or(l;iiiMMi niinisl*'i-s cnn of rij^lit ;i(liiiinist<'r tlie sju-raincnls and pcrloriii oilier ruiHiions and dntics wliich concern llie spirilnal wi'lfai-c of those who are members of the church |>i()j)er. Ishniii v I'nllaj:er, H Ahh. N. (\ (N. Y.) 'MVA. Minister, How Called. According- 1o the nsa^M' and r«»rni of j;()vernment of the I'resbyterian ('linrresbytery to which he belongs, and is regarded there as a petition from the congregation that he should be installed their pastor; and it is expressly declared that no candidate or minister shall receive a call but through the hany llip Lc^ishit lire of l'eiiiisylv;iiii;i. This lust Asseiiihly is (lesi<;ii;ite«l .is tliiit wliicli met in the seventh ]*resbyteri;iii ('hiiich of l'liil;nlel|ihi;i, niid of whith Mr, I'lniiier Av;is nio(hM;itor. Wilson v ri('sl»yteii;in Cliureh, John's IsIjiimI, 1* IJich. !:;!, IkmiikmiIkmI sever;il portions of his resi<|ii;iiy esl:iso laclo. be dissolved, and the mendxM-s adhering to the (Jeneral As- sembly were thereby authorized and directed to take charjic of the pi-esbyterial records, to retain the same, and exercise all the authority anly. U. S. v (Miurch, s rtah ;;io. Organization. The rresbyterian (Mnircli is a congi-ega- tional body. Its jtowers are vested in its membership, and iruiy be executed fhiough its delegated authoi-ity : The sidec- tion of a i)astor is |»rinuirily in tlu^ (ongregation, but must be approved by the ]»resbytery and accei)te(l by the niinistci- selected; and its trustees are not vested witii any jtower e\ officio to employ niinistei-s or to conti-act as to salai-ies. This j)ower may be exercised by them only when aulhoii/.ed by er of pioressing Chi-istiaus. with their oHsju'ing, voluntai-ily assttciated titgether for divine worship or godly living, agreeably t<> tin- Holy Scriptures, and submitting to a certain form of govcriimcnt." Haling elders are repi-esentatives of tlu' peo]de. chosen by thom foi- the j)urpose of exercising govej-nment and 'riii; ciiiimii iiKluirc iiil«» tin* kiiowicdm' :iiion such a governing body, or anybody el.se, to dis.solve a religions corporation, considererescribing, as it has done ever since lS7r>, that the temporalities of a religious PKESBYTEKIAX ClllKCH oO:] corporation shall he adiiiiiiistered in accoidaiue with de- nominational nsaj;e, contemplates the coexistence of a church in the spiritual sense and a chuirh in the lej-al sense, working together toward the same beneficent ends. When, however, the superior governing body having authority omm- the ecclesiastical orjianization decrees its dissolnlion, there still remains the legal entity; that is to say, the trustees of the corporation are left in charge of its property, but with- out any spiritual Ixtdy to maintain services or carry on religious work therein. The church as a legal corporate entity remains; the church in a spiritual sense is dissolved and gone. Under such circumstances the trustees hold the property subject to denominational uses, notwithstanding the dissolution of the spiritual church. The presbytery can- not oust them from ottice by dissolving the spiritual church. It may, however, by virtiie of its control in ecclesiastical matters, insist that the trustees continue to administer the property for denominational purposes, and if they fail to do so, undoubtedly it would have a standing in a court of equit}' to enforce action on the part of the trustees to that end. Westminster Church of W. 23rd St. v I'resbytery of New York, 211 X. V. 214. Presbytery, Relation to Synod. No presbytery can be in connection with the General Assembly unless it be at the same time subordinate to a synod, also in connection with it; because an aj)peal from its judgment can reach the tri- bunal of the last resort only through that channel, it is immaterial that the presbyteries are the electors and tlic synod is a part of the machinery which is indispensable to the existence of every branch of the church. Common- wealth v Green, 4 Whart. (Pa.1 5:51. Property, How Held and Managed. The custody and cai-e of the property ]t«'rtains to the trustees for the uses and pur- poses for which they hold the trust. Chief aniong these is the maintenance of juiblic worship by the congregation, an«l in so far as that jnirjtose is concerned the trustees must respect the wishes and action of the session as to the use and r>(n tin: ri\ii. law and tiii: ciiiKrn (Mc\i|i;i I i(tii of llic house of w ofsli ip. 'I'lic ri^lit of llie KeHsion to ('(Hilivtl ill iiJiv Wiiy the propcfly of llio coiiffrrf^atioii is only iii(i(l('iil;il to the ri}j;lit to the ofllce of elder. l)ayton v Cixrtvv, 2(m Pji. St. 401. Publication Committee. Iti IST.'^. the ]»crsoiis tlieii coiiipos- iiiji (he loimiiillce of juihlicjition were incorporated by the Legislature of Virginia nnder the name of "The Trustees of the ]*resbyterian Coniniittce of riil)li(ation," with power to receive and use proi)erty not exceeding at any one time f200,000. This charter was approved by the Tresbyterian General Assenddy at its first meeting after the incorpora- tion, and the committee was authorized to purchase a j)nb- lishing house, which it did, and established a publishing business at Richmond, AMrginia. The object of the com- mittee was the publication and circulation of books, tracts, papers, cards, etc. Testator, a member of the l*resbyterian Church, and who was interested in the work of the com- mittee, by his will gave to the Presbyterian Committee of J'ublication at Richmond, Virginia, one half of the residue of his estate. It was held that the bequest was intended for the corporation known as the "'Trustees of the I'resbyterian Committee of Publication," that the corporation had the legal capacity to take and hold the bequest, and that the bequest was valid. AVilson v TV'rrv. 2U W. ^'a. 100. Ruling Elders, Election, Synod's Power Limited. The order of a synod directing the electiou by a congregation of addi- tional ruling elders was contrary to the constitution of the church and not obligatory upon the session and congrega- tion of the local church, and consequently persons claiming title to the otlice of ruling elder by virtue of an election under such void order of the synod did not thereby become ruling elders, and they were not constituted ruling elders by the ri- etors of Meetinghouse in Federal Street, 3 Gray (Mass.) 1. Secession of 1838. In 1801 a ]>lan of Union for New Settle- ments was adopted, which is desiribed in the foregoing note on Association with Congregational cliur< lies. The General Assembly of 1S:>7 adojited a resolnlidn ;il>i(M; Till; cixil law am* tin; <"iiri;( ji slating' ill tlic piraiiihh! that i( was iri-cgular aiwl uncoiisti- tulional, and was not a|>iH'(»v:',\. it was held that the General Assembly whicli met in the I'irst I'res- byterian Church was not the legitimate successor of the General Assend)ly of 1S;>7, and' therefore that the trustees in office under former elections at the time the First Chnich Assembly was organized were not usurpers, as ciiarged in the writ. Secession, Effect on Pastoral Relation. The i)astor, owing to s(nne (litl'eT'ences in the congregation, was re(|nesteytery expressearated themselves from the ecclesiastical body of the church, formed a new presbj-- tery for themselves, the comidainants, who were adhering members, by operation of law, became the cori>orators. and as such were entitled to the possession. Skilton v Webster, Brightly N. P. (I'a.) 20^. Session. The session is the governing body in the local I'KESBYTERIAN CHURCH 509 society and is composed of the ruling elders and pastor, and in all business of the session the majority of its members govern, the number of elders for each congregation being variable. The possession of the elders, though accompanied with larger and more efficient powers of control than that of the trustees, is still a fiduciary i^ossession. It is as a session of the church alone that they could exercise power. Except by an order of the session in regular meeting they have no right to make any order concerning the use of the building; and any action of the session is necessarily in the character of representatives of the chnrch body by whose members it was elected. Watson v Jones, l."> AVall. (L'. S. ) C79. The church session is the governing body of a particular congregation or church, and is composed of the pastor or pastors and the ruling elders, and is charged with maintain- ing the spiritual government of the congregations. First Presbyterian Church, Louisville v Wilson, 14 Bush. (Ky.) 252. Session, Powers, The session is not a corporation, and has no standing as a body in any civil court. It cannot main- tain an action in a civil court, nor can its comj)onent mem- bers maintain such an action. The session as a body is chosen by and represents only the communicants of the church, and not the whole congregation. Its jurisdiction is wholly spiritual. As the trustees are a conmiittee of the whole congregation, whose duty it is to manage their tem- poral affairs, so the session is a committee of the conunnni- cants to manage their spiritual affairs. As a judicatory it is its duty to attend to the s])iritual iuhmIs of tlie churcli upon the qualifications of any pastor who is called temporarily to officiate in jniblic woisliip. It also has the right to l l>y spirit\i;il (liscipliiic. 'I'lic tnislccs Iiwvo no right to close the church edifice aj;aiiist tiie spiritual authorities of the society unless authorized thei-eto bv the express direc- tion of the congrej^atioii. ()u tIk* other hand, the spiritual authorities have no right to open the church and use it for religious services at the expense of the congregation without their consent. Where tliere is a disjiute hclween the session and the congregation the former must yield, for the congre- gation is the superior body. Everett v First Presbyterian (Muircli, 5:^ X. J. Va\. 500. Slavery Agitation. The General Assembly of the l*resby- terian Churcli, while often counseling Presbyterians against patronizing slavery, had never advised a rule against it, nor made opposition to it a test of religion, until the civil conflict had become flagrant. In the year 1815 the following question was propounded to the General Assend)ly : ''Do tlie Scriptures teach that the holding of slaves without regard to circumstances is a sin, the renunciation of which should be made a condition of membersliip in the Church of Christ?" and the Assembly answered that question in the following words: "It is impossible to answer the question in the affirmative without contradicting some of the plainest declarations of the Word of God. That slavery existed in the days of Christ and his a])0stles is an admitted fact; that they did not denounce the relation as sinful, as inconsistent with Christianity ; that slaveholders were admitted as mem- bers in the churches organized by the apostles: that, whilst they were required to treat their slaves with kindness, and, if Christians, as brethren in the Lord, they were not com- manded to emancipate them. The Assembly cannot, there- fore, denounce the liolding of slaves as a necessarily heinous and scandalous sin and calculated to bring on the Church of Christ the curse of God, without charging the ai>ostles of Christ with conniving at sin, introducing into tlie church such sinners, and then bringing ui)on them the curse of the Almighty." Willie President Lincoln's proclamation of eniancipation i*resbvti:kian ciilkcu 511 had aggravated the horrors of the war, and perverted it from a defeii.se of the I'niou iuto a military crusade against slavery, the General Assembly of 18G4, without disguise, boldly entered the political field, and es])onsed the cause of extirpating that domestic institution at once by force and in blood. It then made the following declarations: "The As.senddy, in the name of the Presbyterian Church, expresses her thanks to Almighty (lod that the President of the United States has i)roclaimed the abolition of slavery within most of the rebellious States, and has decreed its extinction by military force. He lias ordered the enlistment of soldiers of those formerly held as slaves in the national armies. It is the I*resident's declared policy not to consent to the reorganization of civil government within the seceded States upon any other basis than that of emancipation. "Our communion must also be mindful of the fact thai now, while multitudes of the.se freedmen are taught the use of arms, and found trained in military tactics, and inspired with the thought that they are now called of God, to conquer for their people a j)osition among the races of mankind," etc. The Assembly of 1S(J.^), after the close of the war, ordered all ]>resbyteries to examine Southern ai)])licants for admis- sion into the church on the subjects of the rebellion and slaveiy, and to reject all who shoubl admit their agency in the revolt, or their belief that slavery is an ordinam-e of (Jod. unless they give evidence of repentance for thcii' sin and renounce their error. Gartin v Penick, 5 Bush. ( Ky. ) 110. Sovereignty, Not in Membership. According to Presbyterian polity, as established lioni time immemorial, the only acts of sitvereignty — if they can be called such — retained by, or ])ermitl<'d to, the indiNidual mend»ers, with respect to such matters as are here involved, are the election of deacons and ruling elders when a particnlar chnrcli is organized and when vacancies ocoir, and the selection of a ruling chh'r as a representative of the pnrticniai- chnrcli in the in-csby- tery and synod. All oilier powers of a sovereign cliai'a«l('r r.ii: Till; cinil law .\s\> tiii: riii ijcii jiri* vt'slcd ill (he preshvlciij's ;iim1 (MMicial Asseiiibly. The powers llnis vested are, when exeicised, hindiiif; upon all the ineinbers whelher Hie result is satisfactory to them or not. Coininitlee of Missicnis v I'acilic Synod, 157 Cal. 105. Synod of Secession Church. A will made in 1841 bequeathed a fund to the "Kev. Synod of the Secession Church, of which body the Kev. Dr. Robert Bruce is a member, and the pro- ceeds and avails thereof to be applied to the spreai]H>n earth. Chi-ist aulliorilatively declared that his kingdom was not of this woild. His disciples, as such, owe allegiance alone to him as the great Head of the church ; as citizens tiii: cm kcii s|iiritu.il kiii^e v Brazier, 2 Desaus. (S. C.) 431. Right to secede from main body denied. American Trim- itive Society v I'illing, -1 Zab. (X. J.) GS:*). Diversion of Property, Limited. The local society was orig- inally incori)ora((Ml as a bi-anch of the Primitive Methodist Church, connected witli the Western Conference. A lai-ge majority of the society determined to change its (U'n.(,niina- tional relations, and, accordingly, organized a new society to be allied with the Congiegadonal lace where the real estate is situated or, if tliis be ini]>racticable, :.is tin: ri\ I l law am* iiii: cimi;*!! Ilicii l<» he licM lor llic ;^('li('l';il |Mir|M)Scs ol llir cliiiitli :iiii| niitlcr llic roj)erty was limited, and, therefore, that it exceeded the I'ight or po\\er over that property had by either the corporation or its governing officers. Cajie v IMymouth Congregational Church, l.'JO Wis. 174. PROFANITY Defined, 519. Defined. Any words iiiiixntiiiji- an inijtrtHatioii of (li\int' vengeance, or iinjilyiiig divine condemnation so usrd a> to become a public nuisance, wonbl nnike out the otVense of profanity, although the name of the l>eity be not used. Gaines v State, 7 Lea (Tenn.j 4^10. 619 PROPERTY Abaiuloninp doctrines, effect, 521. Adverse possession, /J'Jl. Ahuska, effect of transfer from Russia to Ignited States, 522. Contract, 522. Dedication, diversion, 522. Dedication, 523. Dedication to reli{j;ious uses, 523. Denominational ase, 523. Diversion, 524. Division of society, 527. Execution, 528. Gospel and school lots, 529. Illinois rule, 529. Joint u.se, 529. Lay control, Pcnn.sylvania rule, 531. Limitation of amount, right to excess, 531. Majority's right, 532. Member's right, 533. Members unlawfully expelled, right to be heard, 533. Methodist Episcopal Church, separation, effect on title, 533. Minority's right, 534. Mob, destruction by, action for damages, 534. Object and use, 534. Parish, Massachusetts rule, 534. Pastor's salary, land may be sold to pay, 534. Priest's occupancy, 535. Pulpit, cannot be seized on execution, 535. Removal of church edifice, 535. Reversion, 535. Reversion on discontinuance of sjiecifiiHl use, 536. Sale, 537. Sale for debts, 538. Sale or mortgage, 539. Sale, reinvesting proceeds, 539. Sale, when court order not necessary, 540. Secession, effect on title, 540. Sewing circle, funds, 541. 520 I'ROrERTY 521 Special trust, effect, 541. .Sunday school building, 542. •Su-spending power of alienation, 542. Surplus on sale, 542. Taxation, 543. Title, how held, 543. Title, when not affected by exclusion of society, 543. Trust, limitation by testator, 543. Trustees, general rights, 543. Unconditional gift, 544. Unincorporated society, 544. Vestry room, 544. Abandoning Doctrines, Effect. II" the ineiiibcrs of a church abandon the tenets of the ehiireh, they lose their interest in the property of the clinrch. If thev adhere to the doctrines of tlie church, but abandon tlie orsianization, they also h)se their interest in the ]»roperty of the churcli. Mack v Kinie, 121) Ga. 1. Adverse Possession. This coriK)ratioii acquired real jn-oi)- erty in ISdo, and at the time of the comnieuceuient of this action liad been in nninterrni)ted possession of it for more tlian forty years. The society \vas deemed to liave ac([uired the title by adverse ])ossession, notwithstanding tlie i)i"o- visions of article 38 of the Maryland bill of rights, ^vhi<•h in elfect, requires tlie sanction of the Ley the i»arent society to the new society of the church edifice an«i other r.L'L' 'I'lli; ('l\IL LAW AM» '11 1 I! ("Ill Ki()|i('rl_v (»((ii|»i<' ri^^lit iiimv thoreby liiicn into ;i coiiiplctc lillc. Kcrorincd ("Inncli, (5;inii|.viiic, V Sciiooicijifi, (;r> X. V. i:;i. Alaska, Effect of Transfer from Russia to United States. Sec; Holes OH Alaska and Kii.ssian toleration in the julith; on Liilherans. Contract, 'i'he )»i'o])ei-1y of a i-eli;;ioiis soeiet}' is vested in the corporation itself and not in the trustees as trustees. The cor}tor;ition may make an exeeiitoi-y coiitraet for the sale of the ]>roiterty, siihject to the approval of the court. The power of tlie court is a re«iiilatiiig power for tlie pur- pose of i)reventiii<; a viohition of the trust for the ]»articular use to wliich tlie jtroperty is dedicated, and to .see that Ihe proceeds of sale are invested for the like uses and the order of the court in such cases, authorizing the sale is permis- sive only and not mandatory. When the rights of the jmr- chaser liave become so far fixed that he holds an agreement diilj' executed by tlie corporation, and the requisite sanction of the court has been obtained, he can be compelled to jiay for tlie land and is entitled to a conveyance. It is usually ])referable, first, to negotiate a sale, agree ui)on the terms, and then lay the agreement before the court, ami l)y tlie order obtain an approval thereof and authority to con- vey and a direction for the investment of the ]>roceeublic or religious uses is well established, b(»th in civil and common law. In order to sustain a dedica- tion of property it is not necessary that there should be a certain grantee, to whose use it is nmde, nor is it essential that the right or use should be vested in a corpora le Itody; it may exist in the i)ubli«-, and have no other limitation than the wants of the community at large. Antones et al v Kslava's Heirs. !> Port. (Ala.) .■')L*T. Denominational Use. IMopciiy wliicli is devot»»d io liic ]>ni*|)os('s of a gi\('n i-cligious ('als from one to the other) engages in a palpable at tcmjtt lo divert tlie jiroperty to a purpose utterly variant from that to wliich it was originally devoted, the civil courts will interfere, even at the instance of a minority, in cases where the form of church government is congregational, or at the instance of the dissenters without regard to property, where the form of government is other than congregational, and lirotect them in their jiroperty rights against those who, without authority, are attempting to carry the property along lines that are utterly variant from the purpose for which the organization was formed. But in all cases of this character it must apjiear that the governing authorities of the church have abandoned the tenets and doctrines of the original organization. Whether they have so abandoned them is an ecclesiastical question, and if, under the form of government of the church, there is a tribunal of any char- acter erected for the decision of these questions, the civil courts will not undertake to revise or review the judgment of this tribunal, jirovided the question is of such a character that it would admit of dispute, and would therefore be jiroper for decision by the ecclesiastical tribunal. Mack v Kime. 12!) Oa. 1. Diversion. Where a congregation has been organized and holds its iirojierty as a constituent part of any particular religious denomination, or in subordination to the govern- ment of any jtarticular church, it cannot, without just cause, sever itself from such connection or government. If it does so, it necessarily forfeits its rights and projierty to those of the organization who maintain the original status. McAuley's xVjijieal, 77 Pa. o07. A minority have the right to insist upon carrying out the proposition for which the church or society was organized, I'ROl'ERTY 525 aud a uiajority will ii<»l he permitted to divert the coiuiuoii property to other uses, or to use it for the support and main feuauce of doctrines or a polity essentially at variance with its orij;;inal constitution. Schradi v Dornfeld, 52 Minn. 405. See Bonhani v Harris, 145 S. W. Kil). If i>roj»erty be conveyed to trustees for the use of the cor- poration, and its organic act proclaims the religious belief of its members, the sect to which it belongs, so as to iudicate clearly the fjarticular use intended by the grantor, or the conveyance expressly indicates the limitations upon such use, or if a corporate organization be formed as a society of a particular church and it becomes possessed of property in any way in trust to that end, in either case the property is held in trust for the use so indicated, and such use cannot he j»erverted without consent of all the i)arties to the trust. Franke v Mann, 100 Wis. 118. Where a majority of a religious society has withdrawn therefrom and organized a new church of a dilferent de- nomination, the minority, adhering to the original society, are entitled to the use and occupation of the church build- ing held in trust for said society, and the new church and its trustees may be restrained from interfering with such use. Neither seceding members, though a majority, nor any majority of a religious society, no nmtter how fully inxeslcd with all corporate powers, have a right to divert its i)rop- erty from the uses defined and limited by the grant of such proi)erty to it, or the ])ur])Oses of its organization as regards the particular religious faith it was organized to promote. Cape v Plymouth f'ongregatioual Church, 117 Wis. 150, 130 Wis. 174; see Ajjostolic Il(»liness Union of Post Falls v Knudson, 21 Idaho 58t). When property has been acquired, whether by gift or pur- chase, for the maintenance and su]>i)ort of the faith of any recognized denomination or church, every member of the association acquiring it, corporate or unincorporated, has a right to resist its diversion to other antagonistic uses, whether secular or religious, and therefore those who hold r,L»(; Tin: r\\\ l law .\m> tiii; rnriicii |Ih> liilc or ((iiiliol, wlicthfr ;i r(ii|i(»i;i I ion. or the oHi( crs of the nssociiil ion. hold il erty for the sup- port of a particular faith, and is subsequently incorporated, it is not comj>etent for a majority of the church, the congre- gation, or the cori)orators, or of a majority' of each com- bined, to appropriate such property for the maintenance of a different faith. The (piestiou of the particular religious faith or belief is not material in such cases, except so far as the court is called upon to execute the trust, and to that end it merely inquires what was the faith or belief, to main- tain which the fund was bestowed." Kniskern v Lutheran Church, 1 Sand. Ch. (N. Y.) 439. The title to the church i)ro])erty of a divided congregation is in that part of it which is acting in harmony with its PROPERTY 527 own law; and the ecclesiastical laws, usages, customs, ami principles which were accepted among them before the dis- pute began are the standard lor determining which party is right. McGinnis v Watson, 41 Pa. St. 9. Division of Society. A Presbjteriau church separated into two factions, one joining the New School and one joining the Old School. It was held that the i)roi)erty should be divided in proportion to the number of church members and pewholders in each society. Niccolls v Rugg, 47 111. 47. The settled rule of the civil courts in cases of disorgan- ization and factional divisions of an ecclesiastical body is that the title to church ]»roperty is in that i»art of it which is acting in harmony with its own law, and the ecclesiastical laws and usages, customs, and principles which were ac- cepted among them befoi-e the disjuite began, and the stand- ards for determining which party is right. The right of ownership abides with that faction, great or small, which is in favor of the government of the church in operation with which it was connected at the time the trust was de- clared. The court will adjudge the property to the mem- bers, however few in nund>er they may be, who adhere to the form of church government, or acknowledge the church con- nection for which the property was acquired. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v Church of Christ, (U) Fed. Rep. !»:{7. (W. 1). Mo. Cir. Ct.) The title to the church pro])ert3' of a congregation that is divided is in that part of the congregation that is in har- mony with its own hiws, usages, and customs as accepted by the body before the division took place, and wlio adhere to the regular orgaiii/,:ili()Ti. St. Paul's Ref. Church v Ilowei*. 191 Pa. St. :50(i. The title to church property of a divided congregation is in that part of it which adheres to the original organization, and is acting in harmony with its own laws and the eccle- siastical customs, usages, and principles which were ac- cej)te(l among them before the dispute began. But this nde is subject to the modilication that church judicatories may ni's tin; cinil law am» 'iiii: ciukcii iiKikc such rlianjics in (lie l;i\\s, usjigcs, ;i!nl ciistonis ;is tli'-y m;iy hy their laws be iiullioriy-ed to make, or wliidi iiic not fiUMlanicntal (l(»]>arlur('s fi-oiii tlic ijcru'ral |>lan and purposes of the organization, and tlic furthei- power to enforce upon the subonlinatc nicndx'rs of the orj^anization due observa- tion of tliose chaujics and modi tications. rbii'k v l>i-own, 108 S. W. 421 (Texas). Laud was conveyed to the local society on \\lii( h to erect a cliurcli eclifice, and a building was erected accoi-diuj;ly. After occupying the proi)erty several years a division arose ill the congregation over the alleged unsoundness of faith of a person sekn-ted as ])astor. Tliis art of snch proceeds, to the se])arate nse of the society. The j)roperiy belonged to the town as a corporation, and not to any nnnd>er of its inhab- itants. Baj>tist Society, AViltou v Wilton, 2 N. H. 508. Illinois Rule. Tn Illinois the trustees of an incorjjorated religions society or association do not hold the ]»ro|»(Mty, in the absence of a declared or, at least, clearly i!ii|tlicd trust, for any church in general, nor for the benefit of any pecnliar docti'ines or tenets of faith and jtractice in religious matters, lint solely for the society or congregation whose otiicers they are; and they are not, in the roj>erty held in trust for tiu' benelit of a ])articnlar religioiis denomination. Where in'0])erty is held in ti-nst f«)r the benelit of a partic- ular religions demnninat ion the dissolntion of the local corporation can in now ise affect the trust so long as the reli- gious denomination has an existence, for it is to it. and nt»t to the coipoi'atoi's, lliat the nse belongs. Calkins v ( 'heney, 92 111. 4(i:;. Joint Use. Where the constitution and by laws of a chnrch corporation comjjosed of members of two nationalities pro- vide for alternate nse of tlie chnrcli ]iroj)eity for sejiai-ate services by members of either nationality, nuMnbers of one r.:!() Tin: ("i\ I L LAW AM* Till; a\\ .wh Tin; ciukch will, hill oiilv ill ;i tlirccl itrocccdiii^- l»y 11h; State. The gift lo (he society was not void on its face, aiul nuiKt be held valid as to all the world nnlil it has been determined at the instance of the State that the charter has been violated. The corporation can take j)ro|)erty to any amount, but can hold it, as against Hit' State, only to the amount provided by its chai-ter. Majority's Right. In Berrymau v Keesc, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 287, the coui't sustained an action by the majority against a niinoiity of the roperty thus dedicated to that chiircii. Nance v Bushby, !)1 Tenu. 30:5. Members Unlawfully Expelled, Eight to Be Heard. An ac- tion was brought to s(!t aside a deed of church propei-ty which, it was alleged, had been unlawfully obtained b}' the pastor and his wife with intent to defraud the society, convert the proj)erty into money, and jmrchase other ])roj)- erty elsewhere; and with the purpose of consummating this object, the pastor had by various means procured the exijul- sion of certain members of the society who objected to his operations. The court held that the comjjlainants, who had been unlawfully expelled, had a right to be heard on lliis question, and that a lull inquiry should have been made into all the facts and circumstances attending the alleged transfer of the ]»roperty. Hendryx v People's United Churcli, Spokane, IL' Wash. :VMk Methodist Episcopal Church, Separation, Effect on Title. In 1833 land was conveyed to certain persons as trustees for the j)urpose of erecting and using a lioiisc of worsliip accord- ing to the rules and Discipline of the ^lethodist lOpiscopal Church of the United States. The proi)erty was to be held by the trustees and their successors, who were to be aj)- pointed under the laws of Alabama. The register in chancery had power to appoint trustees to tdl vacancies. The I'egister appointed trustees, who were held to succeed to the leual title veste[ tlic Ciiitcd States \v;is (Ii\i. Object and Use. Church ])roperty is for the use of the members of the church, so long as they remain members, for the worship of (lod according to their articles of faith and in the manner provided by the rules and instructions and discipline of the association, and may be so used at any proi)er time by any mend)er. Pounder v Ashe, 44 Nebr. 072. Parish, Massachusetts Rule. Under the Massachusetts parish system the legal title of church property was in the corporation, consisting either of the town as an entire parish, or a subdivision of the town as a separate parish, and the property was held to a special use — that of the suj)- port of ])ublic worship. Attorney-General v I'roprietors of Meeting House in Federal Street, Boston, 3 Gray (Mass.) 1, 87. Pastor's Salary, Land May Be Sold to Pay. Church ]»rop- PROPEKTV 060 erty may be sold to pay the pastor's salary. Lyons v I'laut- ers' Loan and Savings Bank, 80 Ga. 485. Priest's Occupancy. A jH-iest was removed from office by his Ijishop, by which removal he was deprived of all the privileges and rights incident and pertaining to said posi- tion. The bishop snbseqnently served a notice on the priest to deliver np jiossession of the real estate occupied by him. But notwithstanding this removal and notice, the priest continued to occui)y the property ami refused to surrender it, keeping it locked, and with threats, menaces, and force declined to permit his successor to minister to the con- gregation, and occupy the church property. It was held that the i)riest\s occupancy was that of a servant and not that of a tenant; that his occupancy of the proj)erty was simply an incident to his relation to the congregation as its priest and his a])pointnieut to the position by the bishop. A summary proceeding to recover possession of the property was sustained. Chatard, Bisho]) v O'Donovau, 80 Ind. 20. Pulpit, Cannot Be Seized on Execution. Where a meeting- house had been erected by a corjjoration formed for that purpose, and the i)roperty had been conveyed to the parish subject to the rights of pew-owners, it was held that the puljtit could not be seized on execution. Revere v Gannett, 1 JMck. (Mass. I !(;!>. Removal of Church Edifice. Tlic liou.se of worshij) may be removed from one lot to another or from one village to another without an' aj)plication to the court. I'ewholders have no standing to object to such removal. Matter of the Second Baptist Society, Canaan, N. Y., 20 How. Pr. (N. Y. ) 324. Reversion. JMoperly was conveyed to a church with the condition forfeiting the estate to the grantor and giving the right of reentiy if the proj)erty should ever be used for other than church pnrpo.ses. The city appro[)riated a part of the land for a street. It was held that the church, and not the grantor, was entitled to the damages awarded for n.K; 'riii: cixil law and tiii: cm ijcii npniiii;^ llic strci'l. ( 'iii<-iiiri;i I i \ l':il»l», :.".» Wkly. I.;i\\ iJiil. (Oliif.) L'SI. I'i-(»|»('i-ly wiis conveyed lo ;i socicly of I'^riciids loi- use "so loiiy; as it may be needed for nieetinu; iMU'itoses, llien said in-cinises lo tall Itark lo the oiijiinal trad." Tin- removal of (he iMiildiiij^s wliicli the society liad erected liirnislied no reason Tor a necessary inference tliat tlie land was no longer ueeded lor meeting pnrposes. This did not constitute a forleitnre of the title, and there was no reversion. Carter V Branson et al, 7!) hid. 14. Reversion on Discontinuance of Specified Use. Land was conveyed to a religions society for a nominal consideration, with a provision that the property should be used for churcli purposes ouly, aud that if it ceased to be so used, the grantee should i)ay the grantor a stij»ulated sum. It was held that if the proi)erty was not used for cliurch purposes, the actual consideration was to be the sum stipulated, but there was no limitation on the continuance of the estate. Board of Education Normal School District v Trustees, First Bap- tist Church, Normal, C3 111. 204. l*roperty was conveyed to trustees and their successors ''for the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States of America (so long as they use it for that ])urpose, and no longer, and then to return back to the original owner) according to the rules and Dis- cipline of the church. The equitable estate was in the mem- bers of the church so long as they used the house as a i>lace of worsliip in the manner prescribed and no longer. And when the specified use of the property was discontinued, or abandoned, the title reverted to the original owner. The estate of the trustees terminated \\hen the house cea§ed to be used for IIh' jnnpose intended. A mere temporary sus- ])ension of services there, oi' a discontinuance of the use without autlHtrity. would not. ijtso facto, determine the use. The active control of the deiical authorities of the church over j)reachers, preaching, and church jiroperty. is to take from the society at large, or laity, the ]M)wer of continuing PROPERTY 5:37 ill tbo buildiiii; ;is a ])l;i('(' of worsliij). atcoidiiij; to the lulcs and discipline of this clmicli, alter tlit- ('cck'siastical anilmr- ity has resolved to discontinue the services of its preadiers there. To worsliip as niend»e!-s and under the Discijdine, they must accex)t the traveling i)reacher sent to them l»y the bishop. Consequently, the trust ceased when the proi)er church authorities, acting nnder and according to the rules and Discipline, totally abandoned IIk- building as a place of worshi]) for the members of this chuicli. Heuder.son v Hunter, 5!) Pa. St. :i:{5. Sale. Under the New York statute proceedings by a majority of the trustees of a religious cori)oration for a sale of its jn-operty are sufficient without a vote of tlie mem- bers of the corporate body. The trustees are the agents of the corporation for this ](urpose. Property of a religions corporation cannot be disposed of excejit by a sale thereof; accordingly, an agreement amounting substantially to a consolidation of two societies, in consideration of which one was to convey its jtrojx'rty to the other and a new board of trustees was to be formed, the grantee cori>oration to take the name of tlie grantor corporation, was held not to be a sale within the statute. Consequently, the court had no power to make an order authorizing such a transfer of church projjerty, and a deed based on such an older was void. Madison Avenue Baptist Church v Baptist Church in Oliver Street, 4G N. Y. lai, 73 N. Y. 82. A religious corjioration has the title to its real ])T'o]HMty, ma}' determine when it should be sold, and has the sole and exclusive power to enter into contracts for that i)uri)o.se. It is not necessaiy that the consent of the court should pre- cede the making of the conti-act, but such a contract of sah' cannot become etfective without a court oi-der wliich slmulil be obtain«'d before a conveyance is made. ( '(nigicgat i 'iiii; ciniicii ;! sjilc (»r tlir cliiiicli propcil y niiioii;^ llic |i<'\v-(»\\ii('rs \v;is set .•isidc. il iM'iii^ licid tli:it llic <-(»iirl liml ii<» jiiiisdici ion to niiikc snrli ;iii ordci*. Tlic jurisdici ion of llic siipifiiir couit lo wullioii/.c a siilo ol' (lie pi'o|»('ily ol" ;i T'cli^^ioiis corpornt ion depends on the lacts exist in,u ;it the lime llie older is made, and smli an order eannol he nplield by slntwin^- that facts existed which were in ih) way placed before it or hroiifjht to its attention or considered by it. ]\Iareliminary aj^i-eement with a i»rospective ])nr- chaser need not have been maroval. Pew-owners have no right to object to a sale of the ]troperty, bnt vanlt- owners who had received the title to lots in fee, and had erected vaults and monnments thereon, were held to have an estate which conld not be disturbed without their con- sent. Matter of Brick rresbyterian Church, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 155. See also Brick I'vesbyterian Church v New York, 5 Cow. (N. Y. ) 5:>S, sustaining a i)y-law of the city of New York prohibiting further interments in the cemeterj' owned by this church. Under the New York religious corporations act of 1813 the trustees have power to remove the church edifice from one lot to another, or from one village to another, without an order of the court, but they cannot sell the real estate of the society without such an order. On an application for such an order notice to the ])ewholder is not necessary. Matter of Second Bai)tist Society, Canaan, N. Y., 20 How. Pr. (N. Y.I :?24. Sale for Debts. Where money had been loaned to the trustees for the pur])ose of erecting a house of woi-shi]>. and notes given therefor, it was held that the trustees might, under the Dis<'i])1ine, mortgage tlse ])roperty for a debt, and on their refusal to make such a morty-age the court had TROPERTY ry.v.) jiowei' to Older a sale of tlie property for tlie same i)urpose. Bushoiig V Taylor, 82 Mo. GGO. Sale or Mortgage. The vestry or trustees of a religious corporation may aiti)h' to the court for an order to sell or mortgage its j)roj)ert3- without a vote of the corporators. Matter of St. Ann's Church, 23 How. l»r. (X. Y.) 285, But see the New York Religious Corporations LaAV Sec. 200, which jtrohihits the trustees without the consent of a cor- l)orate meeting, from incurring debts beyond what is nec- essary for the care of the property of the cori)oration. Sale, Reinvesting Proceeds. Where a deed of land to a reli- gious corj)oration was absolute and unconditional in form it imjiosed no trust on the corporation "beyond that gen- eral duty which the law puts u]ion a cori)oration of using its projjcrty for the purpose contemplated in its creation." It was, accordingly, held that the corporation might sell the l>roperty on obtaining the required judicial consent and the proceeds might be applied to the i)nrchase of other property. Matter of First Presby. Society. Bulfalo, lOG N. Y. 251. In this case the question was considered but not decided whether the local Presbyterian society was bound to obtain the consent of the presbytery before selling its ]>roperty. It a])i)eared that the society did a]»ply to the prosbytei-y, which granted its consent on condition that the majority of the local society should vote for such sale at a ])ublic meeting and that a majority did so vote. A sale was authorized by the court but without . 7J), and the act of 187(i, chaj). 110, which provided, in substance, that clnn-ch i)ro])erty should be held according to the rules and usages of llie denomination to which the local society belonged. Land was conveyed to trustees and their successors for- ever for the use of the Methodist lOjdscopal Church in the United States, and the trustees were re(piired forever to permit ministers and ])reachers belonging to said church and duly authorized, to j»reach in the house oi' worsliip, to Im" r.lO TIM': CIN'IL LAW ANh Till: (III K'CII creeled on siieli l;iiul. It \\;is held lli;il llie court li;id power tft direct :i sale <»r tlu; pi'opeity I'l'ce fi-oni the Ini.st, pr I'm. St. (;i. Sale, When Court Order Not Necessary. The ti-nstees had power to jmrchase a new site, and i-eniove the church edifice from the old site to the new w ithout an order of the court. Matter of Second Baptist Society, Canaan, N. Y., 20 IIow. Pr. (N. Y.) 324. Where a church edifice had been sevei-ed from its founda- tions and placed on rollers j>r<'i)aratory to its removal from the lot it was held to be personal estate, and might be sold by the trustees without an order of the court. Beach v Allen, 7 Hun. (X. Y.) 441. The provision in the New York Religious Corporations Law prohibiting a sale of church property without leave of the court applies only to domestic religious corporations, and has no application to the property of a foreign cor- poration. Muck V Hitchcock, 212 N. Y. 283. Secession, Effect on Title. The title to the church property of a congregation that is divided is in that part of the con- gregation that is in harnjony with its own laws, usages, and customs as accepted by the bod^' before the division took place, and who adhere to the regular organization. It does not matter that a majority of any given congregation or Annual Conference is with those who dissent. The power of the majority, as well as that of the minority, is bound by the Disci])line, and so are all the tribunals of the churcli from the lowest to the highest. Krecker v Shirey, IGo Pa. 534. An organized church cannot be divested of its property by even a majority of its members who enter into a new organization, although they adopt the same name, provided the other organization still exists; and when seceders from an organized church entei" into such new organization they forfeit all claim to anv interest in the former church and PROrERTY 541 lose all identity with it. Venable v Coffinan, 2 W. Va. 310. A church oi-gauization, possessing and holding property as a church, cannot be divested of their property by a part, even a majority, of its members reorgaiuzing themselves into another organization, even by the same name, pro- vided the old organization still exists as an organization. By the reorganization the jiersons constituting it in effect, by such revolutionary movement and se(;ession, exclude themselves from the church organization and forfeit all claim to any interest in the i)roperty lield ])y the cliurch or identity with it. Harj>er v Straws, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 48. Sewing Circle, Funds. A sewing circle was organized for 1lie pui-pose of raising funds to refurnish the clmrch edifice. Some of the persons composing the society were and others were not members of the church. The sewing circle had a treasurer to whom was paid money derived from various sources, including contributions, entertainments, exhibi- tions, etc. It was held that the money thus raised "became the property' of the church or religious society, and that this corporation could maintain an action against the treasurer of the sewing circle to recover the funds. First l?;iptist ('hurcli in Fnndcliiidale v Pryor, 2:» Ilun. ( X. Y. ) 271. Special Trust, Effect. Land was conveyed to ccrlniii i»cr- sons as trustees of the local society for the support, encour- agement, and j)referment of religion and in trust "for the religious society denominated the Associate Reformed Church of the town of Seneca," and anothei- piece was con- veyed to the society' for a parsonage. II was held that the trustees of the society took the i)roperty for the use of siuh society, according to the law and j)rinciples which governed the organization of such cori)orations. They could not take it nor hold it in any ()ther character, or upon :iny other trust. The property thus conveyed belongs to llie corjioni- tion which was comjtosed of all the mendx'is of the society entitled to vote in the election of trnstees, ;ind a majority of whom thus conliols I lie ]>roperty of the corporation, and. nil' tin: cinil law and tiii; or doctrines of the church. Burrel v Associate Ke- fornied Cliurch, Seneca, 44 Barl». (X. Y.) 282. Sunday School Building. A fnnd paid to the treasurer of a religious society for the i>uri»ose of aiding in the erection of a building for the use of the Sunday school was deemed the property of the church, and the society in its corporate capacity was held entitled to recover the fund from the treasurer after the expiration of his term of office. Rector, Church of the Redeemer v Crawford, 43 N. Y. 476. Suspending Power of Alienation. Tlie case considers the validity of a gift of a fund to a religious corporation to be kept intact forever, the income of which was to be paid to another religious corporation for ten years. It was hebl that the transaction did not amount to an unlawful suspen- sion of the power of alienation of personal proi)erty. The title to the fund passed to the donee which was the ultimate beneticiai-y. Tabernacle Bapt. Church v Fifth Ave. Baptist Church, 32 Misc. (N. Y'.) 446. Surplus on Sale. Wliere property is conveyed to a par- ticular church as such, and it be sold for its debts, the sur- plus is held by the trustees as the original was held, for the benefit of the church, and not subject to any conditions not attached to the first. Harper v Straws, 14 B. :Mon. (Ky. i 48. PROPERTY 543 Taxation. Property of the church was held under a lease for ninety-nine years and renewable forever. This was held to be of such a permanent character as to entitle the prop- erty to exemption from taxation. Church of the E])iphaiiy V Raine, 10 Oliio Dec. 449. A lease for 1)1)9 years for a gross sum is, for all pracTical l)ui'poses, a conveyance in fee simple. Such a lease given for ])i()us uses ujider llie statute of 1702 (Conn, i under which statute the huul was exem])t from taxation, was a frjuid on the statute, and wouhl in most cases be in fi-aud of the donor. The act of 18.59 subjecting to taxation cer- tain proj)erty liehl for rcdigious ])urp(>ses was retrospective and was not unconstitutional. Brainard v Colchester, '^i Conn. 407. Title, How Held. A liouse of worsliij) erected on land owned by a c()ri)oratiou is owned by the corporation and not by the members of it, and the corporation, in this instance the j>arisli, liad couti-ol of the house and the right to deter- mine its general use, including the employment and settle- ment of the pastor. First Baptist Society, Leeds v Grant, 59 Me. 21.5. Title, When Not Affected by Exclusion of Society, in 1889 St. John's Church, of Islip, was read out of the diocese of Long Isbmd l)v tlie diocesan convention, but it was held that tlie church, being an incorporated society under tlie statute, was not divested of the title to property which it was authorized to take. Ludlow v Rector, etc., of St. Joiiirs Ch., (;s Misc. (N. v.) 400. Trust, Limitation by Testator. Testator devised real estate to an ecclesiastical sociciv, with a ))rovisi()u that such j»rop- erty should not be sold (»r disposed of, with nunicioiis de- tails regulating the conduct iiiicd lo administer the ti-ust. All the provisions were held to con situte a limitation of the trust and not a common law condi tion. Stanley v Colt, 5 Wall. (U. S. ) 119. Trustees, General Rights. The trustees of an incorporated religious society are entitled lo the possession of all the nil 'riii: cixii. law and 'riii: cmijcir l('iii|Mir.ili I ics, ;iii(l me (((iisifjcicd ;is hiwiiilly scizcfl of the rotest iij^aiust the decree of the Diet of Spires (or Spii'e, or Spei- ers) holden within and for the empire of Germany niidci- tlie emperor Cluirles V, in the year 1520, the foHowers (»! Luther were denominated J*rotestants, a general term m liicli was applied alike to all who adopted the principles ol I lie Keformation in opposition to tlie Catholic Clinrch, and which has continued to the present time. Now, the prin- ciples of the Keformation tlius adopted by Luther of Sax- ony and his fellow laborers — and among' whom were Znin- glius in Switzerland, Melanchthon in Germany, Calvin in France, Cranmer in England, and Knox in Scotland — pre- ceded tirst by the Waldenses among tlie Alps and later by Wickliffe in England, and after him by llns and .Jerome of Bohemia, were founded ui)on the Bible alone leceived as the revelation of God's will, and held to be the supreme and only rule of faith and i)ra(liolity. These views and j)rin(i|»les were incor|)orat(Ml into a gen- eral confession by the I Met held at Augsbui-g in T.avaria in the year ir>.'*0, whicli lias since been known as tlie Augsburg Confession. This (.'v<'nt niaiked tlie ciilniiiialion of the (3er- nian Reformatir)n ; and tliis cuiilt'ssidii w.is Tor a time tlie established IM'otestant cre«'d. 'I^his conl'ession consisted of two parts: first, the positive and allirmntive part, consisting 515 r,i(; Tin: cinil law am> 'iiii: ciii k, N. H. 1. Congregation. The term ''Protestant congregation" means those who attend a miiiistiy ]>rofessing that doctrine. At- torney-Oeneral v Di-nmmond. :> Dm. & War. (Eng.) 102. Fink's Asylum. Testator bequeathed a fund for the pur- pose of establishing in New Orleans an asylum I'm Protes- tant widows and or])hans, to be known as Eink's Asylum. The court held that the bequest was sufliciently definite, the objects being the widows of a prescribed class, living in New Orleans. These were ca])able of identification. The will did not create a perpetuity, except to the ordinary ex- tent applicable to bequests of this character. A corpora- tion was formed known as the Fink's Asylum, and this cor- poration intervened in the suit, claiming the legacy. The court held that the trust was to be administered by the citj- of New Orleans. Fink v Fink Executors, 12 La. Ann. .301. Heidelberg Catechism. It is jwrt of the general history of the world that after the Protestant Reformation had been set on foot by Luther the first authoritative declaration of the principles of the gi-eat reformer was presented to Charles V, June 25, 1530, at the city of Augsburg, in certain articles of faith CMubodied in what is known as the Augsburg Con- fession; and this confession, revised by Melanchthon, under the supervision of Luther, has ever since, it is believed, con- stituted the accei»ted creed of the Lutheran Church. Soon afterward ardent reformers censured the retention by the Lutherans of the practice of auricular confession, and their supposed doctrine as to the I'resence in the sacrament under the name of 'Honsubstantiation.'' These reformers of the Reformation, under the lead of Calvin, formulated their amended creed in what is known as the Heidelberg Cate- chism, which disputed the doctrine of consubstantiation, in- I'ROTKSTAXT 547 sisted that the sacramcMit in both kiuds should hv given to the laity, discarded the use of the Hostie, or cousecrated wafer, aud denounced in all its forms the ju-actice of auri- cular confession to priests. Ebbinghaus v Killian, 1 Mackey (Dis. of Col.) 247. Vital Principle. Kcligious toleratiou is the vital principle of Protestantism. Anderson v Erock, 3 Me. 243. PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH Baltimore church homo and infirmiuy, 549. Bishop, 549. Centriil Now York Diocese, 549. Curate, 550. Describ(Kl, 550. Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, 550. Elections, rector's power, 551. English origin, 551. Glebe land, sale, 551. Governing body, 551. Government ownership disapproved, 552. Griswold College, 552. Guild, 553. Iowa Diocese, 553. Long Island Diocese, 553. Missions, 553. North Carolina, legacy apportionment, 554. Old Ladies' Home, trust for sustained, 555. Pennsylvania Convention, 555. Philadelphia Episcopal Academy, 555. Philadelphia Orphan Asyliun, 556. Property, title of general denomination, 556. Reader, status, 556. Rector, call, dissolving relation, 556. Rector, cannot be excluded from property, 557. Rector, title of local society, 557. Rector, casting vote, 558. Rector, charges against, 558. Rector, changing diocese, effect, 559. Rector, defined, 559. Rector, dissolving relation, 560. Rector, election, sufficiency, 561. Rector, exclusion from clim-ch, 562. Rector, exclusion, when unlawful, 562. Rector, how called, 563. Rector, legacy for support sustained, 563. Rector, right to occupy property, 563. 548 PKOTESTANT EPISCOPAL CUUKCU ol!) Rector, tenure of office, 564. Sale, legislative power, 564. Sale of church property, 565. Trinity Chui-ch, charter, 565. Trinity Church, charter superior, 565. Trinity Church, 8t. John's Chapel, 566. Trust, conveyance to bishop, 566. Trustees, cannot act for two societies, 566. Unincorporated Society, cannot take title to land, 567. Vestry, cannot act without meeting, 567. Vestry, casting vote, 567. Vestry, acting without formal resolution, 568. Vestry, increasing, 568. Vestry meetings, 568. Vestry, powers, 569. Vestry, promissory notes, 570. Vu-ginia, early chiuch, 570. Virginia, education society, 571. Wardens and vestry, status, 572. Warfield CoUege, 572. ^^'esteru New York Diocese, 572. Widows and orphans' fund, 572. Worship, rector's authority, 573. Baltimore Church Home and Infirmary. The Chnvch Home aiMl Iiifii-niiiry, JJnlliniorc. iiicoi-porated iiiidei' llie Maryland act of IS.")!*, vh-Ai). 2:;i, to be under the nianagenient and control of tlie Piolcslant I'^piscopal Church, was not a reli- gions corporation under tlie statute of that State. Balt/.ell V Church Home and Infirmary, Baltimore, 110 Md. 244. Bishop. There was no Protestant T^piscopal hisliop in America until after tlie Pevolution; Bislioji Sealuuy, <»f Connecticut, consecrated in ITSt, being the tirst Ani(Mi. Central New York Diocese. There never was any coi-iKti-a- tion known or designated as "The Diocese of Central New York." Law 1841, cliaj). 1:14, created a corjtoration known as the "Trustees for the Management and Care of the Fmid for the Sui)i)ort of Ilie llinscopate of the Diocese of ^^'esterIl New York." Law isti;5, cliaj). r»!», created a ((Mitoration known as "Trustees of the Parochial Fund of (lie Protestant .-);")(» Till': ('l\ll. I-AW AND 'I'lli: (IUKCII I'l»is(<»]»;il Clniicli in llic DioccHC of WcKtern New ^'oi-U." By Liiw, iSdS, visi(ni was iiiadp, in view of tin; division of (lie Diocese of Western New York, for the crea- tion of a new cor])oi'at ion in tlie new diocese snbHeqnently called the Diocese of Cential New York, tlie powers and object of sudi new corj)oi'ation to be substantially tin; same as those specified in the act of 1841, and also for the crea- tion of a new cor]»oration in the new diocese, the ])Owers and object to be the same as those specitied in the act of l.S<)o. The ]K)wers of the corporation created under this statute were extended in 18S7 and arciun iVrissionary Society, I'rotestant Episcojjal Church v (laillicr. (iL* Fed. liep. 422. Elections, Rector's Power. Under (lie New York stainte regulating elections in a Proleslanl ICpiscojial clinich tlic rector is both the ])resi2. English Origin. The English ecclesiastical law forms the basis of the law regulating the affairs of the Ei)iscopal Church in this country, and is in force except so far as it has been modified and changed by statute, ami by the usages and canons of the church. Livingston v Trinity (Church, Trenton, 45 N. J. Law, 2:^0. Glebe Land, Sale. In Claughton v Macnaughton, 2 Muni". (Va.j 5K], it was held that under the \'irginia act of 1S02 glebe land could not be declared vacant and sold if liiere was a minister who had been i)ut into ])ossession oT ilie proi»erty, and this jiossession did not depenarisli was snilicieiil to i>revent a sale <»r the land as vacant. Governing Body. The clnirch is a regularly oigani/.ed reli- gious establishnu'nt, and is entirely inde])endent of all State or federal governmental control. The nuMnbersliip is purely voluntary and is composer,'2 'nii; cin 1 1. law am» 'riii: (in k< ii l.iilv, .111(1 wliitli li.is ;;<'ii('r;il jmisdi) I ion <»v?1 0,000 advanced by him, or for a judgment declaring a lien on the j)roi)erty for the amount PKOTESTA^sT El'lSCOPAL CHl'KCil 553 advanced. It was held that the advances by {he liisho]* weie voluntary, and wdthout any obligation on his part. This was a charitable or religious trust, with no beneticiary known to the law, it appearing that to allow a recovery would be to put an end to tlie trust estate and to tlic tiust itself, and defeat tlie whole object thereof, as conlenijilaled b}' the bishop liiniself and by those who contributed their funds for the erection of the church. French, Adui'r. v Trustees, Griswold College, (10 la. 482. Guild. The vestry authorized a guild to erect a building on a part of the society's laud, which building was occupied and used by the guild for vaiious church jturposes. Later the guild sought to use the building for its own benetit by renting it to outside parties. The vestry prohibited such use, and this control of the jn-operty by the vestry was sus- tained, it being held, among other things, that the guihl could not recover damages against the vestry for its refusal to permit tlie guild building to be used for outside purposes. Eead v St. And)rose Ch. G l»a. Co. Ct. 70. Iowa Diocese. This diocese comprises the entire State of Iowa, and was, on joint vote of the two hou.ses of (leneral Convention, admitted into union with the Church of the United States. By the constitution of the diocese it is a part of the Protestant Ej>iscopal Church i!i the United States and acknowledges the authority of thai church. Rii-«I v St. Mark's Church, Waterloo, 02 la. 5fi7. Long Island Diocese. The act ( L. 1S71. Ch. 750) incoi-por- ating the trustees of the estate belonging to the diocese of Long Island exempted its property from taxation. Real j)i'oj)ei-ty donated to the ti-ustees and not occupied for i-eli- gious })urposes was held exempt from taxation. People v Dohling, App. Div. (N. Y.) SO. Missions. The Domestic and I'\)reign ^Tissionaiy Society held entitled to receive and administer a legacy lHv a nds- sion to be established at I'orl ('resson on tli" wc'^l coast of Africa. Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society's .\p|ie.il. 30 Pa. St. 425. r>:y\ TIIIO CINIL LAW AM) 'I'lli: (III KCII 'rt'slal rix IxmiuciI lied to tliis socicly ;i I'nini l(» lie us(*;i I cluijx'l, ;iih1 siisl;iiiiiii<; :i mission upon (Ik* lioiiicstcjid ol' llic testatrix. \'ai"i<»ns jtracticai olijcclioiis were made to tlic l)('(|U(*st. iiicludiiif^ llie statement that the mission could not Itc maintained at tlie jdace indicateurj»ose, and The court could not overiule her intention by assuming in ad- vance that the location would jirove to be inconvenient. The trust Avas lor an object plainly charitable. This bequest was sustained, Eliot's Appeal, 74 Conn. 586. Testatrix, a resident of Maryland, made a bequest ''to be paid lor the special benetit of the foreign missions associated with the Episcopal Church." The corporation known as the Domestic and Foreign ^Missionary Society of the Pro- testant Episcopal Church in the United States claimed the bequest, this being the only general missionary society in the Protestant Episcopal Church. The bequest was held 1o be indefinite, and not subject to explanation by extrinsic evi- dence. The above-named missionary society was not entitled to the becpiest. Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society I'rotestant Episcopal Church v Keynolds, \) Md. 3-11. A bequest to the Diocesan Missionary Societies of Mary- land and Virginia, was held void as to Maryland, for the reason that there was, at the time, no incorporated mission- ary society capable of taking the bequest, but it was held valid as to Virginia, there being in that State an incori)or- ated missionary society. Brown v Tli(»mpkins, J:!> Md. 4'2'-i. North Carolina, Legacy Apportionment. Until 1883 the rrotestant 10]uscoi)al Church in the State of North Car(»1ina constituted the diocese of North Carolina. In that year, in accordance with the constitution and canons of the church, a diocese known as East Carolina was constituted out of part of the territory of tJie Diocese of North Caro- lina, and the church in the residue of the territory retained the name of the Diocese of North Carolina. Testatrix, by a will made in 1881, devised certain of her property "to the PROTESTANT lOlMSCOI'AL OHrRCH nf);-) board of trustees lor llie rroteslaiit IO]tisr()ji;il (Miurcli in tlie Diocese of North Carolina." Testatrix died in lSSr>. It was held that the object of the testatrix' bounty was the 10]»is- copal Church iu the State of North Carolina, and the Dio- cese of East Carolina is entitled to share with the present Diocese of Norlli Carolina in the property. iOast Carolina Diocese v Trustees North Carolina Diocese, 102 N. Car. 44L*. Old Ladies' Home, Trust for Sustained. The will contained a bequest to ])rovide "a home for ladies of advanced ai^c or infirm, who are or may hereafter become connected with the St. Paul's Church society, or with the mission or the chui( h that is to be established ujjou my homestead." It was held that the terms of the bequest were entitled to a liberal con- struction. The bequest applied to persons who hail no home or no comfortable one. The society was at liberty lo provide a home for eacli jXM-son. individually, or in private families, or to gather them in one general residence. Tlie beipiest was sustained. lOliot's A]»|)eal, 74 Conn. oSfi. Pennsylvania Convention. By tlie constitution of the chuT'ch the Convention of the I'rotestant Ej)isco]»al (lunch of Pennsylvania is composed of the clergA' and of lay de|>u- ties. They deliberate in one body, but, when five mend)ers require it, they vote as two distinct orders, and the concur- rence of each order is necessary to give validity to any mea- sure. The j)roj)osed charter of a local society was rejecteecial a<-t in 1TS7, was under the jurisdictioii of the Protestant I'^]>iscopal Chui'ch, and was maintained as an acadeni}^ for the instruction of students i»riniai'ily of that nnc I'lii': aj»tized in the rrotestaiit lOpisiopjil Church in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Pennsylvania, and also other female white children of the same aj;es without any other description, exce])t that orphan children of Protestant 10])iscopal ministers should be preferred, that the form of worship and instruction should he that taught in the Protestant Episcopal Church, This was held to create a jjublic charitable institution, which was exempt from taxation. TJurd Orj)han Asylum v School District of U]>per Daiby, !)() Pa. St. 21. Property, Title of General Denomination. The trustees of the Protestant Episco])al Church elected and chosen by the diocese of Chicago are authorized to accept and make con- veyances for the uses and purposes mentioned in the ])rivate acts of 18-11) and ISGl, and the bishop of the diocese of Chi- cago, as the successor of the bishop of the diocese of Illinois, may take, hold, or convey property for the uses and purposes exi)ressed in the i>rivate act of ISrj^. Kennedy v LeMoyue, 188 111. IT)."). Reader, Status. In Sanger v Inhabitants in Roxbury, 8 Mass. 2t)r), it was held that a reader is a ])ublic teacher of piety, religion, and morality, within the meaning and intent of the third article of the Massachusetts bill of rights. Rector, Call, Dissolving Relation. The rector was called by the church wai-dens and a majority of the vestry. He ac- cepted the call in writing and entered upon the duties of his office. His election was afterward certified to the conven- tion of the diocese of New York, and he took his seat in the convention by virtue of that certificate. The call was not for a specified time. It was held that after the defendant had been called and settled, without any expressed limita- PROTESTANT KriSCOI'AL CHURCH TkjT tioii of time, lio ((Uild iiol, accoidiiii; to the luk's of lliis cluu'cli, be ersons chose to give liim money he had a right to receive it, whether or not he luul any right ri-ys Tin; <"i\iL LAW AM> Till'; al Church, is a duly ordained clergyman of the church in piiest's orders, who has been elected to the rectorshij* by the vestry of the parish, agreeable to the canons of the church, and in whose n(i(> Tin; ri\iL law a.\i> 'iiii; ( mi kch (-;ili or iii\ il:il ion or not i ti<-;il ion of <-lc(-l ion there is no limi- tation of lime specified when the enj^ajjemeMt or conlrael (for such flu; ('nastoral relation without further pro- ceedings. Jennings v Scarborough, 5(5 N. J. haw, -1^01. In 1798 a general church canon provided that *'in case of any dissolution of his pastoral relations either party may give notice of such disagreement to the bishoj), and the deci- sion of the bishop in the premises shall be final and binding upon tlie ))arties." Hut this canon was not to be in force in any diocese which has maurpose of j>roviding a fund for the su]>j)ort of the rector was sustained in Tucker v St. (,Menienl*s Chiirch, New York, 3 Sandf. Sup. Ct. (N. Y. ) 242, all'd 8 N. Y. 5r)8u. Rector, Right to Occupy Property. One of the rights of the rector under a call from a pailicular cofigregaticm is thai nc.l TIM': (*I\IL LAW AM) Till: < "I I IK* 1 1 of |»i(';i(liiii;^' oil Sundays in the cliiiicli ]»i'(tvial Church as to the tenure of its parish ministers is that when they have once been placed in charge of congregations they can neither leave, nor be dismissed, excejit by mutual consent, without the intervention of the bishop. When a minister is called or settled in an Episcopal parish without any limitation of time he can only be dismissed or sever the connection by mutual consent or by superior ecclesiastical authority on the application of one of the parties. Youngs v Ransom, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 49. The vestry on the 2'2d day of May, 11)01*, adopted a resolu- tion terminating the relation of the rector to the society to take effect on the 31 st of July following. The rector had no notice of this intended action by the vesti'y except by the resolution, which was immediately served on him. It was held that the rector had no vested right in the office and was not entitled to notice of the intended action by the vestiy. The rector applied for an injunction restraining the vestry in rcuioving him from office. The injunction was denied. Stubbs V Vestry of St. John's Ch. 96 Md. 2(h. Sale, Legislative Power. An act was passed in 1871 author- PROTESTA.NT I^PISCOPAL CHURCH 565 izing the society to sell its real jiroiterty and iisi' ilie avails, first for the paymenl of the society's debts, and lor the eompensatiou of pew-owners, and rights in tondjs sitnated upon the land. The balance was to be applied in the pnr- chase of another lot anoration in respect to its temporalities. St. John's Chapel belongs to the Trinity corporation, and not to the corj)orators or other members of the congregation. In decid- ing to close the chajiel the vestry did not exceed its powers, and the court cannot undertake to review the exercise of their discretion or judgment. Burke v Rector, etc., Trinity Church, (;;{ Mi.sc. ( N. V. i 43. Trust, Conveyance to Bishop. A conveyance of real i)rop- erty to Ihe Bislioj) of (leorgia for the use of the church in tlie division of Georgia created a trust in which the bishop became trustee by virtue of his office. The incorporation of a society and the erection of the house of worsliip. and the establishment of religious services in connection with the property conveyed to the bishop, did not transfer the title to the society, but it was still held by the bishoj) in trust, and it could not be mortgaged without his consent. Beck- with V Rector, etc., St. Philip's Parish, 69 Ga. 5H4. Trustees. Cannot Act for Two Societies. Several persons were wardens and vestrymen in both church societies. As trustees of St. James they procured the conveyance of cer- tain real ])ro])erty of that church, without consideration, to the Church of the Redeemer. It was held that by this con- veyance these trustees derived some advantage as trustees of the Church of the Redeemer, and, being agents of both societies, the transaction was deemed hx ihe court as fraud- I'KOTESTANT i:i'IS(T)PAL CHrKCH .'CT uleut, and the deed wa;s set aside. Si. James (Miurcli v Church oi" the Kedeeiner, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) ;J5l). Unincorporated Society, Cannot Take Title to Land. The rector brought an action against the society lor nnitaid salary. The society had acquired land from trustees as a site on which to erect a house of worship, and a church was built on the west i)art of the lot. The society was not then incorporated, but afterward a corporation was formed. The corporation being indebted to the rector, conveyed to him iu payment of his claim, the east half of the lot. The law prohibited the acquisition of property by a religious society until it was incorporated. In this case the property was acquired by the society before incorporation, and there was no conveyance to it afterward, and tlie title was held to be in the grantors, notwithstanding the attempted conveyance to the society and its subsequent incorporation. The con- veyance to the rector of the east half of the lot was made at the request of the society' by the trustees who had orig- inally conveyed it, for the reason that these trustees still held the legal title. The rector by accepting the deed ob- tained a conii)lete title, which could not afterward be ques- tioned by him. by the trustees, nor by the society. All par- ties were estoj)i>ed from claiming any defect in the title. Skinner v (Jrace (Minrch, Mt. Clemens, 54 Mich. 543. Vestry, Cannot Act Without Meeting. The vestrymen of a churcli as representatives of a corporate body, must meet in order to take olHcial action. They cannot act singly, upon the streets, or wherever they may be found. Tt was also hebl that the necessity of a meeting was not obviated by the fact that a paper was signed, at first by a minority, and subse- quently by a nuijority of the vestry, but without a meeting at which a quorum was present. Re Ritteidiouse Estate, 140 I'a. 172. Vestry, Casting Vote. A churchwarden presiding has the right to vote on every question, and in case of a tie may again vote and dissolve the tie. The senior churchwarden presiding at a uieeting of the vestry which liad under con- 5r.s 'riii: cinil law and tiii; cm i^cir sidcrni i<»ii ;i mnljoti to cull ;i rector, vot(', which among other things, regulates the meetings of the vestry or trus- tees, provides that at a meeting of the vestry or trustees each member thereof should he entitled to one vote. No provision is made for the casting vote. Section 198 of the new act which regulates the meetings of boards of trustees generally, contains the provision that "in case of a tie vote at a meeting of the trustees, the presiding officer of such meeting shall, notwithstanding he has voted once, have an additional casting vote," but by section 100 Protestant Epis- copal Churches are excluded from the operation of the article which contains this provision. See as to Pennsyl- vania rule subtitle above, Koctor, casting vote. Vestry, Acting without Formal Resolution. The vestry, the governing body of a church, could authorize the rector, who was president of the vestry, to act as its agent in certain transactions without j)assing a formal resolution for that purpose; oral authority from a majority of the members, given during a session of the body, was sufficient. Cann v Rector, Church of the Holy Redeemer, 121 Mo. App. 201. Vestry, Increasing. The vote of a Protestant Episcopal church to increase the nund)er of vestrymen does not atfect the rights and powers of the former vestrymen until the additional nuMubers have been chosen. Wardens, Christ Church V Pope, S (Jray (Mass.) 140. Vestry Meetings. To constitute a legal meeting as trustees riioTiosTANT i:i'is(()rAL ('iirK("ii :a;\\ the rector, il' IIkm-c be one, and one clinrcli wai-dcii, loj;etlK'r with five vestrymen, must be preseut. Moore v Keel or St. Thomas, 4 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 51. In this case it was held that five of the eight vestrymen nuist be ])resent, and it made no ditfereuce that tliere were vacancies in the ollice of some of the eight. Tlie statute contein])lates a meeting by a uuijority of the whole nundier authorized by the stat- ute, and not a majority of those iu ollice at a particular time without regard to existing vacancies. The vestry of a I'rotestant Episcopal Church have author- ity to call meetings of the proprietors. The vestry nmy transact business in the absence of both wardens if a major- ity of all their members are present; even if it has been voted at several annual meetings that one warden and l(Mir vestrymen constitute a quorum for transacting business. Wardens, Christ Church v Pope, 8 Gray (Mass.) 140. Vestry, Powers. The society was incorporated in IS.")!). In 1S70 the vestry ado]»ted the so-called free-church })lan, under which pews were appropriated to all regular attend- ants at Sunday morning services, without reference to the amount contributed, but existing assignments were substan- tially preserved, no change being made without the pew - holder's consent. It was held that the vestry had power to make bj'^-laws concei-ning the assignment and occupancy of pews. Livingston v Trinity Church, Trenton, 45 N. J. Law 230. In Beckett v Lawrence, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 40.*?, it was held that the vestrymen have power to remove, or cause to be removed. ])ersons disdnhing religious services in the church. In Cushman v Church of Cood Sheplieid, ISS i'a. Si. |:'>S, it was held that the vestry of Protestant Episcoi)aI <]iiir( lies. or congregations, represent the laity, and the church charter must be deemed to indnde the act of 1S."»5 relative to lay control. The vestry had i»ower to disjiose of ( hunh ])i'operty under ecclesiastical rules, in the interests of tiif church, unless they atlem}»t to violate a condition subject to :>H) 'iMii: ("i\ iL \..\\\ AM) 'I'm: cwmkii ^\lli^Il llic properly Wiis ;^r;iii tc(l, or iiioncv to |»iii«li;is(' :iiitl build it waH contributed. Tbe projierty consisted of :i liouse of worship. Two of the windows wei'c memorials foi' IJishojis liowman and Kemp<'r. The society proposed to remove the plicable to the circum- stances of that colony. The local division into i)arishes for ecclesiastical i)urposes can be very early traced ; and the subsequent laws enacted for religious purposes evidently presuppose the existence of the Episcopal Church, with its general rights and authorities gi-owing out of the common law. ^^hat those rights and authorities are need not be PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 571 mimitely stated. It is sufficient that, among other things, the church was capable of receiving endowments of laud, and that the minister of the parish was, during his incum- bency, seized of the freehold of its inheritable property, as emphatically persona ecclesw, and capable, as a sole cor- poration, of transmitting that inheritance to liis successors. The churchwardens also were a corporate body clothed with authority and guardianship over the repairs of the church and its personal ])roperty ; and the other tem])oral concerns of the parish were submitted to a vestry composed of i)er- sons selected for that purpose. In order more effectually to cherish and supj)ort religious institutions, and to detine the authorities and rights of the Episcopal officers, the Legisla- ture from time to time enacted laws on this subject. By the statutes of IfUil, chaps. 1, 2, 3, 10, and 1U(>7, chap. .'•>, pro- vision was made for the erection and repairs of ( Iiui-ches and chapels of ease; for the laying out of glebes and riii: cmKcii |M)(ir \ (»iiii;4 iiicii lor llic I']|)is((»|i;il iiiiiiist i-y, upon llic hjisis (»r ('\ ;iii^f('lic;il |)T'iiifi|»l('s ;is now ('st.-ihlishcd. Wardens and Vestry, Status. Wiirdpiis and vestry of K\)\h- «'oi)al societies are the known and recoj^nized representatives and coniinittee of siieh societies; and any he(iuest to such wardens and vestry is a heciuest to the society itself, or to them as trustees for its use. Trinity Ch. v Hall et al, 22 Conn. \'.\'2. Warfield College. Testatrix devised fifty acres of land, and gave tlie ]»roceeds of another fifty acres for the purj)ose of establishing Warfield College in Maryland, to be a school for boys. The devise and beqne.st were made to the conven- tion of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Maryland. The fifty acres of land included buildings and improvements. The devise and beqne.st were sustained. The Protestant Episcopal Convention was held entitled to take the bequest and devise, and they were declared valid. Hal- sey v Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Mary- land Diocese, 75 Md. 275. Western New York Diocese. A bequest to the Parochial Fund of the Diocese of Western New York in trust for the maintenance of religious services in a private unincorpor- ated memorial chapel was held void, for the reason that the society had no power to take such a trust under its charter, and also that the charter contemplated an organized body having legal existence ; and the language of the will in ques- tion did not specify any particular pari.sh or any organized body which should receive the income. Butler v Trustees, Parochial Fund Protestant Episcopal Church, Western New York, t»2 Ilun. ( N. Y. ) DO. Widows and Orphans' Fund. A fund known as the widows and orphans' fund was raised by subscription in 1804, "for the benefit of the widows and orphan children that may be left by the future ministers of this church." The fund was largely increased by accumulations. It was held that the fund ])rovided for the support of widows and orphans of a particular class, was an eleemosynary charity, and in rKOTi:STANT I:PIS((H'AL (^HUKCH iu'.i tliis ciise fouM !>(' apportioned and dislrihutctl tor tlic par pose of carrying the charity into ett'ect. Sears v Atioi-ney General, 19:>, Mass. 551. Worship, Rector's Authority. Under Canon 15 (»!' ilic Pro- testant Episcopal Church the rector of the ])arish, subject to the canonical authority of the bishop, may . Division of Society, Effect. The defendant, a pewholder and an otticer of tlie churdi, was sued for two years' ]»ew rent. He resisted payment on the ground that his liability had been terminated, or at least suspended, by the action of certain menib(>rs of the society wlio had practically reor- ganized it in an illegal manner, and had usurped all author- ity, excluded the existing officers from their offices and em- ployed a minister who had not been sanctioned by the synod, and otherwise arbitrarily assumed control and manage- ment of the society contrary to the rules and Discipline of the church. The court held that the pewholder was not liable for pew rent under these circumstances. Ebaugh v Hendel, 5 Watts. (Pa.) 43. Legacy, Limitation. In Keii)er's estate, 5 l*a. Co. Ct. 5G8, the society was held entitled to a legacy which was given for the erection of a Reformed church, to be paid only in case there should be no debt on the church property, or until the legacy, with accrued interest, would place the church entirely out of debt. The testator during his lifetime contributed to the society, which was then engaged in the erection of a church, and the church was erected three years before he died. Succession to Calvinist Society. In Ebbinghaus v Killian. 1 Mackey (Dist of C.) -47, the trustees of the society were recognized as the lawful successors of the Calvinist Society mentioned in a deed of trust, and entitled to the beneficial interest in the lot in controversy, and to its rents, issues, and profits, as against a Lutheran Society. Successor to Reformed Dutch Church. In 1871 the name of the General Society of the Keformed Dutch Church in the States and Territories of the United States was changed KICFOKMEI) CHLKCH 577 from "The Reformed Dutch Church of America" to "The Reformed Church of America," and after that time the word "Dutch" was omitted from the corporate names of the churches constituting that society. De Camp v Dohbins 20 N. J. Eq. .30. See article on Reformed Dutdi Churdi. Trust, Intention of Testatrix. Testatrix made a residuary hecpiest to tlie society "to promote the relij^ions interests of the said church, and to aid the missionary, educaticjnal, and benevoleut enterprises to which the said church is in tlie habit of contributing." It was held that this society was tlie one intended as the object of the bequest, and tliat a misnomer of a corporation in a gift to it will not defeat the gift. The trust was sustained. De Camjj v Dobbins, 20 N. J. Eq. 30. REFORMED DUTCH CHURCH Origin in America, 578. History, 579. Classis of 1822, 580. Consolidation, when void, 580. Congregation, right to withdraw, 581. Consistory, general power, 581. Division of society, adverse possession, .581. Division of society, effect, 581. Judicatories, 583. Minister, deviation in doctrine, no right to u.se pulpit, 584. Property, transfer to another denomination prohibited, 584. Society, how formed, 585. Taxation of parsonage, 585. Theological seminary, legacy sustained, 585. Trust, when deviation in doctrine not objectionable, 585. Trust, when valid, 586. Origin in America. Among the earlj' settlers of New Jersey aud New York were many emigrants from the United Prov- inces. They did not, like the settlers of New England, seek an asylum from the religious persecutions of their native land, but, like them, they brought here their industry, their virtues, and especiallj^ their ardent attachment and stead- fast adherence to the religious faith of their forefathers. As early as 1G22 congregations were formed. In process of time these became numerous, spreading over a large portion of the then inhabited parts of New Jersey and New York, each enjoying its religious worship and privileges, all guided by the doctrines of Heidelberg and Dordrecht, and most of them holding that competent and safe spiritual guides and teachers were to be found only in the mother country, where all their early clergymen were either born or educated. Until the year 1771 no general system of church govern- ment was organized. In that year the numerous docks, 578 REFORMED DUTCH CHURCH 57") somewhat distracted and divided, inure especially on the question whether adequate ministers could be raised here or must be sought abroad, were brought together into a com- mon fold. A general system of church organi/.ation, similar in outline to the Reformed Dutch in Holland, and substan- tially the same as now exists, was then vuianimously, and as we may infer from other public records, cordially adopted. In the year 17!M), when the New Jersey statute for the incorporation of religious societies was enacted, all those who professed the faith and claimed to be members of the Reformed Dutch Church were divided among numerous con- gregations but unit(Ml in a general ecclesiastical frame of government, comi)rehending a consistory of each congrega- tion, a classis having a jurisdiction over a few neighboring congregations, a particular synod, endiracing a few classes, and a General Synod having jurisdiction over the whole. Their affairs were regulated according to the ancient con- stitution of their church; an authentic copy of which was l>ublished in 17J);>, and another under the authority of their highest judicature in the year 1815. Den ex dem. Day v Bolton, 12 N. .1. L. 20(5. History. In 1772 the Dutch Church in the United Stales sei)arateresent:i- tives from the several churches uiuler its charge; the scvt r;il classes send delegates to a ]>articular synod, which is tlic next judicatory in order, from which bitter body :ni appcsil lies to the General Synod, ;is a tribunal of the last icsoii. and no particular chuiast(»is and nnnisters of the several churches are provided and arc T'eody, which they called the Classis of the True Kefornied Dnlch Chnrch in tiie United States of America. They pnblishcd to the woild the reasons and {^rounds of their orj^anization. They conijdained with minuteness of detail that the church once noted for itH soundness in the faith had become corrupt in its prin- ciples and practice. They alleged a prevailing laxness of discii)line and prostitution of the sacred ordinances of the gospel, and declared as follows: "We, the undersigned, min- isters, elders and deacons, have unanimously agreed to restore the church to its original purity, and together with the congregations under our care, do unite in declaring ourselves the True Reformed Dutch Church in the United States of America, and as a rule of our faith and practice to abide by all the standards ratified and established in the National Synod, held at Dordrecht in the years 1018 and 101 1), without the least alteration, by which act we do not separate from, but remain the identical Reformed Dutch Church." At the same meeting they resolved that until their nuni bers were sufficiently increased to be divided into classes and synods, the judicatories in the church should consist of only two descriptions — consistories and a classis; and the classis should be known and distinguished by the name of the True Reformed Dutch Church in the United States of America. This classis not having been organized in the manner provided and sanctioned by the constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church, cannot be deemed a constitutional judicatory of that church. Indeed, they did not thus claim so to be, but avow themselves to have separated from and to be disconnected with that body. Den ex dem. Day v Bolton, 12 N. J. L. 200. Consolidation, When Void. Sutter v Reformed Dutch Church, Wright (Pa.) 503, contains a history of the move- ment by which it was sought to unite this society with a REFOJiMIOI) DUTCH CHURCH 581 branch of the Low Dutch Reformed Chim-h, and it whn hcl a dee»l of land in Gallupville, on which a house of worship was erected, and the church at Schoharie and the church at (}allui)villi' were both occui)ied by the society until IS 14, \\hen action was taken resulting in the division of the society, and that l)art of the congi-egation living at and near (Jallupville was set oft" fi'om the j>arent congregation with the expectation that a distinct society w«»uld be organized at (iallupville according to the rules of the denomination. The church ju'operty at (Jallupville was also set off to tiie new socic ty. No formal title was transferred, and conld not be. for ihc reason that the portion of the congi-egation at (iallnitvillc was not then inc()i'i>oi'at(MK bnt tlie action taken was dccnicil to lay the foundation of a liglit by adxcrse possession. The (lallnitville society continncil in possession (»r the in-oiierly from 1(S44 to ISC*!), \\lien it \\;is incor]»orated, and the jii'op- erty then continniMJ in ]i(tssession of the c(»i]ioi ation. whiili succeeded lo all tlie rights of jiropcity possessed or enjoyed by the unincori>orated society, liel'ormed Clmrcli, (!allnp- ville V Schoolcraft, (;5 N. V. i:;i. Division of Society. Effect. The l(»cal socieiy was incorjio- i-afed in \S{)U. On the same day two tracts of land of ab(Mil 5X2 Tin: (M\IL LAW AND Till: CiilliCH l\V<'iil\ tlircc ;i< «>t ilu- (((nsistory of the churdi at the Hny,lish iieigliboi-hood, and deposed them from their resj>e(tive offices. No appeal was takeu from the action of the elassis. The classis ordei'ed a new election, whidi was, accordingly, held and confirmed at a snl)se<|n«Mit meeting of the classis. Tlie trustees so elected were declared to be the legal repiesent;iti\('s of the original society, and entitled to the possession of liic proiterty. Den ex dem. Day v Bolton, 12 N. J. iMMI. A case involving the status of the Keformed Dutch tMiurch in Bergen has already been noted. See preceding note. The case now nnder consideration was for the foreclosure of a mortgage given by the consistory of the church, composed of the minister, elders, and deacons constituting trustees before they were de])osed and removed by the Classis of Bergen. The debt on which the mortgage was jturported to have been based having been sufficiently established, the court held tlie mortgage to be valid and capable of enforce- ment. Doremus v Dutch Keformed Church, .'5 X. ■]. \a\. :!.">2. The minister and members of the consistory wiiiuhew from the denomination and joiiuMl the I'resbyterian Church but still claimed the right to hold the proi>erty. It was held that the minority adhering to the principles of the original denomination were entitled to the possession and control of the church proi)erty. True Keformed Dutch Church v Iser- nmn, 64 N. J. L. SOU. Judicatories. Under the constitution of this church there are four ecclesiastical judicatories: ( 1 i The cousistory. com- |»osed of the ministers, elders, und deacons; (L'l the classis, comiiosed of all the ministei-s, and an elder delegated froiu each consistory within certain bounds; (:!i the particulai' synod, composed of three ministers and three elders from ea I'lii: ( iiikch cliiiiclics or (((iiurr;^;!! ions in •^('nci;il wliiili (((inpose sucll Mil Jisst'inlily. ('(•iiiiiil \ lid', riotcsliinl hntcli Clinrch, Tti N. V. r>r,i. Minister, Deviation in Doctrine, No Right to Use Pulpit. In Siller V Sp;iii<;l('r, I I'liihi. (I'a.) :{;*,1, the union of the First liefornied Dulcli Church of the (Mty and vicinity of IMiila- (h'li)hia with the synod of the Kefonned Dutch (Church of the United States contenijdated a spiritual connection and none oilier, and did not involve the jiennanent submission of tlie former to the ecclesiastical judicatories of the latter, nor required the property of the church to be used for the ]>romulgation and supj)ort of the doctrinal faith of the synod. The said church was founded as a Calviuistic church; and it was the duty of courts of justice to prevent the application of its property to religious uses different from those that were originalh^ intended by the donors and those who established the church. No person who does not receive and preach the doctrine of predestination, and the entire system of Calviuistic theology as received and taught by the said church, can have any right to its pulpit, and a court of equity will restrain such person from officiating therein. Property, Transfer to Another Denomination Prohibited. A large number of members of this society sought to form a corporate union with the Western Presbyterian Church of Philadel])hia, under the title of the Inimanuel Presby- terian Cliurdi, the effect of which would be to merge both societies in one, and transfer all their property to the new societ3^ The original society was established as a Reformed Dutch Church, and a house of worship was erected by con- tributions from the members of the society and others. The society became connected with the Classis of Philadelphia. The real proiiert\' which at first was held by trustees was afterwarjlmi:i) inTcii cm kcu 585 lerriiig the [iroperty to the I'resbyteriaii Society and form- ing a eonsolidutiou with it. Wiienever a chnirli or religions society has been dnly constituted, as in connection witli, or in subordination to some ecclesiastical organization or form of church government, and as a church so connected or sub- ordinate, has acquired property by subscriptions, donations, or otherwise, it cannot break ott" this connection and unite with some other religious organization, or become indcpentl ent save at the expense of imjiairing its title to the i)roperty so acquired. Jones v Wadsworth, 11 I'hila. (Ta.) -27. Society, How Formed. From the constitution of the Re- formed Dutch Church, and from precedents in the acts an|>lie(l in educating ])ious and indigent young men tor the gospel ministry, was sustained as valid by way ol a <'liaiataii!e u^e to the Synod of the Dutch CImrcli. Iloinbeck \ Aniei-jcan Bible Society, 2 Sandf. Ch. (X. V. i i:'..".. Trust, When Deviation in Doctrine not Objectionable. See Miller v (lable, 2 Den. (X. V. i l!>2. for a disciission on the r>s(; Till': cinil law am» tiii; cihijcii pOWCI" (»r .1 I(m;iI cllllicli In lisi- |iro|M'lly lor tlic ItMcliiii;; of (loclrilM's (lillVrciil from I hose held \i\ the ;j:cii('I';iI »lciioiiiiii;i- tion. (Jol)l(' \ .Millci', H» I'^ij^c (Mi. ( N. ^'. i (IHT was reversed. Trust, When Valid. Tlic coiucvance lo eei-laiii individuals, of tliosilcol' (lie hiitcli Clinicli in Garden Street, in tlie city of New Yorlv, in l(i!M, in trust lor tlie nse of the inijiisterH, elders, and deacons of such cliurch and their successors, and to have a house of jjuhlic worshij) erected thereon and for no other use Avhatev<'r, was a valid conveyance at the com- mon law to a charitable and ])ious use; and the court of chancery has original jurisdiction to enforce the perform- ance of the trust. Dutch Church in (lai-den Street v Mott, 7 Paige Ch. (N. V.) 77; see article on Reformed Church for note on change of name. REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Division of society, majority's right, 587. Division of Society, Majority's Right. This .society \v;is iticorjiorated in KSuU. Uy Diie .sccliou ol' Ihc witicU's ul iiu-<)ri)oi'atioii corporate powers were vested in the sultscriU (MS and their sncccssors. nieinhcrs of the con}ire_i;a1 ion \vIh» shonkl adhere to an, for the use of the congregation ami their siicces.sors and assigns. The plaintiffs in this action seceded from the congrega- tion in February, 1870, and claimemled its relations to the < icuei al Synod, in consetiutMice of certain proceedings of the synod which were disa]>proved by the ju-esbytery, but the presbytery expressly asserteresented to the synod a( its next meeting in May, ISCi'.i, ami the synolii;i, jirovidcMl such ((nijifcjijilion ;i(lli('i'<'(l to tlui (Jciicral SvtukI, and nj)- plicd for admission to tlic Second IM-eslnMcry. This action of the synod was held to be without authority, and the majority of the local congregation were declarerohibit legislation for the supj>ort of any religious teiuMs or the modes of worship of any sect. The o]tpi'essive measures adopted and the cruelties ;ind juinishnients inllicte(l by the governments of lairttpe for r>!n' THE ri\ii. LAW AM) Tin: ("iiiitciT many a^cs (o coiiqx'l parlies to coiilonn in llicii- rcli^iions belief and modes of worHliip to the viewH of I lie most nunicr- ons sod, and the folly of atlcmptin;; in that way to control Ihe mental operations of the persons and enforce an outward c(»nformily to a jirescribed standai'd, led to the a\liich oiiglit never to be denied. 2so human government has a riglit to set up a standard of belief, because it is itself fallible. It has not jdeased (Jod lo eiiligliten l»y his grace any govern- ment witli the gift of understanding the Scrii»lur«\s. I'lii- formity of faitli is not practicable, and if it were, is not desirabh'. ]Mu/.zy v ^^'ilkills, Smith's N. II. K''|». I. Girard College Case. Stephen CJirard by a will hearing date Decend)er 2."), 1830, among other things, gave a large anionnt of ])ro])erty to the city of IMiiladelpliia for tlie purjiosc of establishing and maintaining therein a school for tlie in- struction of poor white male orphan children and directing the erection and ecjuijiment of buildings necessai-y for that purpose. The clause relating to this institution contained the following restriction: "I enjoin and require tiiat no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect ^^'hatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or dnty whatcNcr in the said college; nor shall any such person ever hi' admitted for any ])urpose, or as a visitor, within the premises ajtpro- priated to the purposes of the said college, in making this restriction I do not mean to cast any reflection ni)on any sect or person whatsoever; but, as thei-e is such a nmltitnde of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, 1 desire to keep the tender minds of the or])hans w ho are to derive advantage from tliis be(inest fi'ee from the excitement w Iiieli clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy ai'e so ajit to produce; my desire is that all the instrnctors and teachers in the college shall take ]>ains to instill into the niini)4 Tirr: cniL law and tin: ciifKrii s;iiii(' liiiH' such i"<'li;^i()iis tciicis ;is llicir iiuil iiicd rciisoii may oiijible theni to prefer." Certain lieirs of the testator Ix'jjaTi f)rocee(lingK in (he Unite<)\ver to declare which religion or religious sect is better or best. ''No prelerericc; shall b<^ given by law to any reli- gious society" is the language of the constitution. This makes the state im|)arlial and neutral betv/een ever}' creed. faith, and sect existing among its jteojile for the time being. Protestants of every denomination, Catholics ami Jews, have thus had their respective creeds made e'.•'.). Assiniimciit for rrcdilors, r>!)l). HimkiiiK. •'>'■»'.». Husiiu«.s.s block, ')W. C'upacity to take pro|)«rty, how dotorinincHl, 600. ChanKing form of govcrnriionl, 600. Charter, 6(H). Consolidation, (iOO. Constitution and by-laws make contract, 601. Contract, excursion, 602 Corporate acts, 602. Corporator's right, how acquired or lost, 602. Debts, members not personally liable, 603. Debt, ratification, W.]. Debt, treasurer's loan, 603. Debts, reimbursement, 604. De facto, property rights, ()04. De facto, 604. Denominational character, ♦304. Dissolution, effect, 605 Dissolution, State law superior to church law, 605. Diversion of trust, 605. Government, t.)05. Incorporation, 606. Incorporation, collateral inquiry, 606. Incorporation, validity, how questioned, 606. Liability for debt, 607. Liability for injuries caused by negligence of employee, 607. Liability for injuries to emploj'ee, 60S. Majority, when action binding on minority, 608. Majority's right, 6()S. Members, ()0S. Member expelled, no claim for damages, 609. Member's expulsion, 605). Member's liability, 609. Members, when may not be excluded, 609. Michigan rule, 610. Minors as members, 610. 598 KELlGlOUiS COlil'UKATlO^iS 509 New organization, effect, 610. New York rule, 010. Object and jnui)o.«e, 610. Organization, notice, 610. Pew-owners, 611. Presumption, 611. Promissory note, 611. Property, limitation, 611. Religious connection, 612. Removal to new house, 612. Roman Catholic, charter, 612. Status, 613. Status, as compared with English parson, 613. Taxation, 613. Three elements, 613. Trustee, 614. Trustees, powers, 614. Trustees, majority must meet and act, 615. Unauthorized sale of property, 615. Who constitute, 615. Young Men's Christian Association, 616. Young Women's Christian Association, 616. Amending Charter. Tlu; charter of a religious corpora- tion cannot be amended witliout notice of an intention to submit the proposed amendment at a specified meeting. Re African Methodist F.piscopal Union Church, 28 I'a. JSup. Ct. Assignment for Creditors. De Kuyter v St. Peters Churcli, 3 N. V. Ke '2'AS sustained an assignment by the society, of its property to trustees for the benefit of creditors. The chan- cellor had approved the assignment. It was also held that a religious corporation miglil a( common law assign its pro])- erty in trust for the i)ayment of its debts unless restrained by its clmrter, or by statute. Banking. A society organized for religious puri)Oses under the Ohio statute could not lawfully establish a sav- ings bank and engage in the general business of banking. Sucli business \v;is not authorized by its charter. Uuber v (xerman CoMgregation, 10 Ohio St. .'>71. Business Block. In Fii-st Methodist lOpiscop.il Cbuitl,, (iiM) I'lii; (INI I. LAW AM> 'iiii: < III i;<'ii ('lii<"i;io V IMxoii, ITS 111. J<;0, it was held llial a corjxnat i(i;i (Tcafcd for llic puiposcs of ivlipous wor.sliii), and author izcd to tcccivc and hold land and (ixM-t buildings for such l»ni|)<»sr and no oiImt, has powci- to erect only such build- in;rs as aic directly anil distindly a|»|)roi»riate to the ad- vaiurnionl of the cause of relij;i«)n, and m-cessary to the com- fort and convenience of the ((.nj^rej^jatlon when euga}i;en reli^dous duties, and that trustees had no ])Ower to erect an ollice huildinji on the lot. Capacity to Take Property, How Determined. The ques- tion whether a reli«;ious corporation has capacity to take projierty in e.xcess of the amount i)rescribed by its charter can be raised only by the State in a direct j)roceeding for that pur[K>se. The question cannot be raised collaterally at the instance of a i)rivate individual who may be interested ill the pi-o]»ei-ly. nor in a proceeding for the construction of a will. Hanson v Little Sisters of the Poor, Baltimore and St. Mary's Church, Hampden, 7M Md. 4o4. Changing Form of Government. The right of a majority of the corporators of a religious society to change their form (»f cliurch uovernmeut, and [>ass from a Congregational church to an organization in connection with the Presby- terian body, is unquestionable. Bellport Parish v Tooker, LMt P.arb. (N. Y. I 2:>Vk Charter. Although a church does not enjoy the attributes of a corporation, yet having a well-established identity, it was quite within the scope of legislative power to constitute certain of its officers, also equally well known, by the name of their office, a cor])oration, and to endow them with power to take estates, i-eal and ])ersonal, in succession; and also with a capacity to sue and ilefend all actions touching the same. .Vinlerson v Urock, .*! Me. 24.'*.. Consolidation. A religious society cannot be incorporated for the sole i»urpo.se of consolidating it with another, with the ultimate design of acquiring the property of such other and ap](lying it to the maintenance of a church with a dif lerent polity and where a somewhat dilferent faith exists. IMll.Kilors COKI'OKATIONS GOl Tlie .slatuU's i»r(t\ i(liii<; lor IIk' tuiisolidat ion ul' leligiou.s coii)oi'ations were desij>ijed to enable existing religious cor- j)orations, organized in good lailli for the a«lvanceinent of religious interests, and for a time carried on for sneli pur- pose, to cousolidate when il becomes a|>]»ai('iil lliat such interests can be bellei- adxanced by the union of the corpo- rations. When a nuijority of trustees of one corj)orati<»n are also the trustees of another corporation, boards of trustees so constituted cannot enter into a valid contract for the consolidation of the corporations, flatter of M. E. Society V Perry, 51 Hun (N. Y.) 104. Two Hebrew congregations agreed to consolidate, one of them to receive all Ihe i)roi)erty of the other, and the trans- ferring congregations were to enjoy all the privileges and be subject to all the duties of the congregation to which the transfer was nuide and with which the consolidation was to be effected. By the agreement either congregation could, within a year, withdraw from the consolidation on giving notice of its intention so to do. It was held that the con- solidation agreement did not comply with the Religious Corporations Law, sec. 12, nor with tlie Membership Cor- porations Law, sec. 7, and that, therefore, the attemjtt to con- solidate was beyond the powers of the congregations and that a single dissenting mend)er of either corporation could maintain an action to set aside the agreement. Davis v Cong. Beth Tei>hila Israel, 40 A. I). (N. Y.) 424. Where two religious corjmrations have consolidated with- out attem]>ting to follow the i)rovisions of the statute pro- viding therefor, either party to such action may sue to set aside the consolidation as ultra vires without any ])rior request so to do from its nuMnbers. Chevra ^Medrash Auschei Makaver v Makower Chevi-a Aiuchi robuul. (i(i X. V. Sujtp. 355. Constitution and By-Laws Make Contract. AVhere a nund)er of persons associate to form a religious congregation, to acquire ])rop(Mty U*v its use. and inc(»i poiate foi" the more convenient holding and control of the pn>perty, the consti- (;(►!• Tin: civil. LAW AND THK CBVUCn tutioii or Itod.v <»l nilfs wliicli tlicy ;Hl«»|it l«> juest riltf who shall be iiioiiibers of llic coi-ixiiiitioii. ;iiiersons interested in the erec- tion of a church edilice joined in a promissory note to .secure a loan of an amount sutlicient to meet the deliciency. The note was discounted and the ]>roceeds used by the treasurer of the chui-ch. Subsctiuently subscriptions were received and contributions m;ide in other ways for a part of this indebtedness. It was held that by raising .subscriptions and soliciting contributions the indebtedness was ratified, and the church b(M-;inie liable for the jiaymcnt of any balance reniiiiiiing un])aid. The note given lor the original loiin was for the benefit of the society, and the makers of the note had no i)ersoiial interest therein. Trustees of Christian Church V Cox, 7S III. Apj). 219. Debt, Treasurer's Loan. In Wilson v Tabernacle Baj^t. Church, 2S Misc. ( X. V.) 2(;S, the corporation was held liable in an action against it to recovei' money Itorrowed by its treasurer, without the knowledge of llie li-nstees, biit which money was n.sed for the benefit of the coi-poration. (KM Tin; ("I\ll. LAW AM) Till: (III K("ll Debts, Reimbursement. In ;iii ii(li<»ii l»y tlic <'Iiiit«li to coni- l»t'I (lie conveyance to II of ;i lot <»!" l:iinl on wliidi ;i house ol" wol'sliip liinl been creeled, iind uliicli eerl;iiri jtersons Iwid ;t,nree(l to convey to llie clnifcli when ineoipoiMtecl, it wan held lli:it althon^h the society was nnincoip(»i-ated at the lime of niakinj; the ascrijitioii, was held enfitle»l to he reini- hursed hefore makin«!; tiie conveyance, f'anajoharie and Palatine Clinrch v Leiber, 2 Taige (Mi. ( N. Y. ) 4:}. De Facto, Property Rights. A religions association, al- though by reason of irregularities in complying with the l>rovisions of the Massachusetts General Statutes, chap. 32, if has failed to ln'conie a corporation, is nevertheless en- titled by the General Statutes, chap. aO, sec. 24, to hold property given to it by the name which it assumed; and another religions society subsequently incor]>orated. is not entitled to take the name or the i)roperty. Gleudale Union Christian Society v Brown, 109 Mass. 163. De Facto. In All Saints' Church v Lovett, 1 Hall's Sup. Ct. (N. V.) 1!)5, it was held that even if the certificate of incorporation was defective in some particulars, the society became a de facto <'or]»oration, and it might be piesumed that all the re(piiremenfs of the statute were complied with. A person who accepts an api)ointment to an otMce by such a de facto cori)()ration cannot, in an action against him by the corporation, allege that the original incorporation of the church was invalid or irregular. A betpiest to this church was contested on the ground that the proof of incorporation was defective, but the court held that the society had claimed and exercised the powers of a corporation for nearly twenty years, and it was, there- fore, to all intents and purposes a de facto corporation and entitled to the legacy, Chittenden v Chittenden, 1 Am. L. Reg. ( X. V. t r>:?S. Denominational Character. The corporation organized RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS 605 under the religious corporations act of 1S13 has uo denom- inational character, nor can such a character be in any manner engrafted upon it. That i)ortion of the members organized into a separate body called the church maj' be- long to a jteculiar denomination, but it has no power to impress its distinctive character upon the corporation, so as to render it ineffaceable by the voice of a majority of the cor]>orati()n. I'ctty v Tooker, 21 N. Y. 1*71 ; see amend- ment of IST"), < hap. 7!(. Dissolution, Effect. The charier of the corporation was terminated by the exnii-ation of the time fixed by the stat- ute as the life of the corporation, and the corporation was thereby dissolved. It was held that by such dissolution the lu-opert}' and rights of the corporation l)ecame veste«l in its members, who might, as they did, afterward reincor}»orate and resume possession of the property, anoar«l of Directors of (lerniaii Ki'l'diined (Mi. of Peace of Wasliington County, 1 I!) ^^'is. l!i. Government. A\'hen a church lias ix-cii iiu-oriioratcd. the (;(h; 'nii; cix IL law am> riii; ciii K( ii rc^iiliil ions iiiid cusloiiis of the coiiiimiii ion to wliicli it Ix'- loiif^s rt'j^jii'diii^ Hm' disposition of sccuhir bnsiness will be respect «'d by llie conrls so f;ii- ;is |)ossil)le; and if the mode of ^oveninient in force in tlie denomination at large is not by congregations, l)nt by snperior clerical personages, as semblies, synods, <'oinH'ils, or consistoi'ies, Hk; authority of these will not be displaced if it can be upheld consistently with the laws of the sovereignty. Klix v St. Stanislaus ChuT-ch, 1:17 Mo. Apj). .'547. Incorporation. The holding of the meeting, the election of trustees, and the execution of the certificate in accordance with the statute constitute the substantial requirements to create a corporation, although the recording is necessary to its complete consummation. An error in recording or the loss of one or more seals after they were legally and proi)erly atlixed, would not i)revent the corj»oration from taking effect as such. Trustees, St, Jacob's Lutheran Church V Bly, 7:5 N. Y. :i2:i. North St. Louis Christian Church v McGowan, (32 Mo. 27'>, involved several questions relating to the effect of incorpora- tion. It seems that at a regular meeting of the congregation the majority voted to incori)orate the society. According to the rules of the denomination, this was held binding on the entire congregation, including the minority. It was also held that the clerk's list of mend)ers contained presump- tively the names of all persons belonging to the congrega- tion. The incorporation was sustained. Incorporation, Collateral Inquiry. The validity or regu- larity of proceedings for the incori)oratiou of a religious society cannot be determined by the surrogate in a proceed- ing on an a])idication for the probate of a will. Matter of Arden, 20 St. Kep. (N. Y. ) StM. Incorporation, Validity, How Questioned. The validity of the incorporation of a religious society cannot be drawn in (question by a private suitor in a collateral proceeding. The appropriate remedy is by writ of quo warranto at the suit of the attorney-geueral. or jjerhaps a prosecuting KELTGIOUS CORPORATIONS 607 attorney. Klix v St. Stanislaus Church, 137 Mo. App. 347. A person subscribing to a fund being raised for the pur- pose of erecting a churdi edifice may, in an action against him on his subscription, contest tlie validity of the incoi'i)o- ration of the society. In First Bai)list ('hurch v Kapelee, Hi Wend. (N. Y.) 005, it was held that a certificate of incor- poration could not be acknowledged before a commissioner of deeds, and having been so acknowledged such certificate was defective. Liability for Debt. The trustees borrowed money and gave their promissory note therefor, in which the signers were described as trustees, and the note was given for and on behalf of the church. Neither the loan nor the note was authorized by a vote of the trustees, and the note was signed by tliem without any meeting or formal action. It was held that the society was not liable on the note. Dennison v Austin, 15 Wis. 334. Liability for Injuries Caused by Negligence of Employee. An action cannot be maintained against a religious corpora- tion to recover for injuries sustained by reason of the negli- gence of an emploj^ee of the corporation where there is no allegation that such emi)loyee was not fully qualified for the work he was engaged to i)erforni, or that there has been any negligence on the part of the officers of the corporation in his selection. The defendant was organized as a mission- ary society. It had no funds except those contributed from time to time by friends for the ])urpose of carrying on the missionary work. The donors selected this society as the trustee to cari'y on missionary work. Tlu; estate, fuinls, anI(»y('<'s of llic coriMMMlioii oi- persons eli;ir^e(l with tlie orated society, includ- ing land conveyed to it for church purposes. Baptist Church, Hartford v Witherell, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y. ) 296. Members. "When a corporation is formed for religious pur- poses every one who belongs to the congregation becomes. RELIGIOUS COIU'OKATIONS 609 by force of the statutes, a member of the corporation, even though a few individuals are named in the charter as trus- tees or directors, and that document is issned to tliem. A church or congregation by incorporating is constituted a civil political institution, comj)osed of the members of the congregation, and the sovereignty of the body, so to speak, vests in and remains with the majority, regard- less of whether they adliere to the orthodox faith of the sect and continue in fellowsliip with its synods, jjresby- teries, or other governing bodies, or become heretical and recusant. Klix v St. Stanislaus Church, lo7 Mo. App. ;;47. Member Expelled, No Claim for Damages. The plaintitV, who had been excommunicated by the congregation, brought an action against the cor]»oration to recover for money con- tributed by him for the purchase of j)roperty. It was hebl that the corporation was not res])onsible for the act of the congregation, and tlierefore not liable in damages to an excommunicated person. Reinke v German Evangelical Lutheran Trinity Church, 17 S. Dak. 202. Member's Expulsion. A religions corporation has no cap- ital stock. Its constitution and by-laws, as well as the authorizing statute, require all powers relating to business and i)roi)e]'ty to be exercised by a board of ti'ustees, only two thirds of whidi must be members of the church. Tlu'se trustees, whose action the congregations by wliich they arc elected may reject or ratify, have notliing to do witli the matter of discipline or ex}Milsion. and the corj)or;ition is not bound by nor :inswerable in damages lor (lie coikIiui of nnotiticial meinbers. Ifelidve v Gei-man l]\ angelical lai tlieran Trinity (Miuich, 17 S. D. 2(;2. Member's Liability. IVIembers are not iiit]i\ idnally liable on a judgment aiul e.\«MMtioii agaiiisl llie < oi-poral ion. !»irli- ardson v Bntterlield. VA) Mass. 11)1. Members, When May Not Be Excluded. The coiporai ion has no ])ower to try for any moral delincnuMu y or to disfi-an- chise a corporator in consequence thereof. Mantlamus is (110 Till'] ('i\ii. LAW A.\i» 'I'm: i'lii Kcii iiol (he |»r()|)('r remedy in siidi :i case, hut the; e(jr|»(jrat()i' has an adequate remedy al law. People ex rel Dilcher v (Jenuan Tiiited Kvaiijrclical Cli. (»f Butlalo, rv.'> N. V. 103. Michigan Rule. In Mieliij^aii a i-eli;;i<)us society does not beconjc a cor|)oration merely by selecting trustees. Allen V Diillie, i:: Mich. 1. Minors as Members. Where a religious corporation con- sists of certain ])ersons and their families it was held that the minor sons as nuMnhers of the father's family became members of the corj)oration, and continued such after arriv- ing at full age until they changed their membership in some mode jirovided by statute. Bradbui-y v Cary, 5 ]\Ie. 3o9. New Organization, Effect. "The members or some of the members of an insolvent or donnant corporation may or- jianize a new corporation for the })romotion of the same purpo.ses to which the old one is dedicated, without becom- ing chargeable with its debts or obligations." "On the other hand, the mere change in the name of a corporation has no effect upon its legal status or upon the rights of creditors." Allen v North Des Moines Methodist Episcopal Church, 127 la. 9(>. New York Rule. Under the New York religious corpora- tions act of 1818 the corporation "consists not of the trus- tees alone, but of niend)ers of the society; the society itself is incorporated, not merely the trustees, and its members are the corporators." Gram v Prussia Emigrated Evan- gelical Lutheran (lerman Society, oG N. Y. ItJl. Object and Purpose. "A corporation is formed for the ac- (ini.sition and taking care of the i)roperty of the church, and is in no sen.se ecclesiastical in its functions." Hundley v Collin.s, i;51 Ala. 2;U. The only and primary object of the corporation is the acquisition anower to bind the corporation by individual action, but the board must act as a body. People's Bank v St. Anthony's Cli. loii N. Y. 512. Property, Limitation. If a corporation takes land by grant or devise, in trust or otherwise, which, by its charter, it cannot hohl, its title is good as against third persons and strangers; and the State alone can interfere. If the cor- poration exceeds the ])rescribed amount though it be by an original i)urchase, nobody but the State can interfere wi(h the holding of the i>roperty which it ac(iuires, and it is a matter of which individuals cannot avail themselves iu any way. T)e Cam]) v Dobbins, 20 X. J. l">(i. :>(!. It is too late on ai)peal to raise, for the tirst time, the (piestion that a corjjoration has already accpiired property up to or excee< not on the (•<»r|»oiiilioii. Conklin v l>:ivis, (».'*. Coiiii. 'Ml. Religious Connection. Tlic incic fixt ilial a «<)jj)orarioii is under llie control o\ nicniltcrs (»l a partii'iilar clinrcli does not make it a religious corijoralioii. Baltzell v C'lniidi Honied lufinnary, Baltimore, 110 Md. 244. Removal to New House. The society erected and moved into a new nieetiuj;liouse. The act of goinj; from the old meetinj;honse to the new one was the act of tlie society, and they took with Ihem all the rights of the society and body c()rj)orate, vacating none, leaving n«)ne behind; so that no ]>er.sons, after such removal, could remain behind and claim to be the ancient, or remains of the ancient society. Filing a new certificate of incorporation nnder the mistaken sup- position that the first certificate had been lost, sinii)ly con- tinued the old society and was not a new incorporation. Miller v English, 21 N. J. Law, 317. Roman Catholic, Charter. Application for charter which was opjiosed by the bishoj) of the diocese. The a]>])licants were of Polish birth, and the purpose for which a charter was asked was stated to be ''the support of public worship according to the faith, doctrine, discijdine, and usages of the Roman Catholic Church.'' The bishop alleged that the object was not as so stated, but is really to secure the incor- ]>oration of a schismatic body which has received the cen- sure and condemnation of the duly constituted authorities of the church mentioned; that under the canon law of that church no such organization as that proposed can be formed except with the couseut of the ordinary or bishop, and that he has not given his consent, and will not do so; that i>ublic wor.ship according to the usages of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be conducted without a regularly ordained l)riest in good standing, whose attendance could not be obtained in the })resent instance; and, finally, that the pos- session of a charter would only make it possible for a group of factious, turbulent, and designing per.sons to delude Cath- olics of I'olish birth into the idea that this was a regularly RELIGIOUS CORFORATIONS 613 orgaiiized Romau Catholic congregation. These allegations were admitted by counsel for the applicants. The court said it had no concern with the general policy of the Roman Catholic Church, and could take no notice of its schisms and differences on ]>()ints of doctrine and discipline. But while a schisiiiatical body of tlic ( liurdi had a legal right to a separate incorporation, its jipidicalion for a charter must be t, at common law, be seized under writs of execution dircctetl to the sheriff. Beam v First Methodist Episcopal Church, Lancaster, Pa., 3 Pa. L. J. Rep. 343. Taxation. The property of a religious corporation is not exempt from assessment for local imj)rovements. Harlem IVesbyterian (Muirch v N. Y., 5 Hun. (N. Y.) 442. Three Elements. The statiitc recognizes three distinet classes or bodies as existing in tlie religious <(»rpoiMt ion CI I Tin: ('i\ iL I, AW AM) Tin: ciniicn iiiid (Icliiics llicif iclnlivc powers :iihI duties: l-'irsl. The elnn"«li, «>r spirihiiil body, coiisisliiif'^ of the ollice bearers :iimI (((iiiiiMmieimls. Second. The conj^re^atiini, or electors, einlnaeinji; all the stated hearers oi- atteiidai)ts on divine \vorshi|> who are competent to vote for trustees. Third. The trustees of the <()r|M)ration, wlio have the control of all its teni|>oralities, to be improved, nsed, and manaj^ed by them lor the benefit of all the stated hearers and Hh" com- municants as far as practicable. The church, or sjiiritnal body, as to its doctrine, govem- uieiit and worship is to be governed and regulated by its own ]»ecnliar rules, which neither the trustees nor the con- gregation have any right to interfere with or alter without the consent of the church itself. Lawyer v Cipperly, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 281. Trustee. A corporatiou cannot act as trustee in relation to any matter in which it has no interest. But where i)ro]»- erty is devised or granted to a corporation, })ai'tly for its own use and partly for the use of others, the right of the corporation to take and hold the property* for its own use. carries with it, as a necessai*}' incident, the power to exe- cute that part of the trust which relates to others. Ke Howe, 1 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 213. Trustees, Powers. In a corporation organized under the New York religious corporations act of 1813 the trustees elected and acting as such, and their successors, are vested with the custody, possession, management, and legal con- trol of all the property and temjtoralities belonging to their particular society, in the same manner and to the same effect as the directors of private corporations are entitkMl to the possession and contnd of their proi)erty. an])osition to the authority, will, and re(piirenient of the trustees. All such acts of individual RELIGIOUS COKrORATIONS 015 corporators, or of llic wliolc body of tlie corporation, cxclu sive of, aud in oi)i)osition to the trustees, are illegal and all such persous so acting are simply trespassers. First Methodist Episco])al Churcii, Attica v Filkins, o T. cV: C. (N. Y.) I'T!). Trustees, Majority Must Meet and Act. Where there is a detinite body in a cori)oration the niajoiity of that (UMinilc body must not only exist at the time wlien any a( t is to be done by them, but a majority of that body must attend the assembly where the act is to be done. Moore v liectoi-, St. Thomas, 4 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 51. Unauthorized Sale of Property. If a religions corporation sells and conveys real j)roperty without an order of the court, such a sale and transfer may be rescinded upon the return, or offer to return, the consideration received. Asso- ciate Presbyterian Congregation, Hebron v Hanna, ll;> App. Div. (N. Y.) 12. Who Constitute. Tn the Protestant Episcoi)al Church the vestry, and not the congregation, constitute the cori)oration. Stubbs V Vestry of St. -lohn's Ch. !)() Md. 207; see also Tarter V Gibbs, 24 Md. l]2:i. A religious corporation, uniii y, (>1 N. 11. I'CO. ruder Hie M;ii'yliiiid act of ISOI', providiii*^ for the incor- porsitioii of reliii;io»)s societies, the trustees ;in,al«iiiiuiv v Caiiiiack, 1' Md. Ch. 14:5. Young Men's Christian Association. This association wa.s liehl not a religious corporation w ithiii the New ^'oi-k Trans- fer Tax Law as anieinh'd in 1!M)0, and therelore not exeni]»t from the i)aynient of a transfer tax on a legacy. Ko Watson, 171 X. V. 250. In Matter of Fay. ^7 Misc. (N. Y) 532, it was held that the association (incorporated under a special act) was not a religious corporation within the meaning of the Transfer Tax Act. and was therefore not exempt from taxation under that statute. Young Women's Christian Association. The work of the Young Women's Christian Association, in accoi'dance with the ohjects of its incoi'i>oration, includes tlie holding of gospel services, teaching I^nglish to foreigners, and furnish- ing food and lodging for women i>assing through the city, for which comi>en.sation is received from those who are able t(» i»ay. Its general object is religious and chaiitable. and its j)roperty exclusively devoted to that object would un- doubtedly be exemjtt from general taxation under the New Hampshiie statutes. It is therefore entitled to exemption from the inheritance tax. Carter v Whitcomb. 74 N. H. 482. RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT Defined, 617. Defined. A relij^ious establi?sliineiit is where the State prescribes a foriinihny of faith and worship for the rule and governnienl of all the subjects. Muzzy v Wilkins, Smith's N. H. Rep. 1. 617 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM American rule, 618. Charitable inKlitution.s, 618. Civil fourts, limitation of power, 619. Civil courts, 610. Compulsory chunh attcnciantc, 619. Discrimination not allowed, 620. Limitation, 620. Louisiana, 621. Mjussachusetts, 621. Memorials, 622. Minor children, 622. Officer, 622. 0-cgon, 623. Pennsylvania, 623. Polygamy, 623. Sectarian controversies, 624. United States, 624. Virginia, 625. Voluntary basis, 625. American Rule. In this coniiti-y the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of morality and ])ro])erty, and which does not infringe j)ersonal riglits, is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the sui)port of no dogiiui, the establishment of no sect. The right to organ- ize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expres- sion and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. Watson V Jones, V^ Wall. (U. S). G70. Charitable Institutions. In Reg. v Haslelnirst. lo Q. B. D. 618 ki:lk510US freedom (;i!) (Eng.) 253, the oomi sustained the eini)h>ynient of a Koinaii Catholic clei'gyinaii to minister to the religious wants of the Roman (.'atholic inmates of the workhouse. Citing the poor law amendment act of 1834, which, in substance, i)ro- vided that no rules or orders of the Poor Law Commis- sioners should oblige any inmate of a workhouse to attend any religious service contrary to his religious princijiles, and that it should be lawful for any licensed ministci- of the religious persuasion of any innuite to visit the woik house for the i)urpose of affording religious assistance lo such inmate and instructing his child or children in ihe principles of their religion. Civil Courts, Limitation of Power. Religious freedom and religious toleration would not long survive if one mend)er of a religious organization, feeling himself aggrieve 'imii; (M\ii. law .\m» rin; ciukcii Discrimination Not Allowed. I'doic llic i-onsiihiiioii .lews and Gentiles ni-e ('(|ii;il ; l»y llic l:i\\ lliey musi he ticiilcf] ;ilike. It WJis licM lli.il :iii urdiiiiince of the City Coiiiicil of Slweveport, Loiiisinii;!, |»roliil»it iiii; llie t r;iiis;icl ion of cer- lain kinds of business on Sniil with the defeudanls' sense of religious duty aud in worship- ing God aeeordiiig to llie ower can confer upon parents the right to control or interfere with the rights of conscience of a minor child who has arrived at the years of discretion. A father has no right to control or interfere with the rights of conscience of a minor child in relation to the worshij) of Almighty God. His exercise of parental authority so as to control or interfere with the rights of conscience of such minor child would be an exercise of human authority so as to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in a particular case, wliereas it is declared that it cannot be done in any case whatever. Commonwealth v Sigman. '2 n-Avk I Pa.) 30. Officer. The Constitution of Missouri, art. 2. sec. T). de- clares that no person can, on account of his religious opin- RELIGIOUt? FKKEDOM (\'2:\ ious, be reiKleied ineligible to any office of tru.st or inofit. This was held to apply to a gnardian of a minor who was said to occupy an office of trust under the constitution. State ex rel Baker v Bird, 253 Mo. 5G9. Oregon. The right of mankind to believe and teach such doctrines regarding religion as meet the a])proval of their consciences is recognized under our form of government as inherent, but it is freely accorded to every sect and denom- ination in the land, and is so interwoven with the ]>rinci})les which underlie our political fabric that it cannot be taken away without the general consent or a violent revoluti I'. S, '.V-V.\. Sectarian Controversies. Keligious freedom is one of the distinguishing characteristics of our country. No one sect of Christians is, in law, entitled to ju'eeminence over an- other; and all denominations of Christians, while they demean themselves i)eaceably, nun' eipially claim the pro- tection of the law. Every religious sect is free to profess and to propagate its sentiments, to inculcate them by words and in writing, and consequently to display the errors of others. And while the various combatants confine them- selves to using the arms of reason alone, preserving good humor and Christian charity and forbearance toward each other, the peace of the ^^tate will not suffer, and the govern- ment and laws will protect them all. Doubtless more good than evil results from the diversity of religious opinions which })revail at the i)reseut arb of the society after notice of the superintendent's order. They were lield not entitled to recover compensation for services rendered while wearing such garb after notice of such order. Pennsylvania. The religious belief of many teachers all over the commonwealth is indicated by rlieir api)arel. Quakers or Friends, Ommish, Dnnkards, and other sects wear garments which at once disclose their membership in a religious sect. Ministers or preachers of many Protes- tant denominations wear distinctively clerical garb. No one has yet thought of excluding them as teachers from the schoolroom on the ground that the peculiarity of their dress wonld teach to pupils the distinctive doctrines of the sect to which they belonged. The dress is but the announce- ment of a fact that the wearer holds a particular religious belief. Hysong v Gallitzin Borough School District, KM I'a. G21). See also the article on Sectarian Instruction. In 181>5 an act was passed providing that no teacher in any i)ublic school of this commonwealth shall wear in said school, or whilst engaged in the performance of his or her duty as such teacher, any dress, mark, emblem, or insignia indicating the fact that such teacher is a mend>er or adher- ent of any religious order, sect, or denomination. The act was sustained in Commonwealth v Herr. 229 Pa. 132. 626 RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES Defined, 627. Limits of inquiry, 627. Defined. Religious j)i'inciples are those sentiments, con- cerning the rehitions between God and man, whicli may influ- ence hunum conduct. Of these perhajjs the most influential hitherto has been the view entertained as to the probability that God would i)unish vice. A person's sentiments on that subject must be deemed part of his religious principles. It is urged that disbelief cannot be called religious principle. I'erhaps, if one denied the existence of a Supreme Being, it might in a pro])er .sense be said that he had no religions princii)les. because he could not entertain any oi)iuion touch- ing the relations between God and man, unless a denial of any such relations might be so denominated. But to a per- son who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being there pertain necessarily, or at least probably, some views with regard to the relations between him and ns, which modify the life of the individual. The mere fact that in those rela- tions he has discovered no divine purpose of punishment for specific acts does not militate against his possession of religious i)rinci])les and among them are his belief, his dis- belief, and his doubt concerning those relations. State v IV)wers, 51 N. J. L. 4:52. Limits of Inquiry. No civil tiibuii;il has the i-ight to en- force a creed or system of doctiine or belief on any man, or to re(piire him to assent to any i)rescribed system of doi- trine, or to search out his belief for tlie i)ur])ose of restrain- ing or punishing it in any teuii)<)ral tribunal ; but such a tri- bunal has a right to ascertain by competent evidence, what are the religious princij)les of any man or set of men, when, as may fretpiently be the case, civil rights are thereon to depend, or thereby to be decided. Heudrickson v Decow, 1 Saxton, (N. J.) 577. 627 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES Building committee, 629. By-laws, 629. Chiingc of denominational relations, 630. Change of doctrine, effect, 630. ChapeLs, 630. Committee, defense in legal proceedings, 631. Congregation and corporation, distinction, 631. Congregational, 632. Congregational, divi.sion, effect, 632. Connectional relations, 633. Consolidation, 633. Constitution, 634. Contract, 634. Conveyance, presumption, 634. Debts, 634. Debts, when successor not liable for, 634. Defined, 635. Devise, diversion, 635. Devise, New York rule, 635. Dissolution, 636. Diversion of property, 636. Division, effect on property, 636. Division, minority's right, 636. Doctrine and worship, control, 637. Freedom of organization, 637. Illinois rule, 637. Incorporation, 637. Incorporation, certificate seal, 637. Incorporation, how proved, 637. Incorporation not necessary, 638. Independent, diversion of trust, 638. Individual rights, 638. Joint incorporation, 638. Liability, 638. Liability of members, 638. Majority, powers, 639. Massachusetts rule, 639. 628 K1:L1(J10US societies C29 Meetings, 639. Meeting, how called, 639. Name, 639. New York act of 1813, 640. Organization, jjowers, 640. Property, conveyance to members, effect, 640. Property, how to be used, 641. Quorum, 641. Reincorporation, identity, 641. Rules of order, 641. School moneys, sharing in, 641. Secession, 642. Self-government, 642. Separation, effect, 642. Separation or independence, when impossible, 642. Services, society may regulate admissions and conduct, 642. Subscriber's right to prevent diversion, 643. Threefold aspect, 643. Two societies, one minister, 643. Unincorporated, status, 644. Union with another denomination, 645. War claim, 645. Who constitute, 645. Withdrawal from synod, effect, 645. Building Committee. Two out of three members of a build- ing committee, appointed to erect a church edilice, made a contract for that jiurpose, in which thej' were described as a building committee. It was jield that the two menduTs of the committee who signed the contract were not person- ally liable thereon. The contract created an obligation against the society, ;m(l not against the individuals wlio signed as the building coiiiiiiittee. Ilewitl v Wlieclcr, '22 Conn. 557. By-Laws. \N'lierever religious associations h;ivi' been or- ganized to assist in the ex])ression and dissemination of religious doctrine, and have created lor tlieir direction in matters of doctrine, diurcli government, .md discii)line, tri- bunals within (he association, the final and controlling elfect of the ecdesiasticnl jjolity tluis formed u])on tlic individuMl members and congregations and ollicers within the gcnt'ial (;:!(» Tin: <"i\iL LANV A.\i> Tin: ciivmm iissociii I i<»ii will not l»c (|ii('st ioiicd, Itiil will Ix' ^i\('ii cllcct ((( ill tln> civil courtH. All who unite theiiiHclvcs to sikIi a hody do so with the implied consent to submit to the system <»r ('(■(•h'siiistical control, and arc hound hy it. First Presby- terian Chunh, Perry v Myers, 5 Okl. 800. Change of Denominational Relations. In Bellport Parish v Tookcr, l!!) Barb. (X. V. i iTid, it was held that the society could chanp' Ironi a Congregational to a Presbyterian church. "Every religious society, unless restrained by some special trust, by the general law were at liberty to change their denomination, and ])rofess and ])0ssibly to inculcate any Christian faith or doctrine, and adojjt the form of wor.shij) most agreeable to themselves; and bj' doing so, no forfeiture could be incurred." Attorney-General v Proprietors of Mce1in Gray (Mass.) 1. Change of Doctrine, Effect. Where the constitution of a reli- jjious society vests the j)Ower to make or repeal any rule of disci|)line in the General Conference, subject to the re- striction that no rule or ordinance shall at any time be ])assed to change or do away with the existing confession of faith, and prohibits any alteration of the constitution unless by the request of two thirds of the whole society, and the Conference, without such request, formulates substan- tial changes in and additions to The confession of faith and amendments of the con.stitution, and on a vote of two thirds of the members of the society voting, but not of the society, declares said altered confession of faith and amended con.stitution adopted, such action is invalid, and the title and right to the pos.session of the real estate of the society is in that part thereof which is acting in har- mony with the original constitution and laws, regardless of its numerical strength. Rear v Heasley, OS >rich. 270; see the article on United Bi-ethren in Christ. Chapels, (^hapels founded in connection with a congrega- tion or ])arish will not be allowed to cut loose from the church under who.se care and au.spices they weie established. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES 631 and carry with llicni the propeily acquired, in i)art or in whole, l).y the conlribiilion.s of the mother church or its members, or tliat which persons not connected with tlie organizations may have given for its support as an adjunct to the parent church. Rector, etc., Christ Church v Rector, etc., Cliurch of the Holy Communion, 14 IMiihi. (l*a.) (51. Committee, Defense in Legal Proceedings. In llarbison v First Tresbyterian Society, 40 Conn. 529, it was held that a committee of an ecclesiastical society has ]»ower to defend at the cost of the so<-iety against legal ]»ro(eedings endan- gering either the existence of the corporation or its rights or property. It may thus defend against a petition for an injunction forbidding the sale of its pews. But such a com- mittee has no power to defend at the cost of the society against legal proceedings which affect only themselves per- sonally in their character as a committee. It may not so defend against jjroceedings to test the question whether the committee has been legally elected. Congregation and Corporation, Distinction. The members of the society or congregation form the corporate body, such members being the cor])orators, and the trustees are mere officers of the cori)oration. The body or entity thus brought into existence is a civil corporation with such func- tions and j)owers as the statute confers upon it and its officers, and in no sense is it an ecclesiastical corporation. It is wholly indei)endent in its existence, an thk (miiuw siimc liiiic Itc iiicriihcrs ol llic corixtiMlc hody tlic <(trj)()- rwlors willi rij;lils. |»ri\ ilc^^cs, jiid inlcicsls wliitli conic f'l-oiii thill i-cl;il ion. Tlic ;icls ol IMI;"), cliai). 71), iind isHJ, cliap. I7(>, r('(|nirinelon^s is always a (piestion of fact to he deterinined from tlie testimony which may be preseuted in a particnlar ca.se. Isham v Fidl- agcr, 14 Al)l). N. C. (N. Y.) '^(u^. Congregational. A congregational society is generally made up first of the church and next of those who worship with the clnii-cli and favor the same views, and wlio assist in snpixM-ting the preaching and pnldic worship of that church. The society, as snch, often, ]>erhaps generally, has no creed or i)ublished religions opinions distinct from the church; the church is the basis of the whole. This is true in the Congregational societies in tliis country, generally, whether ortliodox or T^nitai'ian. The ministers are generally settled by the society, but they become pastors of the chnrch as well as of the society; and the creed or belief of the society is not to be sought in the constitution or by-laws, but in the creed or belief of the church with \\liich sai tiii; cm ncii ii()iiiin:iti()ii:il. Sl(»l. Debts, When Successor Not Liable For. The disbandment of an incorporated religious societj' following a sale of its jiroperty on foreclosure, and the incorporation of a new society composed in part of the same persons, and the pur- chase of the church property by the new corporation from the purchaser on the foreclosure sale, does not make the new cor])oration liable for the debts of the first corporation. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES 635 Allen V North I)es Moines Methodist lOpiscopal ( 'lunch, 127 la. 90. Defined. A religious society or congregation, as recog- nized by the New York religious corporations law, is what is usually denominated a poll i)arisli in some of the neighbor- ing States. It consists of a volnntarj' association of indi- viduals or families, united for the i)urpose of liaving a com- mon place of worship, and to provide a proper teacher to instruct them in religious doctrines and duties, and to ad- minister the ordinance of baptism. Althougli a churcli, or body of professing Christians, is almost unifonnly ton- nected with such a society or congregation, tlie mend)ers of the church have no other or greater rights tlian any other members of the society who statedly attend with them for the j)urposes of divine worship. Baptist Church, Hartford v Witherell, :i Paige (^h. (N. Y.) 21)0. Religious societies of sects and denominations are foundcti for the purpose of uniting together in public religious w<)r- shij) and religious services, according it) the custoniai-y, ha- bitual, or systematic forms of the particular sect or de- nomination, and in accordance with, and to ])romote and enforce their common faith and belief. There cannot be a sect or denomination of religious peisons without any com- mon religious belief. State v Trustees, 7 Ohio St. 58, hold- ing that a library association was not entitled to share in the proceeds of the rent of jniblic land set apart by the state to aid religious denominations. Devise, Diversion. \\'here i)roperty was ose. Bailey v Lewis. ;'► I >ay (Conn.) 450. Devise, New York Rule. The New York religious coipoia- tions act of 17S4 did not authorize a i-eligions coiporaiion to take by (»1, 302. See also to same ellect Mt. Zion Bai)ti.st Ch. v Whit more, 83 Iowa 138. Division, Effect on Property. Tlie title to the church ])rop- erty of a congregation that is divided is in that part of the congregation that is in harmony with its own laws, usages, and customs as acce])ted by the body before the division took place, and who adhere to the regular organization. In such a case it does not matter that a majority of any given congregation or Anniuil Conference is with those wlio dissent. The power of the majority, as well as that of the minority, is bound by the Discipline, and so are all the tri- bunals of the church from the lowest to the highest. Upon the questions arising under the Discipline, as upon those arising under the articles of faith, the decisions of the ecclesiastical body are ordinarily linal, and they will be respected and enforced by the courts of law. Krecker v Shirey, 163 Pa. St. 534. Division. Minority's Right. An adhering minoritv' of a local or territorial parish, and not a seceding nmjority, con- RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES 637 stitutes till" cliuicli of such i)ai-isli to all civil puritoses. Stebbiiis v .J('iiniii<4s, 10 Tick. (Mass.j ]71. Doctrine and Worship, Control. A religious society own- ing a meetinghouse may decide, without interference from the jjew-owners, what doctrines shall be preached in their house, and what religious teachers shall be emplojed to preach them. Trinitarian Congregational Society, F'rauces- town V Union Congregational Society, Francestown, (il N. H. 384. Freedom of Organization. Keligious societies are not free if they may not choose their own form of organization. They may organize as indei>endent churches, and then their law is found in their own separate institutions, customary and written. Or they may organize as associated churches, and then their law is to be found in their own rules, and in those of the associated organisms. McGinnis v Watson, 41 Pa. St. i). Illinois Rule. The incorporated religious societies are not to be classified with ecclesiastical corporations, as known to the English laws, which were composed entirely of eccle- siastical persons and subject to ecclesiastical judicatories, but, rather, with civil cor})orations, to be controlled and managed under the general principles of law applicable to such corporations, as administered by the civil courts. Cal kins V Cheney, 92 111. 4(53, Robertson v Bullions, 11 X. V. 243. Incorporation. A substantial compliance with the reijuire- ments of the statute relating to incorporation is sufticient, and an error in recording the papers will not prevent the incorporation from taking effect. Matter of Arden, 20 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 805. Incorporation, Certificate Seal. In Trustees St. .Jacob's Lutheran Church, 73 N. Y. 323, the incorporation of the society was sustained notwithstanding the absence of seals on the certificate as recorde():;. Keligious societies acting as corporate bodies under the siiilute, must be governed by majorities, and llie minority must submit or secede. This rule must, in tlie nature of things, ai)ply iu all temporal atfairs, but difference iu faith or doctrine may l)e determined on different principles. Miller v English, 21 N. J. Law, :517. The will of a majority wlicn known iind duly expressed must conclude unless so jjalpably unjust as clearlj^ to indi- cate an arbitrai-y, wanton, and desti-uctive purpose, '^t is the right of a majority to control in all civil affairs, and no less in the management of the temjjoralities of a religious society than any other." Cooper v Presby. Church of Sandy Hill, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 222. Massachusetts Rule. A religious society is not a private corporation under the Massachusetts act of 1852. chap. 312, sec. 42, relative to the improper or illegal use of a franchise. Goddard v Smithett, 3 Gray (Mass.) IK;. Meetings. If a society vote to hold their annual meetings upon a certain day in each succeeding year, a meeting held on a day so fixed, without fui-ther notice, is not legal, even after a practice of holding them thus for fifty years. Hl- cock V Hoskine, 4 Day's Kej). (Conn.) (».{. Meeting, How Called. If the charter does not i)rovide a jtlan for calling meetings of the society for the election of trustees, such a meeting may be called by a justice of the peace on the ajjplication of live nuMubers of the society. Ladd V Clements, 1 Cush. (Mass.) \H\. Name. In rennsylvania it was lichl llial a pioceeding t»> change the name of a religious corporation could not be en- tertained by the court without notice of the aiijdication first (ill! 'riii: ('i\ iL I, AW AM» 'iiii: cnrKcii served mi tin- ;i iiditor ^'ciicial. IJc I"'irsl I'lcsbyterian Clnircli. I'.l< liclfl, 107 I'm. SI. 51:5. Oi'dcr «Ii;iii}iiiiji iiiiiiic iiijiy l»' revoked, lie, Ahyssiiiiini Ji;i|>lisl (Mmicli, 1:5 X. V. Siij.p. !»l!t. New York Act of 1813. A I flu- lime of llie passage of this act lliere exisled in lliis Stale iniinei'oiis deiioniiiiations oi'}:;aiiize(] iiilo voIniilai\v associations, eacli distinct and se|)arale from each oilier, <]ill'eiinjf in failli, doctiine, usage, and discipline, all independent, beiii^ enliindy free fi-oni Slate intei t'erence and conti-ol. This was the situation fiom the early selth'meiit of the count ly. None of these icli^ious hodies pos.sessejl any of the cai»acities. attrihutes, and" rights of a corj>orate body. In the law they liad uo legal existence. Tliey were regarded as s]»i ritual organ- izations, many of them end)racing within their aims and purposes other objects, such as sui)i>oiting schools and col- leges, founding charities. After the formation of the cor- j)oratioii the s]>iritual body remains, which is composed of the church members. The corporation entity deals with the temporalities of the society only. Isham v FuUager, 14 Abb. N. r. (N. Y. I :i(;:;. Organization, Powers. Where persons formed themselves in an association for religious jiurposes, without any lay organization, under the Massachusetts statutes or other- wise, l»ut solely under the advice and direction of the min- isters and elders of their denomination, and entered into an agreement which they afterward fulfilled, to support and nuiintain public worship, became a religious society under the statute, and became competent as such to take grants or donations, and to prosecute an action of tres- pass to maintain and defend the possession of real estate granted or leased to them for their use as a religious society. Christian Society IMymouth v Macomber, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 155. Property, Conveyance to Members, Effect. In Pennsylvania it was held that religious societies were in the nature of corjttu-ations, and that a grant to the members of such a liELIGIOU« {SOCIETIES 641 society, where the purpose is to pioniote the charity lor which the society Wtis organized, is a grant to the society itself. Brown v Lutheran Church, 2'^ I'a. St. 495. Property, How to Be Used. An incorporated society must appropriate its jiroperty tor the payment of their debts; and if they neglect to do so, and permit the pro]»erty to be wasted, the individual members may be liable. A meeting- house is not liable to be taken in execution for the debts of such society. Bigelow v Congregational Society. Middle- town, 11 Vt. 283. Quorum. The rule of the common law is where a society or corporation are composed of an indetinite number of per- sons, a majority of those who ai)pear at a regular meeting of the same constitute a body comj»etent to transact business. Field V Field, Wend. (N. Y. l IVM, in which the rnle is applied to a meeting of members of a local Society of Friends. Reincorporation, Identity. Tlie society was iiu<>rpora(e'l in 18oS under (he iieligions Corporations A( t of 1S1:». it was reincorporated in 1851 under the same act. The earlier society had become ])ractically dissolved by failure to elci t trustees. The surviving mend)ers reincorporated uiit]( r another name. It was held that this would not allect the identity of the society, it appearing that the new society was the same as the one which was incori)orated in IS.'JS. The uew society Avas, therefore, entitled to the [U'operty owned by the original society. First Society v Browiu'll, 5 I Inn. (N. Y.) 404. Eules of Order. A religions society may prescribe sucii rules as they may tiiiidc jtroper for ])reserving order when met for public worsliiji, and they may use the necessary force to remove a i)erson who is disturbing the society by a willful violation of a ruh'. McLain v Matlock, 7 hid. .")■_'.". School Moneys, Sharing In. in Connecticut i( w.is liel 'iiii; <"iii k< ii to piirl iri|i;i(<' in llic iiicuiiic llicrror. Ciirj^cl v ( Ii'osvriuH-. L' |{(M»( (( '<»nn. I \~>X. Secession. Tlic niMJority of tlic iii<'Iii1)«ms of a clinrcli can- iiol. Iiavin^i; ahaiKloiM'd llic rcli;;;ions failli on wliidi it \h f()UiHlroi>('rty a((|niifd by the association bcloi'c tlic existence of a scliisni will remain ill tliat faction of the association wliicli abides hy tlie doc- ti'iiies, principles, and i-nles of tlie chui'ch which the united body professed wImmi the ])i'opei-ty was a<(piired. True Ke- formed Dutch (Mi. v iserman. (14 X. J. L. 50r) ; see article on Sec<'ssion. Self-Government. The lueiubers of such a society, in the exercise of their religious liberty, have the undoubted right to ado]>t rules for their own chui-ch government, if not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the land. Prickett v Wells, 1 17 Mo. Rep. 502. Separation, Effect. It is a well-settled ])rinciple that when part of any religious association separate and establish a new society they cease to be members of the original society, and have no longer claim to their property. Trustees Asso- ciate Ref. Ch. V Trustees, Theological Seminary 4 N. J. Eq. 77. Separation or Independence. When Impossible. Whenever a church oi" religious society has been originally endowed in connectiou with, or subordination to. some ecclesiastical organization aiid form of church government, it can no more unite with some other organization or become inde- pendent than it can renounce its faith or doctrine and adopt others. Indeed, in many churches, its ecclesiasticism. or form of church g(nernment, is an im]>ortant, if not a fundamental, i>oint of doctrine. It is based, in their view, ui>on a scriptural model or teaching. Roshi's App. 09 Pa. 4(52. Services, Society May Regulate Admissions and Conduct. While it is usual in all Christian societies and places of ]iublic w(n'shi)> that all persons who choose may in fact RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES G43 attend, aud it is usual to set apart free seats, this is a matter of courtesy aud uot of right. On the contrary, any religious society, unless formed under some unusual terms, may withhold this courtesy, and close their doors, or admit whom they choose only; and circumstances may be easily imagined in which it would be necessary to their peace and order that they should exercise such right. Attorney-Gen- eral V I*roprietors of Meeting House in Federal Street, Boston, o Gray, (Mass.) 1. Subscriber's Right to Prevent Diversion. AVhere a person who, in pursuance of an agreemeut set forth in the subsirip- tion list, has furnished funds to air)li (V. S. Cir. CI. I'a.) ( I5ii;i!il l.v N. I'. :;I7), Jiid^'e Bald- win oxjircsscd tlic ojdiiion lliat in reiinsylviiniii there was no decision that an iricorpoi-ation is necessary to give to any association of individnals the capacity of taking and enjoyinj; an estate in perjielnity, either by the assnnied name of the society or hy trnstees for tlieir use. Neither is there an adjudged case turning' on the statutes of mortmain by whidi any estate has ever been vested in the commonwealth by a forfeiture incurred in consequence of an alienation to a corporate body, without license, charter, or law, or any evidence that such license was ever granted by the pro- prietor or governor. The view which we feel constrained to take of the constitutions of 1701, 1776, and 1790, all of which remain in force so far as respects the rights of prop- erty, conscience, and religious worship, is this: that all bodies imited for religious, charitable, or literary purposes, though without a written charter or law, are to be consid- ered as corporations by prescription, or the usage and com- mon law of the State, with all the attributes and incidents of such corporations by the principles of the common law, and entitled to all rights which are conformable to the cus- toms of the province. Incorporations were almost unknown, yet to all sorts of pious and charitable associations, in every part of the province, valuable bequests were made by those who were ignorant of the niceties of expression necessary to accomplish the object at common law. Nothing was more frequent than bequests to unincorporated congregations, without the intervention of trustees; and even when there was a cor])oration it frequently happened that the corjjorate designation was mistaken, or the trust vaguely defined, not- withstanding which, the testator's bounty was uniformly applied to the object. In Wilkins v Wardens, etc., St. :Mark's Protestant Epis- copal Church, 52 Ga. 851, it was held that a religious so- ciety which was not incorjiorated according to law, or which had not recorded its name and objects, as provided by the KELIGIOUS SOCIETIES G45 Georgia code, could not be sued as such, but that its mem- bers were liable on its contracts as joiut promissors or part- ners. Union with Another Denomination. In Sutter v Reformed Dutch Church, G Wright (Pa.) 50:^, it was held tliat where a congregation of one denomination forms a union with an- other belonging to a different denomination, which had an established form of church government, the congregation is bound by the rules of the denomination which it has joined, and cannot afterward secede therefrom by a vote of the majority of its members. War Claim. This society was incorporated in lS(i2. In a proceeding in the Federal Court of Claims to recover com- pensation for property alleged to have been lost or destroyed during the Civil War, it was held that the society was organ- ized for religious puri)()ses, and that it had not given aid or comfort to the rebellion. The society was held entitled to recover from the United States the value of the property lost. Hebrew Congregation Benai Berith Jacob v United States, 6 Ct. CI. (Ga.) 241. Who Constitute. According to the legal and equitable principles of such associations, it is those who adhere or submit to the regular order of the church local and general (even though they be a minority), that constitute the true congregation, and also the true corporation if it" be incor- porated. Weinbrenncr v Colder, 7 Wright (Pa.) 244. Withdrawal from Synod, Effect. The Zion's English I'van- gelical Lu(her;in Coiigii'g;itioii had power to witiidraw and did withdraw fi-oni the District Synod of Oliio, and any action by the synod, subseciuent to such withdrawal, assum- ing to suspend the minister of the congregation, A. S. Bartholomew, and i)roviding for tilling a vacancy in the ])\\\- pit, was void. ^Icndjcrs of the congi-egat ion not in sym- pathy with the >\itlidrawal movement aflciward ludd a meet- ing and assumed to amend (he ( 'oust it nt ion in rclati(»n to tlie election of trustees and deilare tlie ollice of two trns tees who had joined the withdrawal movement vacant, and ck; Tin: ('i\iL LAW ANh Tin: ciii kcii »'Icro])erty. and which ro]>er expression of religious belief is guaranteed to all." "When religious belief or unbelief leads to acts which interfere with the religious worshi}) and rights of conscience of thos«' who represent the religion of the country, as estabiislied, not by law, but by the consent and ns;ige «)f the ct»nininni(y, and 047 (IIS riii: ciN iL LAW A\i> 'I'm; ciii kch existing Itcloir llic orjiiiiiiziHioii of llic ^((xcniiiieiit, their nets iii;i_v he rest riiiiicd l»y Ic^ishi t ioii, ev(Mi if they are not iii(Ii(liil)h> sil (((innioii liiw." "The n'lij,nous UAcv.uwc is never eoiisisleiil witli ;i recognized lelij^ioii. CoiupulsoiT worship of God in any lorin is j»roliibited, and every nian'H opinion on niatlers of religion, as in otlier matters, is be- yond the reaeli of hiw." Lindenniuller v Peoi)le, 33 Barb, ( X. Y. I r>4S. Mormons. In tlie Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Clirist of J.atler Day Saints v Ignited States, ViG U. S. 1, considering questions involved in the acts of Congress repealing the acts creating the ^lorinon Church, and dis- solving the corporation, and the right of the federal govern- ment to declare the property of the corporation forfeited to the United States in consetpience of the jR-rsistent propa- gation of the doctrine and ])ractice of polygamy, the court said : "One pretense for this obstinate course is that their belief in the i)ractice of polygamy, or in the right to indulge in it, is a religious belief, and therefore under the protec- tion of the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom. This is altogether a soi)liistical ])lea. No d(mbt the Thugs of India imagined that their belief in the right of assassina- tion was a religious belief; but their thinking so did not make it so. The practice of suttee by the Hindu widows may have sprung from a supposed religious conviction. The offering of lunnan sacrifice by our own ancestors in Britain was no doubt sanctioned by an equally conscientious im- pulse. But no one, on that account, would hesitate to brand these practices now as crimes against society, obnoxious to condemnation and punishment by the civil authority. The state has a i)erfect right to prohibit polygamy, and all other open ottenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind, notwithstanding the pretense of religious conviction by which they nniy be ale in due rever- ence to his sovereignty over the souls of mankind; it is en- acted by the anthoi'ity aforesaid, that no person at any time hereafter, living in this provine(N \\ho shall confess and acknowledge one Almighty l)Iij;(', place, or ministry whatever, con- tiary to his or her mind, but shall fully and fieely enjoy his or her (Mnistian liberty in that respect, without any iuterruj>tion or reflection; and if any ])erson shall abuse or deride any other for his or her different persuasion and practice in a matter of religion, such shall be looked upon as a disturber of the peace and be punished accordingly." Here we have the sound doctrines and Christian precepts of William Penn, promulgated to the world as the true foundation of this new government. He was attached to the Society of Friends, and in a government framed by him and in laws dictated by his wisdom, we first fin thi: ciukcii ship, .-iii«l so iiiitlcrslddd li\ :ill ( 'lirist i.iii pcopli'. ('niiiiiion wealth V Fiilh'i-, I I'u. Co. CI. 1L'!». Defined. "In iiMxh'ni (iiiics, llic provision of ;i j)lace and olhci- niciiiis of pnhlic \vorshi|», a<<-or(ling to th(; I'roteHtant ideas, inipli«'s the asseinhiin^ of a body of |»ersoiis together for the general services of ])nl)]ic worship, and for religious instruction : and as connected therewith, a select body, forming and connected together by the covenant, who con- stitute a church in full communion, invested, among other things, Willi the especial opular usage "religions service" is synonymous with "divine service." Proof that a congregation was assembled at a Methodist Episcopal church, at which there was preach- ing and taking up of a collection, is sufficient to show that there was a congregation of persons lawfully assvMubled for divine service. McDaniel v State, 5 Ga. App. 831. Duty of Person Attending. It is the duty of every person attending cliurtli, no matter of what denomination, to pay that respect to the place and the people assembled there as not to disturb or molest tlioni in their worship. Under the RELIGIOUS WORSHIP «;:j:; free coiistitutioii ol' this counliy no man is conipelk'*! to go to auy particular church, uor, indeed, to any cli\nch at all, but if he does so (as it is the duty of every man to go to some church), it is his duty to behave himself while there with decorum aud respect. I'eople v Browu, 1 Wheelers Cr. erases, 121. Majority May Regulate. A few of the members, including some of the olhcers, but against the i)rotest of the majorit}', ])la(e(l a musical organ in the churdi for use in the service. Thi.s ( lunch was Congregational and Independent. Tlie majority of the officers and congregation had power to con- trol forms of worslii|) and the minorlt}' did not possess power (o place an organ in this church without the consent of the majority. Such action by the minority was unauthorized and illegal and constituted a perversion of the church prop- erty which could be restrained by the order of the court. Hackney v ^"awter, ?A) Kan. 015. Musical Instruction; Singing. ''If the purpose of the meet- ing be solely for instruction in the art of singing, although confined to the singing of sacred songs, this would not be an assend)lage met for religious worship." Adair v State, KU Ala. is;:. Orphan Asylum. Religious services held in a colored orphan asylum on Sunday for the inmates only, visitors not being a^^. Place of, When Exempt from Taxation. The buildings owned by the association were held to be places of worship within the constitutional jii-ovision exempting such places fi'om taxation; also vacant land held pending its sale used for the general purposes of the association was exempt under the jtrovision of the constitution allo\\ing the I'xemp- tion of ncd more than one half an acre in cities. Connnon- wealth V Young Men's Christian Associati Ky. Law Rep. 1)10. Preserving Order. A ilinrchwarden may take the hat oil" cr.i 'I'm; ("i\ii. law am> tiii; cm ijcii tlic Ii(';hI oI' one wlio sils lliciH' ('(vcn-d diiiiiijj; (liviiic serv- ice. Such ;icl docs iiol constitute ;iii assjinlt. Ilnll v riaiiiier, 1 Levin/- ( Va\^.) lIXj. Protestant Meetings. In Stale v Scheve, (>."> Neb. .S."jo, involv iiig a question of the right to read the Bible and conduct relij^ious service in the j)ublic schools, J»i]>eal, 7'^ Pa. 30. Taxes, Apportionment. The provision in the Massachu.^etts Declaration of Rights that "all moneys paii)oi't of public \vorsliip. and ol' the jtublic teachers afoi'csaid, shall, if he re(piire it, be uniformly apjdied to the supi>ort of the teacher of his (»\\ u religious denoiiiinal ion. on whose iiist luct ion he attends" was hehl not to include a i)ublic teacher chosen by a vr the woi'sliij) inlciKlc*] hy it. it must lie iiii|)li('regation of St. Stanislaus of the city of St. Louis, and assigns forever, which congregation was composed of I'olish connnunicants of the Catholic Church. Afterward the ardi- bishop executed a conveyance of this property to the St. Stanislaus congregation. The archbishop had power to ap- point tlie directors of the corporation. The i>laintitfs in tliis action claimed the right to elect the KOMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 050 tlirectors or to take part in their election. It was held that tlie plaintiffs were not members of the St. Stanislans Parish corporation, nor entitled to a decree conferring the right of membership upon them, Klix v St. Stanislaus Church, 137 Mo. A pp. rUT. Archbishop, Title to Property. Keal estate was conveyetl to the archbishop by his individual name without any trust or limitation. Tlie j)roi)erty was intended for the use, and was used as the archbishop's residence. The })roi)erty was paid for in large part by contributions from members of tlie congregation. The archl)ishop lield tlie title for the duirch, and not as an individual. It was lield tliat the property was not exempt from taxation. Katzer v Milwaukee, 104 Wis. IG. Archbishop, Title to Property, Pews. The archbishop, who l)y the law of the cliurch, owned the soil on which the church edifice stood, conveyed a pew by deed in the usual form, except that it did not liave a seal, nor use words calling for a seal. It was held that the question whether the pew- owner had acquired the right to a pew by adverse posses- sion should have been snbmitlod to the jury. It was also said in the case *'that the archbishop had no greater rights in respect to the demolition of pews than an organized reli- gious corporation of any other (lenoniination would have had by reason of its ownership of the church." Aylward v O'Brien, 160 Mass. 118. Bishop and Priest, Relations. The bishop ha.s ])ower to determine questions relating to the service and usefulness of the priest. The relation between them is not that of a hirer and hired. When a priest dedicates liis life to the church and takes upon liinisell' the vov.s of olxMlieiice to its laws he is presumed 1o be actuated by a higher principle than the hope of gain. Where he has an actual contract with his congregation or his bisiiop foi* a salary it may be enforced as any other contract; but where he relies ujion the duty of his church to snjypoit him he must invoke the aid of the chui-ch if he seeks redress, in Tni;:g v Sheehan, 101 I*a. St. ;>(i.'l. the |il;iintin'. \\ln> h;i 'I'm; ciiciirii llic position of piicsl of tlic j»;irisli. hronglit an ar-fion against llio bishop to r-ccovcr salai-v fof three years. I)ni' ing that time the priest liad nol performed any servi<-e, and liad been absent from llic pai-ish mosf of the time. It was liebl thai thcr*' was no ((tnti-acl i'clati(»ii between the pi-iest and tiic ltisho]», and no action could be maintaiiMMl against the l)isliop for his salai'V. Bishop, Authority. The bishop ol' the dioc< sc i Pittsburgh ) is trustee of the c(nigregalion in its temporal affairs, and, either directly him.self oi- throngh the priest and ]>astor of his a])])oinlment, coiiti'ols and dii-ects the receipts, and ap])lication of the i)T'o]»erty, income, and ex]»euditui'es of the congregation, but tlie bishojt has no riglit to aiii)ropriate the property for other use than that of tlie congregation. Tuigg V Treacy, KM I'a. 40r?. Bishop's Control Over Priest. The bishop made a decree or order transfeiTing the defendant, a i>riest, from Sewai-d to Red riond in the diocese of Lincoln. The defendant was at that time occnjiying certain church property at Seward, and also at Ulysses. He refused to vacate the property and remove to Red Tloud, as required by the bisho])'s order. The order transferring the riest's salary. They were both servants of the chui'ch, the bishop's relation being that of a superior, and the i)riest was bound to look to the congregation for his compensation. Bishop's Powers. The bishoj) is the governing power of the Catholic Clmich in his diocese. He is said to be the supreme pastor, the supreme teacher, the supreme governor. It is his duty, under the laws aiul discijdine of the churrli, to administer the regulations above nu'utioned, and in so do- ing necessarily to construe and inler])ret them. Ilis deci- sion is to be final and conclusive, excejit as reviewed by his ecclesiastical superiors at Rome. Bonatum v Harrington, 05 Neb. 83 L Bishop, Relation to Corporation, Louisiana Church of St. Louis. This church was iiuorporaled in 1810 by special iwiL' Tin; CIS II- LAW AM> 'nii; cm kcii ;i(l (»r IIm' I.(»uisi;i ii;i Lcj;isl;i I me. Tlic ;hI |tro\i(ic(| lor a l»(»;irr cliiircliw ;i fdciis coliiiioscd rliiclly of l;i yiiicii. 1Mlis hoard liiid no |»o\\"('r to appoint a ciiralc, hut it was tlieir . (La.) 52. Bishop's Supervision. Under the law of the Koman Catholic (.^hurch the bishop has full power in the administration of church affairs; there are no se]»arate parishes; the dio- cese is the parish and the bishop the universal parish priest ; all power possessed by priests or pastors is delegated from the bishop; the clergynmn in charge of a church for the time being has charge of all its temporalities; it belongs to such pastor to make all contracts relating to the temporal affairs of the church, and he is not the agent or servant of the bishop in such nuitters; the only control of the bishop over the pastor is by ecclesiastical discipline; and a bishoj) can- not remove a i)riest exce]>t for cause and by ecclesiastical discipline. Leahey v Williams. 141 Mass. I'L"). KOMAN CATHOLIC CUUKCH G(J3 Bishop's Title to Land — Cemetery. A conveyauce ol laud was made to a bishop and to his heiis aud assigns forever *'in trust for the Catholic conuiiniiity for the purpose of a free burial ground." The bishop acquired an estate in fee, and could maintain an action of trespass against the bene- ficiaries. The land was purchased and paid for by members of the community, the deed being taken in the bishop's name. The land was surveyed and lots assigned to different mem- bers of the community, who ornamented the lots and in- curred the expenses in connection therewith. Fitzpatrick v Fitzgerald, 13 Gray (Mass.) 400. Bishop's Title to Property. Land was conveyed to the Bishop of Galveston for the use of the Koman Catholic Church, to be held by him and his successors in office for such use forever. It was held that tlie bishop took a fee simple title for the benefit of the church. Olcott v Gabert, 86 Tex. 121. It is a matter of historical and common knowledge that the form of government in the Koman Catholic Church is an episcopacy, and in whicli the diocesan bishops possess enlarged powers r-es])ec1iiig the temj)oral as well as the spir- itual affairs of the church in their respective dioceses. Blanc V Alsbury, 63 Tex. 489. "The title to the real estate resides in the bishop of the diocese. In a certain .sense he is a trustee thereof for reli- gious uses, but there is no declaration of trust, and he con- trols the (Mijoymcnt aixl transmits the title by devise. Tlie purpose of this arrangement is to exclude the laity from that power of interference which they would have were the title vested in the coriioratioii. lint inasmnch as the liold- ers of such titles are not corpoiations, cither soU; or aggre- gate, as are the J"]nglish bishoj), deans, and even parsons, lands held by them do not ]>ass to their successors in otlice unless through the in.strumentality of a deed or will." Strong's Relations of Civil Law to Church Polity, quoted by Judge \'ann in Baxter v McDonnell, 1.").') X. Y. S."{. The church jtrojierty in the Diocese of Cincinnati was held (ilil Tin; ('l\ IL LAW AM> TIM; rill Kdl ill the iKiiiu' (>r tlu' l>isli<>|) or iirclihisliop. I)ul in trust lor ilic vjirious (•oii<;r('<^;iti()iis who coiitrilnitcd for the siijjporf of pastors iiiid till' cxpciiscH of the local clnirchcs. The local ••oii^ic^atioiis were not so organized as to enable them to hold the title to chiinh i>roperty. The archbishop being heavily indebted. hkhU' an assigninent for the benefit of creditors, but it was held that it was not an ofTicial assign- ment. The assignment carried only the archbishop's indi- vidual iu-oi)erty, and not the property held by him in tnist for the various congregations and for other religious pur- poses. Mannix v I'urcell, 40 Ohio St. 102. Certain members of the local society, being dissatisfied with the management of the property, brought an action against the bishoj) for the purpose of obtaining some part in the control of the ])ro])erty, alleging that the property was acquired by contributions from the people under circum- stances which created a trust. The legal title had been con- veyed to the bisho]) without any provision creating a trust, and under the law of the church the property was held for the use of the congregation who attend public worshiji therein. The idaintilfs were not entitled to the relief sought. Hennes.sey v Walsh, 55 N. H. 515. Where juojierty is purchased by a congregation for a si)ecial i»urpo.se, although the deed is made to the bishop, the congregation is entitled to control the property, and the bi.shoj) holds the proi>erty in trust for the congregation. Fink V Umscheid, 40 Kan. 271. In Heiss v Vosburg, 51> Wis. 5:>2, it appeared that in 1S(»('> the trustees of Sinsiuawa Mound College conveyed certain real estate, on which there was a church building, to the bisho]i of Milwaukee for the nominal consideration of one dollar. It also appeared that the bishop devised this prop- erty to his oflicial successor, w ho bi-ought this action, claim- ing that the defendants had unlawfully entered on the premises, torn down and removed the building thereon and were digging up and removing the soil for the purpose of laving the fouinlation lor a new buildinii: which they threat- KO.MAX CAI'IIOIJC (lII'RCn V,Cir> ened to erect against liis wish ami luolests. Tiic dcri'iHlanls. who were lueiiibers ol" the liOiiiaii Catlidlic (Miiirch ai Sin- siuawa Mound, known as SI. Dominic's ('hurcli, (laiined that the church buildinj; was originally erected by Iniids and materials furnished by the conjjji-egation. and tiial it had been practically under the control of trustees chosen by the congregation since 18GG ; also that the deed to the bishop was in trust for the congregation. The court held that the original deed to the bishop trom the college was absolute, and conveyed a fee sinii)le title, leaving nothing in the congi-egation or the trustees thereof, and that they had no interest in the property. XeitloM- the congregation nor its trustees could lawfully tear down the church building, even for the purpose of erecting a new one, against the protest of the bishop who held the legal title, and who had control of the property under the law of the church. The association (St. Joseph's Lithuanian Catholic Congre- gation) purchased real estate for the puri)ose of erecting thereon a church building, the title being taken in the name of certain persons as trustees. Snbsecpiently, by a vote of the congregation, the title of the property was transferred to the bishoj). At a later meeting of the congregation trus- tees were selected to take charge of the property and were directed to i)rocnre to themselves a transfer of the title of any property in which the society was interested, and which was then held by any other ])erson. The bishop declined to transfer the i)r()j»erty to these new trustees and an action was commenced to compel a conveyance. It was held that the bishop, by taking title to the proi)erty, became a trustee of the society to the .same extent, and with the .same pow^ers as the trustees named in the original dee t\\\: ciiukch spccilicil ill llic (»rij;iiiiil deed. I\i"iii(/iiii;is \ Ilohaii. Ulil v.\. i!i:;. A l)isli(»i» holds the title Jis a iiiere liustee. The Inist in such cjise j^fives to the trustee ueither interest in the estate nor power to control it ».i- direct its nninagenient in any \\i\\ ; it creates uo duly tor llu* trustee to perform and leaves nothing to his discretion; he is simply the passive silent depository of the legal title and nothing more. ^lazaika v ICrauezunas, 2.'W ]*a. 138 cited in Carrick v Canevin, r)5 J'a. Super. Ct. 233, 243 Pa. Sni>er. Ct. 2S3; see the question ;ig;iin in Novicky v Krjiuc/umis, 245 l*a. 8G. Bishop, When Not Liable in Damages. In Wardens of the Church of St. Louis v Bhuic, 8 Rob. (La.) 51, it was held that a bishop cannot be made liable in damages for any ex- l)ression of opinion ;is to the extent of his ecclesiastical authority, nor for any act or omission in the exercise of his si)iritual functions. Such acts or omissions violate no legal right, nor do they involve any dereliction of legal duty or obligations. Courts of justice enforce civil obligations only — not spiritual ones. Burial Ground. Land enibrncing about fortj' acres was conveyed to the bishop for a burial ground. One acre was used for the cemetery and the other was used as farm lands. It was held that the part not actually used for cemetery ])urposes was subject to taxation. Mulroy v Churchman, 52 la. 2:J8. California Missions. According to all the Spanish and Mexican authorities, the missions were political establish- ments, and in no manner connected with the church. The fact that monks or jjriests were at the head of these insti- tutions ])roves nothing in favor of the claim of the church to universal ownership of the property. If it be relied on that a ])riest or monk had go\ciniiient and control of the nussion, the answer is simply that they were the civil governors; and although tliey combined with the iK)wer of civil government the functicms of spiritual fathers, this was only the more effectually to carry out one KOMAN CATHOLIC CHUKCH 667 of the objects of those establishments, which was to convert and Christianize the Indians. Neither the missions nor the priests of the missions were incorporated into the general body of the church, nor were they in any resi)ect under the control or direction of its diocesan ecclesiastics, wliose rule was absolute over all their inferiors. On the contrary, the mission establishments arose directh^ from the action and authority of the *;overnment of the country; laws and regu- lations were made for them by its legishitive authority, without referring to or consulting the authority of the church, and tlie lands settled by them were not conveyed to anyone, neither to priest nor neophyte, but remained the property of the government, and there is not a word in all the decrees and acts of tlio government wliidi would even sliow that the cLurch building devoted to worshij) alone ever be- came the property of tlie church corporate until the decree of sec-ularization of ls;>;5. Nol)ili v Kcdnian, G Cal. li-5. Catholic Knights of Wisconsin. The Order of Catholic Knights of Wisconsin was organized for the sole benefit of members of the Konum Catliolic Church, for them only so long as they remain practical Catholics. The decedent was married by a Protestant minister, and was thereupon, ipso facto, excommunicated and ceased to be a Catholic, prac- tical or otherwise. Thereupon all liabilitj' on the benefit contract ceased, and expulsion was not necessary. Tlie pro- visions of the contract on this subject were self-executing. Mend>ership in the society was purely- voluntary, and the agreement did not impose any religious test contrary to the provisions of the constitution of Wisconsin. Harry v Order of Cntholic Knights. Wis., 11 !» Wis. IIC'J. Catholic, Relation How Determined. Xo power save that of the church can rightfully declare who is a Catholic. The question is i)urely one of church government and discipline, and must be detei'mined by the jiroper ecclesiastical author- ities. The decision of the chnrch aniliorilics is tinal. Dwenger v Ceary, li:? Iml. lOtl. Cemetery, Exclusion of Non-Catholics. The society owned (;(;,s Tin-: civil law and 'riiio ciniKcn :i (('iiiclci'v in (^iicciis Connly. TIk' rules and doct riiios of tlic rop- erty. Dochkus v Lithuanian Benefit Society, SL Anthony, 200 Pa. St. 25. Corporate Rights. The ((trixn-ate existence of the Koman Catholic Church, as well as Ihe posit ion occupied by the papacy, has always been recognized by tlie government of the United States. At one time the United States maintained di])lomatic relations with the Papal States, which continued up to the time of the loss of the temjtoral jxiwer of the papacy. Moore's Digest of Int. Law, vol. i. \>\k \'-W, l.'.l. INmkc v Roman Catholic Church, 210 U. S. 21Mi. English Toleration. The testator iKMiucatlied the rcsidnc of his personal estate to tiiistc-cs, to be used for tiie ediica- tion of poor children in the Konian Catholic faith. This bequest was held void, the court ob.serving that •'wliih* the (17(1 'I'lll'] ("l\ II. LAW AM» Till; (III KCII Ivoiii.'iii ('iitliolic icli^^ioii lias i-tMci\c(| a considcialtU' dcj^rce ol' lolcration l\v the statut(M>f llu? jUM'sciil Kiii^ CJl (Iro. Ill, cliap. 152), yet there is a i»rovisi(in in that act thai all dis- jtosilions l)efore considered nnlawful shall continue to he and he deemed so." Tliere is no donhl a disj)osition. for the purjiose of hrinj;in<; nj> and edncating cliildren in the Koman Catholic relijjion, was unlawful before that time. Cary v Ahhot, 7 Ves. dr. (I':n<,M VM). Fraternal Beneficiary Society. The Bohemian Roman Catholic Central I'nion of the I'nited States of America was fornied, to be composed ex( lusively of members of the Koman Catholic Church. Members must have performed the duties required by the church, one of which was to go to confes- sion and receive the sacrament of the holy communion every year during Easter time. A member did not receive the sacrament of the holy communion during Easter in 1890. He admitted the neglect, and was suspended by the society, and died during the sus])ension. By the laws of the order, a suspended mend)er lost all benefits during his suspension. In an action on a beneficiary certificate it was held that the suspension was within the ])owers vested in the society by the contract of membership ; that the organization of such a fraternal society was not inconsistent with any prin- ciple of religious liberty; that the suspended member, by violating the jtrovisions of the contract, had forfeited his right to the benefits intended by the organization, and the action was not maintainable on the certificate. Franta v Bohemian Roman Catholic Central T'nion, 104 Mo. oO-t. Independent Corporation. Powers. The society was organ- ized by French residents for the ])urpose of having a Frwich church of the Roman Catholic faith, with a French Koman Catholic priest as pastor, and under the same general gov- ernment and authority as other Roman Catholic churches. The society was duly incorporated and adopted a constitu- tion. Before the incorporation, and before the building of the church, the voluntary association had m;ide ajiplication to the Roman Catholic bishop at Sprinulield for a I'"rented to close the church, and notifie of (Jod, or to insure religious instruction on Sunday, by any members of the association. Canadian l\eligious Association v rarineuter, ISO Ala.ss. 415. (iTl! TIIM (IN II. I, AW AM» '11 1 I : (III IMII Independent Society, St. Anthony Church. 'I'lic conj^rcgH- lioii worshijK'd iiccordin;; io I he I'onn.'^ ;iimI riles of the KoiMiiii (':illi(>li(- Clnircli, Will it did iiol iidlici'e to and was not <'oniie(i(Ml willi the ('cclcsiastiial body known as the Jvonian Catholic Clinich, and li;id never placCMl ilscH' by any volnnlary act of it.s own nndcr the po\\('r of the head of the diocese of Die climcli. II owned propei'ly wliich haT.\ of worship, a nuinber of its nienibers constituted theniselves a voluntary and unofficial coniiiiittee to raise IiiihIs I'oi- lliis purpose. With such funds they puirluiscd ccitaiu re;il estate, taking a convej'ance to one of liicir nuniber, who executed a declaration of trust, in wliirh he agreed to con- vey tlie ]»r()i)erty to tlie bisliop on receiving the amount von- tributed tlierefor by tlu' coniniittee. A club composed of ladies of the society raised funds either foi- the spccitic purpose of building a new church or for sucli otiicr spccitic church purpose as the club members should determine ui)on. The club united with the men's committee in purchasing the property in question, and neither the club nor the com- mittee rejiresented the bishop or the society. Subsecpiently the ladies' club obtained from the trustee a half iiitcicst in the proi)erty purchased. The church e Mich. (I'J. Louisiana Corporation, Powers of Local Officers. The war- dens of the society tixed the compensation of a curate, an capacity, the legal (nvners of the property which the act of incoi|»(>ra( ion aulhori/cd them to h(dd, to be used for the pniposes specitied in the charter. They were the sole temporal administrators, and could not be controlhMJ l»\ llic cleigv in ilieir adininisi ral inn. They were res])onsible to the congregation only, ^\llo might choo.sc others, if those in authorilv shonid misu.se or abuse (171 Tlir: r|\ IL LAW AM> Till; (III Krii llu' powtTs coiitViTcd l»y tlir Lcj^ishil iirr. Tlic couit IiiiiIkt said that ncitlicr llu; popo nor any bislio]) liad, within this State, any authority except a spiiitual one; and as courts of justice sit to enforce civil olilij^Mtions only, they never attempt to coerce the performance of those of a spiritual character. Churcli of St. Francis, I'ointe ('oui)ee v Ma it in. 4 Kob. (La.) (12. Mexico. Tlie right of the jtroitcily in fee l)<'iii«j in the King, as long as his dominion was acknowledged in Amer- ica, after the Revolution, was in the Mexican government as successor to the former sovereign power, the clerg\- being ]>ermitted only the enjoyment of the use. The church in ^Mexico seems to have been entirely under the control of the political authority; so much so that the ceremonies and reli- gious festivals were regulated by law. Blair v Odin, 3 Tex. Rep. 28S. Mexico and Texas. Trior to the Revolution of ISotJ the Catholic was the established religion of the republic of ]\Iexico, and all citizens of Texas were required to conform to the teachings of that church. It was suppoited by the government, and, by taxation, the citizens were compelled to contribute thereto. One of the charges made against the republic of Mexico in the Declaration of Independence was. "It denies us the right of worshiping the Almighty according to the dictates of our conscience by the support of a na- tional religion, calculated to i)romote the temporal interest of its human functionaries rather than the glory of the true and living God.'' The third division of the Declaration of liights in the Constitution of the re])ublic of Texas, reads as follows: "No preference shall be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worshij) over another, but every person shall be permitted to worship (lod accord- ing to the dictates of his own conscience." The constitu- tion of the State of Texas framed in 1845, contains prac- tically the same j)rovision as is now embraced in the consti- tution of this State in these words : "Sec. 4. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship ChxI according ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCU <;Tr) to the dictates of their own conscience; no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or suj)i)oit any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his own consent." Thus we see that the provision in our constitution was a protest against the policy of Mexico in establishing and maintaining a church of state, and comi)elling con- formity thereto, and was intended to guard against any such action in the future. Church v Bullock, KMl S. W. (Tex.) 115. Minority's Right. It was held that a minority conld not retain possession of the church pi'operty for the i)uri»ose of comi)elling the majority to recognize the minority as mem- bers of the cor])oration. St. Andrews v Shaughnessy, r»;> Xei). 7!):;. Nebraska, Status of Church. Considering whether title to certain local church jjrojterty was in the Roman Catholic Church, the court in Bonacum v Mnrithy, 71 Xeb. 4S7, said. "That church is not, in contemplation of the laws of Ne- braska, a corj)oration or a partnership, or a legal entity of anj' sort, and does not claim so to be. It is a hierarchy com- posed of a series of clerical dignitaries of various ranks and degrees, scattered over the whole world, and deriving their l)ower and imj)ortance from the pajjal court at Rome, to whom they owe allegiance, and from whom tliey are liable at any time to sutler degradation. That court claims to be an inrj»<)r;il«* I),v llic niiiiu; designaliMl (lit'ivin. Tht- Conrl of Appeals in I'coplc's Bank v St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Clinnli, lO't N. V. 512, held that the trustees did not heconie a corporation, but that the corporation was composed of the mend)er.s of the church and congrej;ation, the trustees being simply the governing body of the corporation. Cei-tificates of indebtedness or promissory notes given for loans of money to the society and signed by the president, secretary, and treasiirer of the board of trustees, the latter being also pastor, without any evidence of action by the board as a body authorizing the issue of such notes and certificates, were held not to be bind- ing on the corpoj-ation. Orphan Asylum, Not a Common School. In People ex rel the Ivoman Catholic Orphan Asylum v Board of Education, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 400, it was held that the Roman Catholic Orphan Asjlum of Brooklyn was not a common school under art. 9 of the constitution, and therefore was not entitled to share in the revenues of the common school fund. See Sargent v Board of Education, Rochester, 177 N. Y. 317, cited in article on Sectarian Institution. Parish Register. The register of a parish of a Catholic Church kei)t as required by the rules and laws of the churih, when produced is admissible in evidence; and it is of such a public nature that its contents may be proved by an imme- diate copy duly verified. Hancock v Supreme Council Cath- olic Benevolent Legion, (»7 N. J. Law, G14. Pennsylvania, Early Toleration. In Magill v Brown, Fed. Cas. No. S,!)r)2 (U. S. Cir. Ct. I'a.) (Brightly N. P. :U7i, which involved the validity of bequests to numerous Quaker societies. Judge Baldwin, in the course of his opinion, said: "In 1733-34 Governor Gordon informed the council that a house had been erected in Walnut Street for the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, in which mass was openly celebrated contrary to the laws of England, particularly to the statute of 12 Will. Ill, which extended to the colonies. KOMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (177 The council were of dirterent opinion, and declared thai ilic Catholics were protected by the charter of privilege^s and the law concerning liberty of conscience, but thej- referred the subject to the governor, that he might consult his superiors at home. No othei" proceedings, ho\Aever, took i)lace." This opinion of tiie council accords with the declai-ation of William JVnn to the members of the Assembly in 1701 tiiai he had justly given privileges and precedency of property as the bulwark to secure the other. It was a rule of property, and the basis of the usage and common law of the state. The 0])inion of the council was the practical ex]»osition of the charter, as understood and acknowledged, ol which there cannot be a stronger case than the one that occurred. Philippine Islands. The status of the church in the Islands is considered in Barline v Kamirez, 7 Philippines 41. The Roman Catholic Church has a legal personality and the ca[>acity to hold ])ro]ierty in the insular i)ossessions of the United States, and this right is not affected by the fact that the property was acquired by gifts or from the public funds. Santos v Roman Catholic Church, '2V2 U. S. 4t):5. See also Ponce v Roman Catholic (Miurch, 210 U. S. 2JM> and Barlin v Ramirez, 7 Philippines 41. Pope's Position Under International Law. The Holy See still occui)ies a recognized position in international law, of which the courts must take judicial iiotice. "The Pope, tliough deju-ived of the territorial dominion which he formerly enjoyed, holds, as sovereign i)ontiH" and head of the Roman Catholic Church, an exceptional i)osi tion. Though in default of territory, he is not a t(Mii|>()r;il sovereign, he is in nuiny resijects treated as such. He has the right of active and passive legation, and his envoys of the first class, his apostolic nuncios, are sjjecially privileged. Nevertheless, he does not make war, and the conventions which he concludes with states are not called treaties but concordats. His relations with the kingdom of Italy mpc governed, unilaterally, by the Italian law of May l:'.. 1S71, called 'the law of guarantees,' against which Pius I .\ and (ITS 'nil': ('i\ iL LAW AM* I'lii; r the setlleiiMMil of tlic isliind to the present time, the cor- jmnite existence of the Cntholio rinirch has been recognizx'd. The Roman Tatholic riuirch h;is been recojjnized as possess- ing;- lej;;il ]»erson;ilily by the Ti<'aty of Paris willi S])ain of 1S()8, ;inroi)erty was formally recognized by the concordats between Sj)ain and the papacy, and by the Spanish laws from the beuinnino- of settlements in the Indies. Such recogni- tion has also been accorded the church by all systems of European law from the fourth century of the Christian era. The fact that the municipality may have furnished some of the funds for building or repairing the churches cannot attect the title of the Roman Catholic church to whom such funds were thus irrevocably donated, and by whom these temples were erected and dedicated to religious uses. Ponce V Roman Catholic Church. 210 V. S. 206. Priest. The relation between a bishop and a priest is not that of master and servant but that of an ecclesias- tical superior and inferior. Baxter v McDonnell, ir>.') X. Y. Priest, Action Against for Slander. A Roman C.itholie priest told his congregation from the ])ul].it that a cixii marriage by a ])liysician who was tv .se, witlioiit an aver- ment of special l Mass. 507. Priest's Authority. A Catiiolic priest was called to au alnis- liouse to administer a sacrament of penance to an inmate, who was a Roman Catholic and believed the sacrament essential to her, and had requested him to administer it. Such administering? required entire secrecy between the de fendant and the sick person. The keejjer's wife, who was ])resent, was requested to leave the room but refused, and was thereupou ejected by the priest, he using only sucii force as was necessary for that j)nrpose. In an aciion against the i)riest for the assault it was heUl that he was only a visitor and had no control of the room, and that his priestly office gave him no authority to exclude any person therefrom. Coojter v McKenna, 124 Mass. 284. Priest, Bishop's Power of Removal. By the laws and cus- toms of the Roman Catholic church in the United States a ])riest is liable to be removed from the charge of a congrega- tion at the pleasure of his bishop, without trial. He cannot, how'ever, be suspended from his jtriestly functions without specific accusation and trial. The i)astoral relation is neither created nor dissolved by agreement between the l)riest and congregation — the bishop apj)oints or removes the she])herd as he deems for the ]>riest's good or for the inter- est of the flock. Removal is the exercise of episcopal author- ity according to the bishop's judgment. It may be without snpj)Osition of wrong, and it leaves the prie.st in the same jiosition as all other priests who are without employment. Suspension is a judicial act based on something which calls for such sentence. Stack v O'llara, !)S I'a. 2i:i. Priest, Expulsion. In St. N'inceut's ['arish v Muri»liy, S.'? Neb. (!•')(), the court declined to consider whether a juiest had been legally excommunicated and exjtelled from the church, the (pieslion being one of ecclesiastical jurisdiction only, and not within the jurisdiction of ii court of equity. Priest, Maintaining Order at Meetings. The action of the priest in charge of a religious .service in attempting to (;s(> 'rill': cin il law .wh 'riii; cni i.-cn i('iii(»\c :i pcisoii \\li(» (lishirlicd llic inccliiig by (leiiiiiiHliiig ail exi»lan;ili<>ii (»! a i-eferenco in llic sermon was sustained, and it was licld lliat the priest was not liable in an action for dania};es as for an assault. Sec next note. Priest, Power to Preserve Order in Church Services. "In Catholic in('('lin<2;s it is ai)|»ro]M-iate that the j)riest, as the presiding ollicei- of the meeting, should j>reserve onler and rebuke all violations of it." Wall v J^e, 34- N. Y. 141. Priest, Not Bishop's Agent. The jtastor borrowed money from the jdaintilV and <»lhers, under contract of repayment in the fcuni of deposit books in the name of the church, which was not incor])orated and had no power to ac(piire or hold property. The money received from the dej)ositors was mingled with other church revenues and constituted a common fund, used for general church pur]»oses. The bishop held the legal title to all the real i)r(iperty. It was held that the pastor was not the agent of the bishop in financial affairs without express authority. In this case it was held that the bi.shop was not liable for the debt contracted by the pastor. Leahey v Williams, 141 Mass. 345. Priest, Obligation. Removal of a ])riest by the bishop of his diocese was sustained. The ]>riest at his ordination obli- gated himself as follows: "I promise and swear that I will sei-ve the missions of the Diocese of Philadeliihia under the obedience of the ordinary forever in perpetmini. so help me God, and these his Holy Gospels." Toward the end of the ceremony he placed his hands in those of the bishop, who then asked him, "Do vou promise to me and my successors obedience and reverence?" and he answered, "I do promise it." The law of the church authorized the bishop to remove a priest, but such removal did not amount to a suspension of his priestly functions. Stack v O'Hara, !KS I'a. 213. Priest, Removal without Notice. The priest in charge of the society was removed by the bishop without any accusa- tion or hearing, and was not assigned to any other parish. As priest he received no stated salary, but was entitled to the pew rents, Sunday collections, subscriptions, and offer- ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (iSl ings. His profession and these sources of inioiiie were deemed to be property of which he could not be deprived by tlie summary order of the bishoj) without an oj)portunity to be heard. It was held that his removal as pastor of the church, and also the prohibition and disfranchisement for- bidding him to exercise any priestly functions in Williams- port, were unlawful. O'Hara v Stack, !K) l*a. St. 477. See 98 Pa. St. 213, where this case is explained. Priest's Right of Action against Bishop. No suit can be maintained by a priest of a Catholic church against his bishop for removing him from his office of priest, the civil courts in such cases having no authority to inquire as to the rightfulness of ecclesiastical decisions. O'Donovan v Chat- ard, 97 Ind. 421. Priest, Salary. In Twigg v Sheehan, 104 I*a. 493, it was held that no action lies in favor of a Roman Catholic i)riest against his bishop for salaiy or support during a i)eriod in which the bisho]) refused to assign him a charge. Property, How Held. The canons of the Roman Catholic Church provide and require that the title to the property of the Roman Catholic congregation which is under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic bishoj) of the diocese in which the congregation has its jtlace of woi'shi]), must be in the ordinary, or in the bislio]) of jlic diocese. Krauczunas v Hoban, 221 Vn. 2\l\. If a congregation is formed tor I lie jmrpose of religious worship according to the faith and rites of the Roman Catholic church, has accepted the pastor assigned to it by I lie archbishop of the diocese, has j)laced itself under the authority of the archbishop, and submitted itself to his authority in all ecclesiastical matters, the title to its i)i-op- erty must be taken and held as ]»rovided by the canons of the Roman Catholi<' Chui-ch. The i>r()p(M-ty accpiired by the congregation under such circumstances is the ]>i-operty of the church, and is subject to its coiifi-ol, antl imist be held in the manner directed by its laws. Dochkiis v iatliuaiiiau Benetit Society of St. Anthony, 2(M; Pa. St. 2;"). dSL' Till': ('I\ IL LAW AM> Tin: ("IJIIfCIl 'riic cjiiiniis, (Iccrc'cs, and iiiles of the Koiiiaii ('allujlic ("ImikIi Ioi- (lie DioccHe of Cincinnati required all jn-operty held and used f'oi- ('cclcsiasl ical jjui'itoses to he conveyed to I lie hislioj) or arciibishoj) of llie diocese by name, his heirs or assijijns forever, to be held by liini in trnut for the usch for wliicli it was ac(|nired. IVIannix v rni-cell, 4(1 Ohio St. lOU. Property Eight. The Konian Calholic Church has been recognized as possessing a legal personality and the capacity to take and accjuii-e ])i-operty since the time of the emperor Coustantine. See the J^aw of Coustautiue of 321 to that effect, cited in Justinian's Code. The strictest ])r()]iibiti()n against alienating the property of the church exists in that code, and it provides that the alienation of church property shall not take place, even with the assent of all the representatives of the church, since these rights "belong to the church," and the church is the mother of religion ; and as faith is perpetual, its patri- mony must be presei'ved in its entirety perpetually. In his history of Latin Christianity (vol. 1, p. 507) Dean Milman says: "The Christian churches succeeded to that sanctity which the ancient law had attributed to the tem- ples; as soon as they were consecrated they became public property, and could not be alienated to any other use. The ground itself was hallowed, and remained so even after the temple had been destroyed. This was an axiom of the heathen Papinian. Gifts to temples were alike inalienable, nor could they be pledged ; the exception in the Justinian Code betrays at once the decline of the Koman j)ower, and the silent progress of Christian luinianity. They could be sold or i)ledged for the redemption of ca])tives, a purpose which the old IJoman law would have disdained to contem- plate." And Milman also jtoints out that in the barbarian codes most sweeping provisions are found, recognizing the right of the church to acquire property and its inalienability when acquired. Church property everywhere remained un- touched bv the rude hands of iuvadius barbariaus. Tres- ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 08^ pass upou or interference with sucli property \v;is severely punished, and gradually it became exenjj>ted from laxatiou. Ponce V Roman Catholic Church, 210 U. S. 290. Providence Hospital. This ho.spital was incorporated by Congress in 18()4, and was under the general auspices of the Roman Catholic Church, the title to its property being held by the Sisters of Charity of Ennnitsburg, Maryland. In 1897 Congress approi)riated funds to be expended nndei- the direction of the commissioners of the District of Co- lumbia in the erection of two isolating buildings in connec- tion with two hospitals. Under this act the commissioners and the authorities of the Providence Hospital made an agreement for the erection of an isolating building on tlu' hospital grounds. It was held that this agreement did not violate the provision of the federal constitution res])ecting the establishment of religion. The incorporating act did not refer to any religious belief or ecclesiastical connec- tion, and the court remarked that no inquiry could be imule into the belief of the incoritorators on religions matters. It was a secular corporation, though managed by persons who hold to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic cluirch. Bradfield v Roberts, 175 l^ S. 291. Rector, Ratifying Acts. A contract for labor and mate- rials in the erection of a chnrcli and rectory by the society was made in the name of the trustees, bnt was, in fact, signed only by the rector. A subsequent contract was also made in i)ractically the same form, that is, in the name of the corjxjration, but signed only by the rector. Snbse (luently the church gave a mortgage on its jtropertj' to raise money. This mortgage was signed by the ])resident and secretary of the board of Irustees, and authenticatearish has been since atlirmativelj' recognized by Congress, by the treaty making power, and b}' the State as well as Territorial Legislatnre as owning laud in Detroit and elsewhere. The governor and judges conveyed to the corporation at ditterent times tract.s of land, iiu'luding the land in (picstiou with various restrictions as to occupancy and municipal rights. Cicotte v Anciau.x, 53 Mich. 227. Sexton's Salary. The church was held liable for the salary of the sexton employed by the majority of the trustees, of whom the ymest in charge was one, and the liability of the churcli was not allected by the fact that the ladies of the altar had agreed to ]>ay one half of the salary. St. Patrick's V Abst, 7(> 111. IT)!'. Sisters of St. Fi'ancis. About 1875 the su])erioress of the Convent of the Sisters of St. Francis, whicli had been located in Gernuuiy, with some thirty of the Sisters, came to Iowa City for the j)urj)Ose of establishing a convent there. Need- ing additional accommodations to those at first used the par- ish priest contributed |500 for enlarged facilities, paying the money to the su])erioi'ess on condition that it should be repaid if the society should abandon its purpose to estab- lish a convent, or if its work should be given np. The con- tract was made with the su]>erioress as the agent of the society. The project to establish a convent having been RO^IAX CATIIOIJC cmKCH 085 abandoned, llic piicsl hnniglil an adion ai;ains( the snpfi- riorcss I'oi- llie money so conlrihnlcd. It was held that slu' was not personally liable lor the debt, lanoinls v Termehr, (■)() la. J)2. Slander, Excommunication. A priest during the Sabbath service made the following statement: "May the Lord have mercy on two men, who brought me to court yesterday, biinging shame and scandal upon me; my curse and the curse of God be down upon Patrick Fitzgerabl and Patrick Butler, who brought me to court yesterday, bring- ing me shame and scanr<>|i('rt ics was iiii<|ii<'sti()iM'(l, and tlic cliiircIi conliiMH'd in iiiidispiihMl pftsscssion llicrcof. Down lo lli(! occ-npation of i'orlo Kico hy tlic Anu-i-ican ti'oops in August, 1S!)S, ainoiints wcie ivgularly api)ro- jiriated by the Spanish govornincnl i'ov tlu'-('Xpro|»erty in Mobile, Abibaina, was purchased liy the King of Spain for the purpose of buibling thereon a iiarocliial church, and dwelling house for the otliciating priest. The proi)erty was conveyed to the King. "The words used in the deed would indicate that it was contenijilated l»y the intend- ant, at the time of the jjurcha.se, to approjiriate the lots to the purjjoses of the church, yet there is nothing in the deed whicli woiibl oblige hini thus to use tliein." A covenant to hold the j)roi»erty for the use of the b)(al church might have been implied if the purchase had been made with the funds of the church, but clearly not where the royal chests alone had contributed the means of payment. The deed authorized the King to possess, sell, or alienate the property "at his sovereign pleasure." "Notwithstanding the venera- tion which the Si)aniards have manifested for the Holy See, the vigilant and jealous i)olicy of Ferdinand early j)rompted him to take i)recautions against the intro0:Mr)i:>i conferred on him and his successors the right of patronage, and the absolute disposal of all ecclesiastical benefices there. The pontiffs, unacquainted with the value of what Ferdinand diMuanded, bestowed these donations with an inconsiderate liberality, which their successors have often lamenteossessioiis. In them the adniiii- istratioii of its revenues was vested. Their nomination of persons to su])|iiy vacant benetices was instantly sui)i)lied by the pope. Thus in all S])anish America authority of every species centered in the crown. There no collision was known between s])i ritual and temporal jurisdiction. The King is the only superior; his name was alone heard of, without looking to a dependence upon any foreign ])ower. I'ajtal bulls were not recognized as of any force in America until they had been examined and approved of by the Koyal Council of the Indies; and if any bull was surreptitiously introduced and circulated in America, without obtaining that approbation, ecclesiastics w^ere required not only to l)revent it from taking effect but to seize all the copies of it and transmit them to the Council of the Indies. Thus limited was the j)apal jurisdiction in the Spanish posses- sions in America." Antones et al v Eslava's Heirs, Port. (Ala.) 527. Spanish Sovereignty. By the grants from Pope Alexander and Pope .Julius 11 the Sj)anish sovereigns, Ferlied by the pojte. Thus in all S])anish America authority of every si)ecies was vested in the crown. At that time no collision was known between spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. The King was the only supeiior. Iiis name alone was heard ol'. without looking l«t the (h']»en(lence on any foreign power. Papal bulls were not recognized as ol' any force in America till they had been examined and ai>proved of Ity the Koyal Council of the Indies. Blaii- v Odin, ;'. Tex. Kep. 288. Spanish Supremacy in Colonies. The right of ])atronage in the S|; misli colonies in America was expressly reserved to the King of Spain exclusively. This right of patronage «;SS THK (MVIIv LAW AM> Till: CliriiCH consisted in llic ri^lif of tlic Kiii;^ to noiiiiiinlc ;iinl in-csciit anhhishopN, bishops, and other prelates, to the hisliop of Konie, un(h'r the luinie of the pope, who iippioved of the same, unless the nominees h;id nol the (pmlificat ions j)re- scimImmI by the cjinons, ai'il jrave the inslitulion necessary. Tlie Kill*:,' also nominated and designated to the ai'chbishops an(tt\ and lejijitimate I'easons, to grant to snch jtriests the canon- ical institution necessary' for the functions and j»owers of their oflBce; and all persons, whether secular or ecclesias- tical, were forbidden to exercise this riirht of jtatronage or presentation. Wardens of the Church of St. Louis v Blanc, 8 Rob. Re. (La.) 52. Students, Voting Residence. A person was not permitted to enter St. .Iosej>irs Seminary, Yonkers, New York, or remain therein, unless he intended in good faith to become a Roman Catholic ]>riest, and i-enounced all other residences oi- homes save that of the seminary itself, and njton his admission to the priesthood he was to continue in the seminary until assigned elsewhere by his ecclesiastical superiors. The New York constitution j)rovides that "for the puri)ose of voting no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence while a student of any seminary of learning." Tt was held that the mere residence in the seminar}- under the conditions stated did not entitle the student to vote in Yonkers. Matter of Barry, 1()4 N. Y\ 18. Texas. By the successful revolution the re])\d»lic of Texas became possessed of the right and title to all the laiid. or l)ublic donmin, that belonged to the government of Mexico at the date of the revolution by as full and i)erfect title as was vested in that government, or in the government of Coahuila and Texas. Blair v Odin, 3 Tex. Rep. 288; see also subtitle above. Mexico and Texas. Unincorporated Church, Trust Sustained. A bequest of a sum of money to trustees for the ])ur])ose of maintaining a church on the testator's farm, although the church had not ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 080 heeii and could not be incorporated, was sustained in Seda v Hiible, 75 la. 4L'!». Tlie will created a valid trust. Woodstock College, Maryland. The bequest was (o the "Col- lege of the Sacred Heart of Jesus situated at Woodstock, Howard County, Maryland." The evidence showed that this was a misnomer, Woodstock College beiug the beneficiary intended. Uuder the Maryland Declaration of Rights this society could not take a legacy without the sanction of the Legislature. The court allowed the legatee tin)e to apply to the Maryland Legislature for the required sanction, and directed the legacy to be held to await (be result of the application. Matter of Fitzimmons, 20 ;^[isc. (N. Y.) 7:]1. A legacy was given to Woodstock College, Howard County, Maryland. This college is located in Baltimore County in- stead of Howard County. This was the only Woodstock College in Maryland, and it was therefore held to be the college intended by the will. Kerrigan v Conelly, 40 Atl. (N. J.) 227. SALVATION ARMY Described, 690. Devise sustained, 690. Municipal ordiniince, Kansas, 691. Municipal ordinance, Michigan, 091. Municipal ordinance. New York, 091. Municipal ordinance, Pennsylvania, 691. Described. Tlie Salvation Army is an unincorporated reli- j>i<)iis society liaving its hea(l(inarters in London, ICngland. The ollieers of the organization liave military titles. Tlie head officer in England is called ''General," the subordinate officer, who is head of the organization in the United States, is calleil ^'Commander'' ; a "major" has charge of a division of the country, and a "captain" has charge of a local post or barracks. Wliile these officers have military titles, they jierform duties similar to those of the officers in other reli- gions denominations. Thus a commander corresponds to a bishoj), a major to a presiding elder, and a captain to a min- ister or pastor. The barracks is the church. The property of the society in this country is held in the name of the commander, and he is appointed by the general in England. Lane v Eaton, (i!) Minn. Ul. Devise Sustained. Testator gave a fund to trustees for rhe St. Tanl branch of the Salvation Army, to be used for the ]>nrcliase of a lot on which the Army was to erect a build- ing for the purpose of its meetings, and if tlie local branch should be legally organized, the trustees were directed to convey the proj^erty to the cor})orati()n. The Salvation Army was not incorporated. It was held that the devise to the local branch, which was not incorporated, was invalid, but that the branch might become incorporated under the sta- tute within a reasonable time, and would then be entitled to the property. Lane v Eaton. (>!) ]\[inn. 141. 690 SALVATION ARMY C!)! Municipal Ordinance, Kansas. Ccilalii iikmiiIk'is (»r tlic 1)i-;iih1i of the Salvation Aniiy in tlie city ol' \Velliiij;loii. Kansas, were arrested, charged with tlie viohition of a cily ordinance prohibiting parades without a license. In Ander- son V Wellington, 40 Kan. 17»i, the ordinance was declared to he illegal and void, because it was nnreasonable anh'. it is not com})etent to make any exce]»ti()ns either for oi- against the Salvation Army be<;nise of its theoi-ies concerning jiractical work. In law it has the same right, and is subjeci lu ilie same i-estrictions in its [jublic administrations as any sec- ular body or society ^^•hich uses similar means for drawing attention or creating interest. Matter of Fra/ee. (i.". Mich. Municipal Ordinance, New York. Members of this organi/.a- tion in Kochester were on a Sunday afternoon walking on a sidewalk on a ]»ublic sti-eeT in single tile towar_v hcjitin^ :i «lniiii ;il :iii o|M'ii ;iir iiicet- iiif; in a public strool witlumt a |M*riiiit. Il(^ (lefciided his act by alleging? that the ordinance was void as an infringe- ment on religious liberty as guaranteed by the Pennsylvania constitution, and also as obnoxious to the fourteenth amend- ment to the federal constitutictn. It was held that the ordinance was a valid exercise ol' police i»ower and did not infringe the religious liberty of a inend)er of the Salvation Army. ''The mere beating of a drum is not a \nirt of divine worship. Nor are we aware that any other sect or denomina- tion of Christians has ever introduced a bass drum into the instrumentation of their music. The city ordinance is not directed against their doctrine or dogmas, their faith or their forms." Wilkes-Barre v Garabed, 11 l*a. Sup. Ct. 355. SCHISM Defined, 693. Effect on property rights, 693. Defined. The teriu means a division or separation in a church or denomination of Christians occasioned by divers- ity of opinions. Nelson v Benson, 09 111. 27. A schism is delined bj' lexico«^ra pliers to mean, in a gen- eral sense, division or separation; but, appropriately, a divi- sion or separation in a church or denomination of Chris- tians, occasioned by diversity of o])inions, or breach of unity among people of the same religious faith, and its use in the Kentucky statute in connection with the word "division" certainly imports no more than a separation of the society into two parts, without any change of faith or ulterior rela- tions. McKinney v Griggs, 5 Bush. (Ky.) 401. Effect on Property Rights. The universal rule is that where there is a schism in a church those remaining faithful to the tenets of the church at the time of the dispute, whether they be in the majority or the minority, are entitle Cal. 1:M. 695 «;!Mi Tiih: ('i\ii> LAW AM) Tin; rill KCII Changing Denominational Relations. In isns a itoiiion (hiiininjj; to hv tlio iiKijorily of the congregation (»r flic Asso- ciiifc RcfornKMl Clinrcli at Seneca, New VorU, voleuli)it a minister a])pointed by the ecclesiastical judicatory with which the society was jtrofessedly connected. Burrel V Associate Keformed Church, Seneca, 44 Barb. ( \. V.) 282. Congi'egational. In a Con<;iej^ational church the niajority, if they adhere to the organization and to the doctrines, represent the church. An expulsion of the majority by a minority is a void act. Bouldin v Alexander, 15 Wall. (U. S.) VM. Consent, When Necessary. The members of a church attil- iated with others of the same denomination and connec- tional relation cannot, by resolution, secede from the main b()d,y and establish a new church Avithout the consent of the general church or its authorized agent. American Prim- itive Society v Pilling, 4 Zab. (N. J.) (\~y.]. Diversion. ^\'hen property is held by a religions society in trust for its members, none of the members, though they constitute a majority, have any right or power to divert the propertj' to the use of another and different church organ- ization ; and the fact that they i)rocure a change of the nanie of the corporation by order of court cannot aid them in su Ohio Dec. (it.S. Effect. The seceding members of the church congregation relinipiish all claims upon the original church jnoperty. Lutheran Congregation, Pine Hill v St. Michael's P.vangel- ical Church, 4S Pa. SI. 20. Effect on Property Rights. Where the congregation of a church is divided the title to (he pi-ojKMty is in the part, though a minority, which is in harmony with the laws, usages, and customs accepted by the body before the divi- sion, and which adhei-es to the regulai organization. IJose V Christ, 1!):'. Pa. St. i:!. The title to church jnopeity in case of a (li\ision of a religions corporation, remains with that portion of the church which adheres to the tenets ami discipline (»!" ihe organization lo whose use Ihe proju'i-ly was oi'iginally dedi- s tin: Ohio 28.*?. Forfeiting Church Property. Laml was conveyed to a local society l(» l»c iieid and enjoy»' 'iiii; cinijcii (•(»iiii('cI(m| Willi ;i |»:irt Hnhii- synod. It \v;is lichl lli;it llio society l»y willi(lr;i\\iii,i; Iroiii lli.it syiunl ;iii(l joining' ;iii- ollici- rorlcili'd its iiiteresl in the inopcity. Hdd^^fis v Uui-netl, KKS Tciin. 17:?. Forfeiting Property Rights. It is well settled that inein- bers who secech' I'ivmii :i cliui-cli oi-^anization, or a ndi^'ions society, thereby forleit all rij;ht to any i>art of the church property; and whether there has been a secession or not, within tliis rule, is a mixed (piestion of h>w and fact, to be decided upon the evidence with a view to all the eircnin- stances, incliidinji; the acts of the ])arties and the motives which have prom]>ted such acts. Hale v Kverett, 5:', N. II. 1. ^^'here a portion of a church congregation refuses to ad- here to the distinctive tenets imposed upon members of the congregation, and secedes and adoj^ts new tenets or a new belief, it forfeits its rights in the church property. Rex v Wasyl Kapij, 15 Manitoba Re. 119. Injunction. The itrojxM'ty of a church must be held and used in trust for the promulgation of the generally accepted doctrines of that church, and members departing therefrom and causing a schism therein, will be enjoined from control- ling or interfering with its management. Christian Church V Carpenter, 108 la. U7. Lutherans. In 1815 testator by his will made a bequest to the Lutheran congregation in Selinsgrove to be invested in specified securities "for the use of the said congregation forever." The local church was attached to the old I'enn- sylvania Synod of the Lutheran Church, of which the West Pennsylvania Synod was a part. In 1843 a portion of the members became dissatisfied with the new measures and doctrines introduced into the church by their minister and thereupon gave him notice that his services were no longer required, and finally closed the doors of the church against him. The members who accepted the teachings of the min- ister erected a new church building and organized a society of which this minister became pastor. Those who rejected the teachings of Ihe minister continued to occupy the orig- SECESSION 701 iiial clmieli Ijiiildiiig and invited a new pastor, who was recognized by the old Pennsylvania Synod. The congrega- tion worshiping in the new church was attached to the East Teunsylvania vSynod. The East and West Synods did not recognize each other. Each congregation claimed to be the Lutheran Church to which the legacy was given. In an action involving the title to the legacy it was held that the Lutheran congregation in Selinsgrove, holding and teach- ing the doctrines which were held and taught when the testator was a member of it, and when lie made liis will, was the congregation entitled to the bequest. App v Liitlicraii Congregation, (J Pa. St. 201. Majority's Eight. Dis.sensions having arisen in the society, a minority withdrew and attempted to organize another society under the same name. It a])])('ared that the original society was Congregational in character, and was to be con- trolled by a majority of its members. In an action to i)re- vent the minority from asserting title, and claiming i>os- session of the property, it was held that the majority was entitled to the possession and control of the church i)roperty. Gip.son V aforiis, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 503. See also 31 Tex. Civ. App. 045, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 555. The wrongful and violent seizure of the editice and prop erty belonging to a church of the Congregational form of government b}^ a minority of the members, contrary to the wishes of a majority, the dejjosition of oMIcers of the clnircli and of ti-ustees who held the |>roj»erty, and the retention and use thereof l)y the minority to the exclusion of the majoi-ity. furnish good grounds for (Mpiilable relief. P>ates v ilouston. 66 Ga. lf)8. A minority of the members, in I'esjtonse to an invilalioii from the pastor /nade while he was oc(U|iyiiig the pnlpil. decided to seceal Church of the United States, and used, and claimed the right to use the local church property. It was held that the right to the ])ossessiou and use of the ])roperty remained in th(»se mem- bers of the local church who did not withdraw, b\it who adhered to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The seceders had no i-ight to the proj»erty. In 1827 the major part of the churcli, including the dea- cons, with others constituting a minority of the parish, formed a new society under the name of the Evangelical Keligious Society in the south parish or j)reciiict of Brook- SECESSION 703 field. Others remained in the oiigiiiai society and employed a new pastor. This society elected the plaintiff as its sole deacon. Each society claimed to be tlie true church. It was held that an adhering niinarty cannot destroy the identity of a religious society or church by ( laiiiiiiig to he itself tlie society or church, lladden v Chorn, S H. Mon. ( Ky. i TO. The seiiaration of a majority of the mend>ers did not alfect the status of the property, but the minority remaining were to be deemed the legal society. Baker v Fales, Hi Mass. 48S. Plaintiffs, a minority of a local society, brought an action to restrain the nmjority from asserting title and right of possession and control of the church i)roperty. The division arose out of differences concerning certain points of doc- trine. A church council to which the question was referred decided, on an ex jtarte hearing, that the plaintiffs, the mi- nority party, represented the true church, and that the defendants, a majority, were seceders, an87. Any number of the members of a church w ho disagree with ()ther brethren, or with the minister, or with (he parish, may withdraw from fellowship with them and act as a church in a religious point of view, having the ordinances admin- istered and other religious ollices jn'rloi-ined. As to all civil purposes, the .secession of a whole church fi-om tlu' parish 701 'I'lIM <"l\ll. LAW AND 'llii; (ill iM'll would lie :iii ex I iiicl i(»ii (if tlic cliiircli, ;itii| il is cuiiipeteiit to llic iiiciiihcrs (>{' llic p;ii-isli to iiistiliilc :i new erpetuatiug. Tlie minor- ity could not exclude the majority. There was no com plaint against the majority, growing out of any change of religious opinions. The only differences were of a political character. It was held that the action of the minority in SECESSION 70." exciudiug the majorit}-, and in taking possL'ssion ot llic church, was iinaiithoiized and void; that the minority did not constitute tlie church, and coukl not nuike itself the church by any dechiration of its own. The majority was dechired to be entitled to the possession of the church proj) erty and archives fur the reason that it constituted the Pres- byterian Church in Jonesboro. Deaderick v Lampson, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 52:1 Presbyterian Church. The standards of the church teach that this right of .secession is fundamental in every branch of the associate church, when any may judge such a step proper or necessary ; not onlj- is it a right, but it is a duty to separate from a churcli corrupt in princii)le, or ])erhaps fallen into gross error and doctrine. Skilton v Webster, Brightly N. P. (Pa.) 20:5. Proof Necessary. Befoi'e cori>orators can forfeit their nienibershii) tlicy must be proved to have seceded from the corporation of which they are mend)ers. If a ])ortion secede, and the rest, however small thcii* numbei-, adliere, the adher- ents bj' their fidelity secure tlieii- toi-porate existence, and are entitled to all the privileges and proi)erty of the corpo- ration. Harmon v Dreher, 1 Speer's Eq. (S. (\\ S7. Right of. In Smith v Nelson, IS Xt. 511, it was said Ihat the society and the denomination of whic li "I rormcd a pait. were founded on tlie ])rinci])le that it is both Ibc right .iiid duty to secede, as was done by lOi-skine and others in 17:'.:'.. from the prevailing ]»arty, who may oldaiii a majority in the judicatories, synods, and asscnddics. when in the opin ion of the seccihM-s such !naj(»riti''s liave dcjjartcd from the AN'ord of (lod, and icccivcd and approved slandaids ol' doc- trine, worshij*, government, and discijdine. In the ab.sence of testimony it will In* presumed tliat reli gious societies cannot dissohc ihcir connection with the jtrincipal organization witlionl permission. If the riglit to witlidraw by a clnirch at pleasure does exist, according to the constitution, g(»veiiiment. and usages of the general oi'ganization. it must be pioxcd as a lint, and, like any other. 7(m; Tin; cin ii, law am> 'nii: ciii i;«ii must (l('|»'inl ii|>(iii (lie CN i<|rii( (• , which, among other things. \no- hibited any a]>i>ro])riation by the State or any munici])ality in aid of any church or sectarian ])urj>ose or school or other educational institution controlled by any church or sec- tarian denominatioti. The oi>erations of the Indnsli-ial School were carried on through two l\(»nian Cath(»lic institutions, and on llie |)reni- 710 SECTARIAN I.XSTUI < TlOX 711 ises aud in the buildings of such institutions, known as the House of the Good Shejiherd and St. .Joseph's Oipiian Asy- lum, which were respectively uiuler the sui)ervision and con- trol of ordei's of Sisters known as the Sisters of tlu' (Jood Shepherd and Sisters of Charity. In each institution dis- tinctively Roman Catholic relijj;ious exercises were observed at different times durinj; the day, and no relij;ion was tauj^^lit except that of the Roman Catholic Church. I'xiiii insiitu tions conducted schools for the instruction of children. The court hebl that both the institutions — the H(»use of tiie (lood Shepherd and St. Josei)h's Asylum — were schools exclusively maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, and were there- fore to be classed as sectarian institutions. As bearing on the question of the character of the House of the Good Shepherd, it was shown that a county judge of Cook County was refused admission to the institution, and was informed that he must have a i)ermit from the bishop or soiue other Catholic gentleman in good stamling. The Industrial School was incorporate separate dassilication. It was shown that a large number of girls alr<'aers of the school board were Catholics. The voters of the bonuigh numbered between four and live hundred, and all but about fifty of these were Catholics. The i-eligious belief of teacheis, and all others is generally well known to the neighborhood and to ]>ui»ils, even if not made noticeable in the dress, for that belief is not secret but is publicly i)rofessed. The teachers might lawfully wear in school the gai-b of their or-U. See also Keligious Carb. Prayer. In the school maintained in r>r(»«»ks\ illc lollowing ]. raver was olVei-ed at the oi>ening of school exercises each da\ : "(Mir I-'alher who ait in heaven, we ask thy aid in oui- da.v's work. Re with ns in ail we do and say. (Jive us wis(l(»ni and strength and j)atience to teach these children as they shoidd be tnnght. May teacher and pupil have mutual love and respect. NNatch over these children, both in schooli-oom and on the play- grcnind. Keep them from being hurt in any way. and at last, when we come to die, may none of our nnnd>er be miss- ing around thy lliinne. These tilings we ask lor Christ's sake. Amen." This prayer was iield not to be sectarian insi ruction 7m; 'nil! ('i\iL I, AW ANh riii; riiiucn widiiii llir iiicaiiiii;^ of llic Kciil ihIlaled resolutions recommending (>|»ening exeri ises in the public schools each erintendent of public instruction. The select i(ms from the Bible which Jiave been read in the several rooms of the schools have been ])rinci|)ally passages from the Old Testanu'nt. including selections from I'salms, I'roverbs, and some of llic old familiar stories from the Old Testament. The selections read from the New Testament are usually the Sernnm on the Mount and passages of like iciior In all readinu tin- Bible used is King .Tames version. The reading of the S» riji- ture was wilhont comment. The children were mtt reipiired to join in the Lord's I'rayer. or in the singing, but wt-re invited to do so, and nn)st of them did join in both exerci.ses. The reading of the Bible ami i-epeating of the Loi-d's I'rayer was not conii»ulsory. and sonu' teachers read extracts from geneial literatuic instead of Bible seh'ctions. It was alleged that these exercises nnnle the school a place of worship within the meanin.u of the constitution, ;iii(l lluit such exer- cises wei-e sectarian within the pro\ision of the t(»nsi itut ion prohibiting sectarian a|»jMopriations. 7IS 'nii: ciN iL LAW AM* 'I'lii; S. W. (Tex.) 115. Wisconsin. In State ex rel Weiss v Edgerton District School, 7(5 Wis. 177, considering the i)rovision of the Wis- consin constitution ])rohil)iting sectarian instruction in schools, it is said that it manifestly refers exclusively to instruction in religious doctrines, and the prohibition is only aimed at such instruction as is sectarian; that is to say, instruction in religious doctrines which are believed by some religious sects and rejected by others. Hence to teach the existence of a Supreme Being of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness, and that it is the highest duty of all men to adore, obey, and love him, is not sectarian, because all religious sects so believe and teach. The instruction becomes sectarian when it goes further, and inculcates doc- trine or dogma concerning which the religious sects are in conflict. It was held further that the reading of the Bible in public schools, although unaccompanied by any comment on the part of the teacher, is such instruction. SHAKERS Community of interest, no action for personal services, 719. Competency as witnesses, 720. Covenant, 720. Deacons, actions by, 721. Expulsion, effect, 721. Massachusetts, 722. New York, 722. Partition or withdrawal of property, not permitted, 72 1. Property, how held, 724. Trustees, promissory note, 725. Community of Interest, No Action for Personal Services. A coiimiiuiity of interest is an established and distinguisliinu principle of tlie association ; that the services of each mem- ber are contributed for the benefit of all, and all are bonnd to maintain each, in health, sickness, and old age, from the common or joint fund, createlaintill', who had been a member of the society or famiiy of Sliakers in New (Jloucester Coi- about twelve years nl'ler he became of age, br()ught an a Till; ("III K<"il Competency as Witnesses. .Mcinltns (»r the r;iiiiily or society wci'c held coiupclciit iis wi I iicsscs in a suit not directly <'on- ccrninj; (lie common .proitcrly in wliicli tlie deacons are parties. I\icliar Mc. HT. Covenant. "The jncamlde recites that it is their lailli and in\arialde practice that 'all who come into niendtersliip do freely and vohnitarily dedicate and devote themsehcs and all they j»ossess to the ser\ ice of (Jod foi-<'ver ; and il l)einj; llieii- faitli, that the union and relation of the clnirch. in one joint interest, is a situation the most acceptable to port and maintain the joint interest of the church, according to their several abilities as members, for the good of the whole." The fifth article makes "it the duty of the trustee or agent- ship to take charge of all the i)roi)erty dedicated, devoted and givurposes aforesaid, or bring any charge of debior dam- ages, or hold any dennind whatever against the cliuiih, oi' community, or any member thereof, on account, either of services or of property given, rendered or consecrat'.'d to the aforesaid sacred and charitable uses. The third article precludes any claim to a division to be made according to what eacli brought in. (Jass and Honta v Wilhite, 2 Dana ( Ky. ) 170. Deacons, Actions By. Deacons may sue for trespass on society ju-ojieily. AinhM-son \ r>ro(l<. :'. Me. 'J\'.\. Expulsion, Effect. Tlic plaint ill' was cxpclltMl liuni ihc society for refusing to conform and subject herself to the counsels and directions of the idders. She was md entitled to daumges for such expulsion foi- the icason iliat she hail signed the covenant in which she agi-eed to coiifonn to the I'ules ami orders of the society, which vested su|M'eme 7l'2 Tin: (MX IL LAW AND TIN; (IHIM-II ;iii(li()ri(_v ill tlic iiiiiiislcrs ;iinl ciders. 'I In-y li;ironinl, it was held that under the Massachusetts constitution the Shakers are a sect or denomination of Christians, and without reference to the act of 1785, chap. 51, they are included in the act of ISll. chap. (>, respecting public wor- ship and religious freedom, and after the passage of that act had full power to receive donations, gifts, and grants to manage, imi)rove, and use the same, and to elect suitable trustees, agents, or officers therefor; and that they were equall}" within the purview of the act of 1834, chap. 183, and of the revised statutes, chap. 20, sec. 25, and that by force of the act of 1811, chap. 6, if not legally empowered before, they were authorized to elect deacons or trustees to take aTid hold and manage the property of the community. New York. It was held in Feiner v Keiss, 98 A. I). (N. Y.) 40, that the society of Shakers at Mt. Lebanon, New York, was not a religious corporation but a voluntary unincor- porated society formed by the consent of the individuals composing it for religious and business purposes aiul which has obtained by various statutes the corporate power to have pro]ierty held by trustees in i)erpetual .succession. It was also held that the .society need not obtain an order of court for the sale of its pro})erty, but that such a sale was valid if made by the trustees in the manner pointed out by the statutes and by-laws of the society, and esi)ecially, as in this case, where such a conveyance was approved in writ- ing bv the ministry and elders of the society. Such a con- SHAKERS 7l';: veyaiice was held sufficieut to transfer the title to the property. The society at Watervliet, New York, had existed many years prior to ISoD, wlicn an act was passed relative to the status of societies of Shakers and declaring the rights an tiie society, shall be surrendered, and all acquired in the prosecution of its business shall be held for the common l)urposes and uses of the ag.uregate body. The society, although called in the covenant a church, is not solely organized for i>urposes of religion. Prior to IS:*)!) the local title to the proi)erty of the society was vested in ami held by trustees, appointed from its members in trust, for the uses ami ])uri)oses exjtressed in the covenant, and subject to the rules, conditions, any the five-will olferinjis of the meiiihers, respectively, shall be l)ossessed and held hy the whole body jointly as their mitnral and relijiions ri<;ht ; that is, evei'y indixidiial of. l»elon;,Mnii to the chnich, shall enjoy e(pud riiihts and jji'ivilejjjes in the use of all thinj^s jtertaining- to the church, according to their order and as everj'one has need, withont any difference being made on account of A\hat anyone brought in. The atfairs were to be managed by a tiustee. who was given large dis- cretionary powers in the administration. By the 7th article the mend)ers of the community exjjressly disclaim an^^ intention to make any demand as compensa- tion for services, and woiild not present any claim or debt or damage on account of any j)roperty given, rendered, or consecrated for the sacred uses of the society. Two persons who had seceded from the society brought an action to procure a i»artition or division of the property, and an assignment of the amount claimed by them to be due. It was held that such an action could not be main- tained for the reason that the articles of agreement expressh' declared the intention of all parties to relinipiish their claims to the jiroperty given to the community. The prop- erty was not to be held by the mend)ers by a joint and several interest but was to be held by the community as a unit. The members were entitled to use the property as needed for their sui)])ort but could n(»t withdraw it from the common fund. Gass and Bonta v Wilhite. '2 Dana (Ky. I 170. Property, How Held. As early as 171)1 a company of per- sons denominated Shakers formed themselves into a com- munitv in the town of Harvard as a religious society and SHAKERS TlT. entered into covenant relations with each other as a chureli according to their peculiar faith and tenets. As early as March, 1801, they chose deacons and a clerk, and by mutual agreement under seal appointed their deacons and their suc- cessors in office to hold the property of the church and to have the management of its temporal concerns; in December, 1814, they new modeled their covenant, making it more full and formal, and made a new arrangement in regard to the office of deacon, constituting a part family deacons, giving them the oversight of their domestic or internal concerns, and constituting oilier deacons or trustees to whom were committed the charge of their property and business with the world, which society, in all its essential features, continues under the same organization to the present time. A transfer of certain ^jroperty to the trustees of this society was sustained. Such a transfer need not have been to the society by name nor to the deacons. A transfer to Ihe trustees was sufficient, who, as such, as well as their suc- cessors, were capable of taking and holding property. It was not necessary to name the trustees; a description which distinguished tlicm from all others was sufficient. Lawrence V Fletcher, 8 Mete, (aiass.) 15;?. The constitution of this society required the legal title of all its pro]»erty to be vested in trustees, upon a declara- tion of trust, designed, in a convenient and legal nianiu r, to accomjilish the i)uri»ose of having all things common. A judgment rendeix'd against tiie trustees of the church family of Shakers, and the successors of said tnistccs in their official ca))acity, ^\■as held valid and conhl be salistied \\itii- out the aid of a bill in ecpiity, by execution levied upon property of the church, of which the legal title is held l>y the trustees. Davis v liradfoi-d, 58 N. II. 47(>. Trustees, Promissory Note. This society was incorporated with a membership of about one hundred, which was con- stantly changing by additions, withdi-awals, and dt'alhs. The pioperty was held in common without any indiviy the society from time to time. An action on a jironiissory note given by tlu> Irnslces in behalf of IIm; society was hcM prop- erly brought in equity against the society and the trus- tees. Society of Shakers at IMeasant Hill v Watson, (iS Fed. 7:U). SLANDER Archbishop's criticism of priest, 727. Minister, 727. Privileged statements, church trial, 727. Archbishop's Criticism of Priest. The archbishop of Mil- waukee, .si)eakiiig in a Komaii ('atholic .service in a chnrch at West Bend, «ai lliiiik lor llu'iiisclvcs, ;iiis(ril>ed, together with an agreement that lie sliould be re]»aid the sunt he had expended in tlie ere«-tion 731 7::l» TIIIO (MN'II. I.AW AM) 'I'ili: (TUTKC^H of a teinporaiy chaiJi'l, siicli a}ii(M'iii<'iil lollowcd hy lln' repayiiKMit (onstitntes a binding contract between the parties, wliicli cannot be revoked e\'ce]»t ])y nmtnal consent nor rescinscribed, wlien the evidence shows tliat inclnding his sub- scription, anarish funds the sums subscribed, on condition that the trustees should manage the fund in a certain manner, and apply the income thereof to the support of a Congregational minister and to the payment of the parish taxes which might be assessed on the subscribers, it was held that the promise was binding on the subscribers, the acceptance of it on the conditions prescribed being an engagement on the part of the trustees to perform those conditions. The subsequent change of the articles of faith adopted by the church, though in some essential particulars, does not absolve the parties from the obligation of such contract. Fryeburg Parsonage Fund V Kiidey. :Nre. 442. Condition, Variation. A subscription for the erection of a church under a resolution by which three fourths of the cost was to be raised by subscriptions running three years, and a contract was let for the erection of the church at a price of which the subscriptions were at least three fourths in amount, a subscription was held not invalidated by a subsccjuent increased cost of consti'uction which was pro- \ idcd for by increased subscriptions amounting to at least tlnce fourths of the cost. First Evangelical Lutheran Chnrch v Gardner, 28 Pa. Sup. Ct. 82. SUBSCKII'TION 733 Condition, Specified Amount to Be Raised. A subscription was sustained by which subscribers were to be bound only on condition that the whole amount needed lor specified repairs should be raised, it ai)pearin<; that about one half the amount was subscribed, and the contractor was author- ized 1o raise the bahmce by a sale of the pews. This was held 1() be a substantial comjiliance with the terms of the subscriiition. ;McAiiley v Uillenger, 20 John. ( N. Y.) 89. iSee Stewart v Trustees of Hamilton Colle; see also Hodges v O'Brien, cited in note on (^onditio)i xVccepted. Consideration. Twenty-third St. Chnrcli v Cornell, 117 N. Y. (;01, involved the validity of a subsci-iption for the erection of a new church edifice. It was held that the sub- scription by testatrix was without consideration, and that the church couhl not recover thereon. Defective Incorporation, When a Defense. A jtorson who subscT-ibes to a fund for the erection of a chui'ch edifice is not estopped from contesting the validity of the incorjtora- tion of the society and may raise the question in (lie action against liim. First Ba])tist Cliurch v K;ii)elee, 1(» NVciid. (N. Y.) ()0.~). Existing Debt. In United Presbyterian (Mi. v liaird. (i(» la. 2."!7, it was held that the borrowing of money by ;i diurcli coi'iH)ration to pay its existing indebtedness, with rcli;ince n]»on ;i subscription to repay the borrowed money, consti- tntes a snlTicient consideration to su]»|ioit the contract of subscription. Following Tinstees v (i;n\cy, ."");'. 111. KM. The defendant with others nnidc ;i subscript i(»n towiird the payment of a debt diie foi- the Imilding of a clinrch edifice, which had been erected befcu-e the subscription was made. The trustees bonowcd money w itii which to pay the debt, relying on the subsciiption. The defendiint claimed llint there was no linbility. It \\:is held ticit while the liiistees by borrowing nioiiev to |i;iy the debt h:id not in- ci-eased their linbility, they Imd on the t.iiih of the subscrip tion incurred a ne\\ liabilitv to new pailies. '"They have TM Till-: CINII. LAW A\h Till; < IHKm II Iiorruwcd iiioiicv rclyiiiji upon this siilisci ipt ion ;is ;i iiicaiis ol' piiyiiicnt, :iii(l tlic r;i»t tli:il I licv have \isc(l 11m* money to ay off a mortf;a;j;e on church property was held to be without consideration, and not enforceable by the corporation, nor could the cori)oratiou avail itself of mutual ])roniises of the subscribers. Such promises did not constitute a consideration in favor of the corporation. l*resbyterian Church of Albany v Cooper, 112 N. Y. 517. See also notes on Sunday subscriptions below. Liability Is Several. Subscribers to a fund for the con- struction of a church who have built the church and in- curred obligations therefor on the faith of the subscriptions are the real parties in interest, who may maintain an action to collect an unpaid subscription. A promise to pay such subscription, even if made directly to a committee, is held to have been made to them as agents for all the subscribers who should join in the enterpri.se, and the latter, as principals, may maintain an action upon it. The liability of each subscriber to such a fund is a several one, and hence is to be enforced in an action against him alone. Hodges v Nalty, 101 Wis. 164. Mutuality. In an action on a subscription note it was held that when several agree to contribute to a common object which they wish to accomplish, the jiromise of each is a good consideration for the promises of the others, and the society was entitled to maintain an action on the note. Con- gregational Society, Troy v l*erry, N. H. 104. Where there are mutual subscriptions for a common object, and there has been an expenditure of money in the accomplishment of the object, a subscription is binding as SUBSCRIPTION 7;:.-. a valid contract. Whitsitt v Trustees Preeiii]»tion i*ri'sl>y- toriaii Cluirch, 11(1 111. 125. Performance by Society. Several i)ers<)iis joined in a sub- scription i'oi- the purjtose of erectinji; a rresbylerian churcli edifice, the sum subscribed to be jtaid lo a Ireasni-er to be chosen by the subscribers. Such a treasurer was afterward chosen. Persons interested in the movement subsecjuently incorporated a Presbyterian society, and a church ese(piently, with the subsriibci's consent, the society built a new church edifice, iclyiiij; in l)art on this subscri|»tion. The defendant icfnscd to p;iy the subscription. It was held that this \\as a c;ise of services rendered and expenses incun-ed by the trustees at the request anr llu' (Iclcihliiiil In tile (((i-poi-;! I ion. roii^idrrcil toj^elher, cstiiblislictl ;i t'uiHlii ioiKil |iiMiiiisc to |);iy SI.IO. fn-ovidcfl the h'lish'cs ol llic cliiiicli would rictt ;i new cImii'cIi fdifice; iiiid lli:il Ilic roiidi(ioii Imviii^ liccii immIoiiikmI liy llu; cor- poi'jition Ix'foiT llic rctriictioii (»r llic |troinis«', tlic dcffudant was liable to pay tlu' sum subsci ihcd by him. I>arn(*s and others. Trustees I'^'irsf rresl>ylei-iaii Church. (Ib-ns Falls v J'eriue, !) Harb. (X. V. i 1M)2. Perpetual Liability. An action was brouractically disposes of the whole matter and that subsetjuent action by the dassis had no elTect as against the decision of the synod. A judgment on the subscription was sustained. DiefTendorf v rJeformed Calvinist Church, 20 .Tohns. (N. Y. ) 12. A subscription was held valid which provided for an annual jiayment for the support of a minister so long as he remained in service, and so long as the subscribers continued to reside within four nnles of the meetinghouse. P^irst Reli- gious iSociety of White.stown v Stone, 7 John. (X. Y.) 112. See note below on elfect of withdrawal from society. Promissory Note. According to Catholic usage, the parish priest is generally church treasurer, but with power to appoint a special treasurer with the ai>proval of the bishop. In this case the plaintiff had been appointed such treasurer, and the luomissory note in controversy had been delivered SUBSCKIITION 7;:7 to liiiii by the maker. This wiis held sulliciciit tist JMn- cation Societj', S B. Mon. (Ky. I (58. Revocation. A minister was engaged to conduct dedica- tion services, and solicit subscriptions to be ajiplied on the church debt. The request to him for this service was made at an informal meeting of the li-ustees, pastor, and class leaders. The minister solicited subscriptions during the services, but it was held that he was not the agent of the coi*]>oratioii. A jx'rson made an olfer to jtay a specilied amount, which was deemed only an olTer, and no contractual relation was established between him and the corporation. The cor])oration had not accfpted the olfer, but a short time after it was made one of the trustees, not by any sjK'cial authoritj' but apparently on his own motion, cniled on ilic subsci'iber to j)erform his jtroposal. The subscriber liiere- npon revoked and rei>udiated his olfer, and in an action liy the corporation on the s\d)scri])ti(ni it wii^ iicM tli.ii this revocation was in lime, and that no liability had been created. Methodist lOpiscojjal Church, Sun Prairie v Sher- nmn, :M\ Wis. J04. Roman Catholic Church. Special Purpose. Money raised on a subscription lor ;i new churcli cdilice is iMised foi- a s]>e- cial purpose and belongs to the coiigregalion. and ii does not Itecome the ]»r(>|)(Mty of the bishojt of the diocese or priest of the jtarish. Amish et al v (lelhans e( al, 71 la. 170. 738 Till: ('l\ II. LAW ANh rili: it the rent derived therefrom, and an action on the snbscription was snstained and jiulg- nient rendeied for the amount of i-ent jdedged by the sub- scriber. Trustees of First Baptist Church in S3racuse v Robinson, 21 N. Y. 234. Subscriber's Death, Effect. Testatrix joined in a subscrip- tion for the erection of a church editice, which subscription was on condition that a stated amount should be raised. Before the time fixed for ]»ayment of the subscription, and before any expenditure had been made on the church edifice project, testatrix died. Testatrix did not request the cor- poration to build a new edifice, and the church did not promise that it would, and there was no endeavor to obtain subscribers occasioned by the expressed wish or direction of testatrix. It was held that there was no consideration for the subscription, which at most was only an executory gift, and this was revoked by the death of testatrix. It was also held that a subscription by several persons was not a consideration for any one, that the executors could not bind the estate by their assent to the subscription, and that the church could not recover the amount subscribed. Twenty- third St. Baptist Church v Cornell, 117 N. Y. (JOl. The society, although uuincori)orated, was held competent to maintain an action on a contract. In this case an action was brought on a subscri)>tiou to aid in building a church, but the subscriber died before the orgaui/.ation of the society' was effected. It was held that the liability of the subscriber was terminated by his death ; and an action could not be maintained by the society against his estate. Phipps v Jones, 20 Pa. 2()0. Subscriber's Intention as to Object. A subscription was taken to raise funds for the erection of a Catholic chapel. Parol evidence was held admissible to show the intention to erect a Roman Catholic church for use as a ]dace of public SUBSCIJII'TloX 7:!!» worship iH-('oi- \'t. ')!):{. Subscription Note, Validity. Where ineiMhers of a religions society which Iiad a jiiiiiisterial fund in the hands ol" an incorporated hoai-d of trustees voluntaiily snhscrihed to increase the fund, and afterward gave their jiioinissory notes to the trustees for the amount of their respective sul»- scriptions, it was ludd that the notes were founded upon a sufficient consideration. J'arol evidence that sudi notes were upon tlu* condition that the ])i-incipal should not he called for so long as the interest continued to be i>unctually paid was held inadmissible. Trustees, Hanson Churcli v Stetson, 5 rick. (Ma.ss.j 50(1. Sunday. A subscription made on Sunday to liquidate tlie indebtedness of a churcli cori)oration contracted in the erection of a building to be used as a place of worsliip does not come within the inhibition of the revised statutes of Indiana as common labor, but falls within the exception of works of charity, and is valid and enforceable. Bryan et al V Watson, 127 Ind. 42. A snbscri]»tion on Sunday to aid in the |»ayment of ;i church debt is valid. Such subscriptions are deemed a charity within the general exception i)rohil)iting Sunday labor. First Methodist l']])iscoi)al Chui-ch, V()v\ Madison \ Donnell, 110 la. o. A subscription to raise money to i»ay foi- a ho\ise (»f wor- ship is not invalid because taken on Sunday in a congrega- tion assend)led for ordinary religious sei-vices. Allen v Duffie, 48 Midi. 1 ; see also Dale v Knej.p. !>s I'a. ::s!t. A subscri]>tion made on Sunday to aid in the erection of a church is valid. See the same case as to a conditional subscription. Hodges v Nalty, 11. "I Wis. ."iiil. A subscrii)tion to a church made on Sunday was held void in Indiana. There was no evidence of a subsecpient ratification, or a new ju-omise. Cat let t v Trustees. .Methodist l">pis. (Ml., Sweetser station, (II! Ind. .".(i."). Sunday School. In Kectoi- v ( 'r.iw f(U'd. i:'. .\. \. I7 'riii; scri|)tion for erecting a new church edifice was the j»i'o])erty of the cijugrcgation, and not the ]»i<)i»eity of the l)isli(i]» oi- priest, deferring to the claim that hy "the laws and iiiles of the Koman <';ifliolic Church the hishoj) of the diocese and the piiest of the parish, under the direction of the Itisliop, ;ii-e invcsh-d with llic absolute control of the funds and the ])roi)erty of the church, and the laity have no right to interfei-e A\ith such control," the court observed that this rule might be *'api)licable if this fund had been i-aised for the general jairitoses of the church and paid to the priest without any obligation upon him to applj it to a specific purpose," but the money hav- ing been raised for a si)eeial i>urpose, it passed into the hands of the priest as a trust fund, and it did not vest abso- lutely in either bishop or priest to be dispo.sed of as they might think for the best interest of the church. Unincorporated Society. In l*resbyterian Society v Beach, 74 N. Y. 72, the defendant was held liable on a subscription in aid of a project to erect a Pre.sbyterian church edifice, it appearing that the subscribers were to i>ay their subscri}»- tions to a treasurer to be chosen by themselves, but that a corporation was afterward organized. The corporation was held entitled to recover on this earlier subscription on proof of an understanding when the subscription was made, that the money was to be raised for the erection of a church edi- fice to become the i)roperty of a Presbyterian society to be organized. It is no defense in a suit to enforce a subscription to aid in building a church that the society was not incorporated. A notice to trustees of the society, after organization, that the subscriber will not pay his subscription unless a cer- tain person is excluded from si^eaking in the church, while SUBSCRIPT ION 741 ilu' proffered donation :i}ii»ears at the head of the list as an unconditional .snl)sfrii)tion, is not sullicieut to release the subscriber from liability. Snell v Trustees, Merhodist Epis- copal Church, Clinton, 58 111. 290. Where subscriptions have been made in anticijialion of the formation of a corporation, and the corporation is afterward formed, i)aynient of such subscriptions is enforceable in the name of the corporate body. Whitsitt v Trustees Pit'eiii|i- tion Presbyterian Church, 110 111. 125. A subscrij)tion to aid in erectin*? a churcli editice niailr to an unincorporated religious organizaticni inures to the benefit of the corporation afterward created. Willard v Trustees, Methodist Episcopal Cliurcli of Kockville Center, (JO 111. 55. Action u])on a subscri])tion whereby the defendant ag]-ee(l to pay to the j)laintill', wlio was described in tlie sidisciip tion as the treasurer of an unincorporated association, a smn named for the ])ur])ose of aiding in the erection of a church editice for such association. It was held tliat as ilie association was not a corporation, tlie words in the sub scription describing him as treasurer thereof should be treated as sur]tlusage, ami he coidd maintr.in aa action iu his own name. That the erection of the churcli editice by liie plaintiff was a sullicieut consideration to autliorize a recov- ery. McDonald v (Jray, 11 la. 5()S. Reformed I'resbyterian Church \ r.ro\\u. 21 How. I'r. (N. Y.) 70, sustained a subscri|»tiou for the erection of a church edifice and for the jtastor's salar.w although the society was not then incoi'i>orale(l. and it ^as held that tiie cor])oration, afterwai-d foi-iued. was eulilled to ih cover the su])sci'iption. Withdrawal from Society, Effect. A person joined with several others in a written agreeiuent to |»ay a specilied sum annually for tlie sui»poi( of the preaihiiig of the gospel in a ]»articular churcli. At the end <>[ \\\n y;';iis lie declined to coiiliuue annual payments on the ui-onnd thai lie Innl tlianued liis relijiious sentiments, and could not conscicii 742 TIIIO CI NIL LAW AM) Till; CI IT IK 1 1 lionsly colli rilmlc io llic ohjcrl s|»<'(irK'(i in tlic coiilnMl. Ill nil ;icti(»ii l>y liic society (o rccov*'!- |»;iyiii('iils wliirli had iucni('in(liii^' (lnTit:<; the life ol' the snltscrihcr, iiolwillistaiKliii^ a chaii<^<' of i-clij^ioiis scntiiiu'iit, unless it (onhl he shown that he had liecn dis- (•haij;(Ml by a vote of tlie scniety. No such discliarj^e was shown. The defense that to compel payment after a change of relifiious sentiinents wouM violate the def«Midanl's rij;hts of conscience under the constitutional j^uaranty of religious freedom was rejected, the court holding that the agreement to jiay constituted a contract from which the defendant could not witlulraw at his own mere volition. First Congrega- tional Society, Woodstock v Swan, 2 Vt. 222; see above, notes on l*erpetual Liability. SUNDAY Agent's appointment, 745. Agent's unlawful acceptance, 745. Amusements, 745. Arbitration, award, 7 Ki. Assignment for creditors, 740. Attachment, 740. Attorney's clerk, extra compensation, 747. Baker, 747. Bank paper, 747. Balloon ascension, 747. Barber, 747. Baseball, 749. Bill, acceptance, 749. Bill of exchange, indorsement void, 750. Bill of sale, 750. Bond, 750. Business, 750. Butcher, 750. Camp meeting, charge for admission, 750. Canal lock-keeper, 751. Charitable institution, resolution, 751. Chattel mortgage, 751. Church, resolution to emplo}' minister, 751. Cigars, 752. Commercial paper, 752. Common carrier, 753. Contract, 753. Conversion, driving horse beyond contract limit, 758. Courts, 758. Courts, ancient Hebrew custom, 758. Courts, charging jury, 758. Courts, early Christian custom, 759. Courts, New York City magistrates, 759. Deed, 759. Defined, 700. Demurrage, 700. Disorderly conduct, 700. Employer and emjjloyec, 761. Execution, 701. 743 711 Tllh: <"I\IL LAW AM) Till: (HI K< II !'( »()»!, 7()I. Forcclomire sale, 7G1. ( luMios, 7()2. (liuning, dice, 762. Ilabeius corpus, 762. Ice cream, 762. Iminodenite driving, 762. Injuries, actitm for damages, 762. Insurance, 762. Into.vicating liquors, 763. Jews, 763. Justices, extra compensation, 764. Laborer, hiring, 764. Lease, 764. Legal proceedings, 764. Legislative powers, 765. Levy, 768. Loan, 768. Mail carrier, 768. Marriage, 768. Meat market, 768. Moving pictiu'es, 768. Municipal ordinance, 768. Necessitj^ 769. Newspapers, 771. Object, 772. Omnibus, 772. One offense onl}', 772. Ordinary calling, 773. Payment on debt, 773. Phj'sician's prescription, 773. Plaintiff's violation of law, when no defense, 773. Preserving projiert}', 773. Process, 774. Promissory note, 774. Railroad train, 777. Redemption from sheriff's sale, 777. Religious services, 778. Rescission of contract, 778. Sale, 77S. Salesman, services on Sunday, 780. Saloon, 781. Saloon closing, mandamus, 781. Search warrant, 781. Seaweed, 781. SUNDAY 745 Security for good behavior, 781. Seventh day observance, 781. Slot machine, 781. Social club, treasurer receiving money, 782. Soda water, 782. Stagecoach, 782. Statute, constitutional, 782. Statute of Umitations, 783. Statute, unconstitutional, 783. Statute, when retrospective, 783. Subscriptions on Sunday, 783. Sunset, 784. Surety contract, 784. Telephone, 784. Tippling house, 784. Tort, 784. Traveling, 784. Trespass, adjusting damages, 787, Trust, declaration, 787. Vaudeville, 787. Violation, remedy for, 787. Warrant, 787. WaiTant of attorney, 788. \\'ill, 788. Agent's Appointment. An appointuieut by a corporation on Sunday of an agent to collect rents may be validated by a subsequent receipt of rents from Jiim. Flyun v Columbus Club, 21 R. I. 5:54. Agent's Unlawful Acceptance. An agent cannot bind liis ])rinci]>al by llie acc(']»tance of an iiistrumciit of guaranty on Sunday, even lliougb it bears dale on a .-^ccidar day. and the princijial bad no personal knowledge of tbe unlawt'ul a Tin: CHUKCH S(>r\ ices were licid Siiii8 L. J. Mag. Co. (X. S.) Eng. 1. Arbitration, Award. An award of arbitrators is a judicial proceeding, and if nmde and published on Sunday is void. Story V Elliot. S Cowan (N. Y.) 27. Assignment for Creditors. An assignment was made and delivered on Saturday, but no schedule was annexed. The schedule was attached the next day. Sunday. This annexa- tion on Sunday was sustained in Clap v Smith. 16 Pick. (Mass.) 246. Attachment. The Massachusetts statute of 17!»l fixed the period of Sabbath observance from midnight until sun- SUNDAY TIT set. Filling and delivering an allaclinicnl altiT sunset on Sunday was not a violation ol' the statute regulating Sun- da}' observance. .Johnson v Day. IT I'ieii. (Mass.) 10(1. Attorney's Clerk, Extra Compensation. An attorney's clerk engaged at a weekly salary to do such thiugs as are usually done by clerks in attorneys' offices, is proliibited, by the statute to prevent working on Sunday, from recovering ol' his principal a compensation extra his weekly allowaiuc lor services as a clerk performed on that day. Walts v \;im Ness, 1 Hill (N. Y.j 70. Baker. In Kex v Younger, 5 T. Rep. (Eng.) 44i), it was held that the statute, 2!) Car. chaj). 7, did not jnohibit a baker baking dinners for his customers on Sunday. See also to the same effect Rex v Cox, 2 Burr. (Eng.) 785, which involved the right of the balder to bake jniddings and pics and meats on Sunday, in aiUlition to making bread, \viii
  • ()(». Barber. In Kentucky (Stratnmn v Commonwealth. i:'.T Ky. 500) a statute was held unconstitutional which nnidc it 748 'riii: (M\ II, I, AW AM) Tin; ciuiii ii uiilawlul lo ujicii ;i harlu-i- .sli(»|( on Siiiiday and euj^age in the business of barberin}; nn. Baseball. It was held in Capital City Athletic Associa- tion V i'olice Conmiissioners, Greenbusli, Misc. (N. Y. i liSO, that baseball-jdaying on Sunday, for ])rotit, upon jtri- vate grounds, if not within the strict letter of the Pen;il Code, is a business that is against the public policy of the State. Three persons jdayed ball on j)rivate grounds simply i)i tell- ing the ball fiom one to another without making any noi.se. Such j)l;iying was held not to be within the jtrohibition of the New York Penal Code, sec. 205. It was further held that to constitute a violation of the statute the ]daying must seriously interrui)t the repose of the conununity on Sundsiy. People V Dennis, 35 Hun (N. Y.) :>27. B;iseball-i)laying on Snnday at an unfrequented place is not such a breuch of the i)eace ns to make the jKirties play- ing indictable for a common nuisance in the absence of evi- dence that anyone in the immediiite neighborhood was dis- turbed by any disorder or behavior on the i»art of the jieojde present. To constitute a breach of the peace the peace must ]>e broken or disturbed by such disorderly and unlawful con duct as actually disturbs the peace ami (piiet of some- body in the immediate neighborhood where the acts c<»ni- jilained of are committed. ConinM)nwealth v Meyers, S I'a. Co. Ct. 435. In Greater Newburgh Amusement Company, Inc. v Sayer, 81 ]ilisc. (N. Y'.) 307, it was held that public games of base- ball between professional teams on Sunday violated the l»rovision of the Penal Law which prohibits public sports on that day, although no admission fee was charged. Bill, Acceptance. A bill was drawn on Sunday, but there 750 Tlir: CIN'lL LAW AM) Till; < III |;( II \Mis no cvidciicc ;is lo (lie (l;iy on which il \\;is ii((('|»l(*<|. It was hchi Ihat (he bill was not void as violalin}; llic Siinday law. li('^1)i(^ V Levi, 1 Ci-onipt. cK: -h'V. (Kn*^. ) ISO. Bill of Exchange, Indorsement Void. Snch a bill indois*^! on Sunday is void. SaKniar.sh v Tnlhill, V.i Ala. '.','M). Bill of Sale. An action on a bill of sale made on Sun«lay cannot be o. The execution on Sunday of a bill of sale of personal i»r(»p- erty, in pursuance of a sale made on Friday, does not atlect the validity of the sale. Foster v Wooten, 07 Miss. 540. Bond. A bond sij^ned on Sunday is not void if not deliv- ered on that day. Commonwealth v Kendig, 2 Barr. (Pa.) 448. A bond executed on Sunday is void under tlie statute, but not at common law. Fox v Mensch, 3 Watts. & S. (l*a. ) 444. A bond executed on Sunday, but not from necessity or charity, cannot be made the basis of an action. It was secular labor and within the prohibition of the statute. I»attee v Greely, 13 Met. (Mass.) 284. Business. The carrying on of one's ordinary business on Sunday is an indictable offense at the common law, and also under the statutes of Tennessee, if conducted so openly as to attract public attention and thereby tend to corrupt public morals. It is no defense to such prosecution that the accused conscientiously believes in observing and actually observes the ''seventh'' rather than the "first" day of the week as the Sabbath. Parker v State, 16 Lea (Tenn. ) 470. Butcher. Exercising trade of butcher on Sunday was no ottense at common law. Kex v Brotherton, 1 Str. (Eng. » 702. Camp Meeting, Charge for Admission. A compulsory pay- ment of a fee for admission to camp-meeting grounds at a service held on Sunday was held to constitute worldly busi- ness under the Pennsylvania statute. ''When the wayward sinner is forbidden entrance to the church unless he hands SUNDAY 751 over his uickel to the on Siiiniay is in no better position, so far as worldly business is tomerned, than woidd be the ciri-us man with his one i)riee of admission to all the several and combined shows of his monster aggregation, or the peddler with his busy booth." Commonwealtli v Wcidner, 4 Pa. Co. Ct. 4:!T. Canal Lock-Keeper. A lock-keeper in the em})loy of the Schuylkill Navigation Company is not liable to conviction for violating the I'ennsylvania act of 22d of April, 171)4. prohibiting worldly employment upon Sunday, for opening the lock gates on the Schuylkill Canal to admit of the pas- sage of boats on the Saltbath day. on the demand of owners or captains of boats navigating the canal. The Schuylkill River is a ]»ublic highway, and as people have a right for some ])urposes to jkiss along it. even on Sunday, the com- l)any must keep it open and the agents of the company are not to judge as to the lawfulness of the travel, which is done at the risk of incurring the penalty prescribe Conn. 718. 752 THE CIVIL LAW AND THE CHURCH Cigars, Tlie sale of cigars on Hunday in the usual course of the seller's biisinoss to a habitual smoker of cigars is a violation of the Sunday law. A hotel keeper may not keep open on Sunday a stand, room, or other place for the i)urpose of general sales of cigars or tobacco to resident cnstoniers or boarders, how- ever it may be as to the transient guest who had no oppor- tunity to provide for his Sunday wants. The court does not know judicially that smoking a cigar by one who has acquired llie luibit is a necessity. The word ''necessity," as used in the Sunday law, does not mean an absolute or physical necessity, but a moral fitness or propriety of the work or labor done under the cir- cumstances of the particular case. It ought to be an unfore- seen necessity, or such as could not reasonably have been provided against. Mueller v State, 7G lud. .SIO. A sale of cigars by a tobacconist in his shop in the usual way and for ordinary use on the Lord's Day is not a sale of drugs and medicines, within the meaning of these words in the Massachusetts statute of 1887, incorporating certain ex- ceptions into the public statutes, chap. 98, sec. 2, which pro- hibited the keeping open shop on that day for the purpose of doing business. Commonwealth v Marzynski, 149 Mass. G8. A sale of cigars on Sunday bj- a licensed innkeeper, whether to his guests or to strangers, was illegal under the Pennsylvania act of 1794. Baker v Commonwealth, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 10. Commercial Paper. A creditor drew an order on his debtor in favor of a third person, which was accepted, and the nionej' thereon was paid to the creditor. The entire trans- action occurred on Sunday. The creditor was about to leave town, and the payment was an accommodation to him. The court held tJiat the transaction was not a work of neces- sity or charity, and that an action could not be maintained upon the acceptance. Mace v Putnam, 71 Me. 2:^.8. If drafts were accepted and delivered on Sunday, they SINI>AV ::,:'. were void between the i»a flies; l)ui if ilit-y wi-ii- lalscl.N dated as of aiKiIhei- day, and came into tiie hands of an iiiiioeent liohlei-, wlio took them lor value without notice, and ill the due course ol" trade, the acceptor was estoii]>ed from setting up that defense iu a suit against him by sucli hohler. But if the contract of purchase was on Sunday, then it was not in the due course of trade, and the holder would not be protected. The acceptances in this case were dated on Saturday, but there M'as no evidence that the hohler received them on vSunday, or knew of any irregularity in their execu- tion. Harrison v I'owers, 7G Ga. 218. Common Carrier, ^^'here cattle were received Sunday afternoon by a railroad coinpaii}^ to be transported over its line it was held that such prohibition against Sunday busi- ness did not ai)ply; also that the railroad company was liable in damages for failure to transi)ort the cattle promptly, instead of waiting until Monday morning. Thila- delphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. R. Co. v Lehman, ;")(; Md. 200. A contract for the transportation of ]»roperty upon a steamboat is not void because made on Sunday, noi- becatise the voyage is to commence and does commence Sunday even- ing. Eorses w'ere on Sunday placed on board a steamer for transportation, and on that day the freiglit was j»aid and a receipt taken, but there was no contract rcipiiring the trip to begin that day. The steamer startee transaction was lield void under the Maine statute afjainst doinj; business on Suns. A letter written and delivered on Sunday, inornisin;^ lo pay for services, may become the basis <»r a conli-act if theiv is no evidence of actual accei)tance on that roceeds delivered dated the next day. but the money was not drawn until the following Wednesday. It was hebl that the loan was valid. The contract was not completed until Wednesday. Cook v Forker, 103 Fa. St. 401. In Tillock v Webb. 5(i ^le. 100, it was held that a contract f(»r the use of a horse and buggy on Sunday not for a pur- pose of necessity or charity was void, and that a j»romiss«uy SlNhAV T.V) note ^iveu l»y tli<' liirci- ;is (((iiijM'iisat ion for daiiuijics to ilic horse and buggy, was w it lion t (•oiisi Me. illMt. If a contract for the hire of a horse was made on Sunday, and the horse was injured by the negligence of the hirer, an action may be maintained agiiinst him by the owner, not- withstanding the fact that the hiring was on Sunday. Har rison v Marshall. 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 271. Letting a horse on Sunday is a nmtter of business, and traveling with a hoise foi- pleasure on Sunday \i()Iates the statute. If the horse is injured by immoderate driving in consequence of which he dies, the owner cannot i-ecovei- even if the injury occniMcd while tlic liircr was diiving beyond the ])lace luimed in llie conliact. (licgg v NN'yiiian. I Cnsli. (Mass.) :V2:\. A contract for the j)urchase of bind was iniliahMl. Imt mtl completed, on Sunday. A payment on the contract was made on a subsecinent week day, but there was a failure of consideration resulting fiom the refnsal <»f one partner t<» confirm the contract nmde with his cojtartner. The jjlaintilf who made the payment on the contract was held entitled to recover it back, and the Sunday negot iai inns were liebl no bar to the action. Menill v Dttwiis, II N. 11. Tl'. A contract for (he perlormance of work on a railroatl was 756 THE CIVIL LAW AND Til 10 ( III IJCH iuitiated hy iicgotiation.s l)('j;iiii l)iit noi coikIikIciI oh Sun- day. The work was performod and rocoverv' on the contract was sustained on the gronnd that the Sunday negotiations constituted a mere proposition, not result inj; in a eomphited contract on that day. Stackpole v Synionds, 2'1 N. H. 229. In an action in Vermont based on a fraud in the exchange of horses which occurred in New IIanii)sliiie on Sunday it was held that the contract, if made in another State, was not in violation of the law of Vermont. A contract made on Sunday is not tinged with any j^eneral illegality; it is illegal only as to the time in which it is entered into. Adams V Gay, 19 Vt. 358. A contract made on Sunday for the performance of labor, which was afterward performed on week days, rendered the employer liable for the amount agreed ui)on. Receiving the labor was in etfect a ratification of the contract, and he was bound to pay for it. Meriwether v Smith, 44 Ga. 541. When the time for the performance of a contract falls on Sunday the compliance on the following day will be a suffi- cient performance. Stryker v Vanderbilt, 27 N. J. Law Rep. 68. Where the last day for performing a contract falls upon Sunday tlie party has the following Monday on which to perform. Otherwise, as to contracts where days of grace are allowed, the last of whic-h falls on Sunday, if Sunday be the next day after presentment of a protest of a bill or note, the notice of protest will be in time if sent on the following Monday. Anonymous, 2 Hi 11 (N. Y.) 375. A contract entered into in New York by parties resident there, and to be j)erformed there, is to be governed by the laws of that State. According to the judicial decisions in New York, it is settled that when the day of the perform- ance of a contract, upon whieh days of grace are not allowed, falls on Sunday, that day is not to be eoiuited. and the con- tract may be performed on the next Monday. Stebbias v Leowolf, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 137. An executed contract made on Sundav is not void. There- SUNDAY 7.-T fore a sale of personal piopeitv on a week day for whicli a note was given on Sunday, possession ot the properly havinii been transferred to tlie buyer and llie note jiaid, the trans- action was held valid, notwithstanding- a part of it occurred on Sunday. Chestnut v narl)augli, 78 I'a. St. 47:5. A contract for the sale of proi»erty initiated on a week day, but not completed until Sunday, must be i-ey;arded as a Sunday contract and therefore void. Smith v Foster, 41 N. H. 215. It was held in New York that any business not judicial can be lawfully done on Sunday, except so far as it is pro- hibited by statute. The exposure of certain articles to sale is prohibited. The prohibition is evidently directe. A contract made on Sunday is not void at c(»mmon law. An executory contract made on Sunday cannot be enfone*!, 758 Till'] ('1\IL LAW AND THi: ('HrK Bur. (Eng.) 1507; see also Story v Elliot, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 27, where the court quotes from Lord Mansfield's o|>inion. Courts, Charging Jury. The Tennessee Code of 1858 recog- nized the conmion law rule prohibiting holding courts on Sunday; accordingly, it was held that unless authorized by statute the judge i>residing on a criminal trial could not lawfully charge the jury on Sunday. Charging a jury was said to be a high ju«licial function. ^loss v State. 17;> S. W. (Tenn.i S."!». SUNDAY T.V.t Courts, Early Christian Custom. J.oid Man-lidd, in Swann V Broome, 3 Bur. (Eiig. ) 151)7, coiisideriii}; a (jiit'stutii involv- ing the valii) Me. 193. Under the Texas law Sunday includes the twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight. The giving of two or more theatrical performances in the same place on the same day does not constitute separate offenses. Muckenfuss v State, 55 Tex. Cr. Re. 229. Under the New nanii)shire statute of 1709 the Lord's Day includes twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight. The service of civil process on that day is illegal. Shaw v Dodge. 5 N. H. 4(52. It was held in Connecticut, Fox v Abel, 2 Conn. 541, that the term "Lord's Day" included the solar day only, the time between sunrise and sunset, and that the service of a body execution after midnight on Sunday, and before sunrise was not a violation of the statute against tlie service of civil pro- cess on the Lord's Day. Demurrage. In view of tiie statute j)rohibiting servile labor on Sundays, a contract to pay demurrage will, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, be deemed to intend to mean demurrage for working days, and to exclude Sundays. Rigney v White, 4 Daly (N. Y. i 400. Disorderly Conduct. The Sunday law of 1794 is expressly limited to worldly business and unlawful sports or diver- sions, and does not apply to drunkenness, swearing, and disorderly conduct. Noftsker v Commonwealth, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 559. SUN1>AV Ttil Employer and Employee. Tlie iJiohildtion coiilaiucW in iIk- Virginia Sunday law was lichl to appl.v Ixtili to an i-ni ployer and to an employee. I'nckett v < "oiiiinonwcalili. lOT Va. 844. Execution. The sheriff received an execution (tn a week- day with instructions to hold it until further directions. On Sunday the plaintiff in the execution directed Ihe sheriff' to proceed. On Monday', when about to levy under this execu- tion, he received another execution. It was held that the latter execution had priority'. The direction to the sheriff given on Sunday was a nullity. Stern's Ai)|)eal, G4 Pa. St. 447. Judgment was entered in the forenoon on Saturday. An execution was issued Sunday night immediately aftei- mid night. The statute prohibited the issue of an execution until the lapse of twenty-four hours after the entry of the judg- ment. It was held that Sunday must be excluded from the computation of time, that the execution was prematurely issued, and that a levy under it was void. Penniman v (\de; 8 Mete. (Mass.) 49G. Where the lien of an attachment continue Tin: criUROH day fixed for the .sale, and was liad on tlic followiii*; day, Monday, Games. Under llie Sunday law of Mississi|)y)i the term ''ijaines" means such sports and contests as are publicly exhibited, and not ])rivate diverHions, and therefore, an indictment alle<;in'2 I'a. 125. Persons professing the .Jewish religion, and others who keep the seventh day as Sabbath, are subject to the penalties imposed for violation of the Sunday law of 1794. Common- wealth V Wolf, 3 Ser. & K. (Pa.) 48. 7«;i Tin; cix il law and iiii; cm iirii Justices, Extra Compensation. A special justice of the city (»r New York, receiving an aiiinial salary for his services in lliat capacity, caniiol re-cover extra coiniiensation for serv- ices jxM'fornied on Suiulay. I'alnier v Mayor, N. Y., 2 Sandf. (X. Y.) 'MS. Laborer, Hiring. It was lield in Kex v Wliitna.sh, ] Man. cS: J{y. (lOng. ) 45-, tliat a contract for hiring a .servant for a jear, made between a farmer and a laborer on a Sunday was not within the prohibition in 21) Car. 2, chap. 7, see. 1. Lease. A written lease was executed on Sunday, and the lessee entered into possession that day. The lease was abso- lutely void. Subso(iuent ]»ossession of the jjroperty and the l)ayineut of rent by the tenant created a tenancy', the terms of which depended on some contract aside from the written lease, which could not be resorted to for the purpo.se of ascertaining the terms of the contract. Vinz v Beatty, 61 Wis. 645. An agreement for rent of land made on Sunday is void; but if the lessee occupies the premises during the term stated in the agreement, such agreement, with other facts and circumstances, may be shown for the purpose of estab- lishing the tenant's liabilit}' for rent. Kainey v Capps, 22 Ala. 288. A lease executed on Sunday is void, and subsequent occu- pation of premises will not be deemed a ratification of it, but some new promise or condition in respect thereto is neces- sary. Parol evidence that it was not executed on the day it bore date is incompetent. Mcintosh v Lee, 57 la. 356. A guaranty for the fulfillment of a lease executed and delivered on the Lord's Day between sunrise and sunset is void under Revised Statutes chap. 50, although the lea.se itself be not executed until a week day following. Merriam V Stearns, 10 Cush. Olass.) 257. Legal Proceedings. Where an act is required by statute to be done in a given number of days less than a week an inter- vening Sunday may be excluded in the com})ntation of the time. Where the time fixed bv statute for doing an act SUNDAY T(;r, exceeds a week, and the last day falls on Suuday. the act uiust be done on the preceding Saturday. AnoiiyuMnis. i' Hill's Rep. 375. Sunday is not to be reckoned one of liie three days for which an officer may adjourn the sale of an e(|irny of redcin]) tion taken on execution. Thayer v Felt, 4 I'ick. (Mass.) ;i51. In Missouri it was held that where the last day for lilinj; a claim against a decedent's estate fell on Sunday, the diiini might be filed on Monday. Keys v Keys' Instate, 217 Mo. 4S. Under a statute which pi'ovided that when notice of desire to take the poor debtor's oath is served by leaving, a coity at the place of abode of the creditor, not less than twenty-four hours shall be allowed before the tune aitpoinled for the examination. Sunday must be excluded in the computa- tion of time. Cunningham v Mahan, 112 Mass. 58. In an action commenced on Sunday the defendant ap- peared, answered, tried the cause, and made a motion for a new trial without any objection as to the irregular com- mencement of the action. On appeal the defeinlant for the first time raised the Sunday objection, but it was held to be too late. Venable v Ebenezer Bapt. (Mi., 25 Kan. 177. Service on a Sunday of a notice and alHdavits or other pa])ers, which are to be the foundation of a motion un- a rule, is irregulai- and void. Field v TarU, 20 Johns. ( X. Y.) 140. A declaration in trespass may be delivered on Sunday. Hargrave& Taylor (Hill. \:\ W. Ill ) Fort. (Fng. ) :{75. See also White and Martin, (Mich. S W. Ill i Fort. ( lOng. i ,'575. Legislative Powers. A statute inohihiling coniiiKMi hihor on Sunday is a mere municipal or police regnlation, whose validity is neither strengthened or wcakeiuMl I»y the fact that the day of rest it enjoins is tlie Sal»l)alh day. The Ix'gisla- ture has ]»owei' to rccjnii'e cessation of lal)oi* at stated inter- vals, and to name the day of rest. Bloom v Kichards, 2 Ohio St. 387. As to the j)ower of the Legislature to protect Sunday from desecration, see Xeuendorll v Duryea. (»!> N. V. 557; l'e(»iile 7(1(1 TIM-: ('I\ II. LAW AM) Till: CHrKCII V l)iiiir«»i H;irl). ( \. \.) 51S. *'Tlie ('sf;il»Iisliiii('iit jiimI i-«';inl;ili()ii of the Siilthafli is witliiii till' just j)o\V('i-s of llic en il jiovci'imicnl. With lis tin* Sabbath as a civil institution is older than rhe jroveriiiiieiit." "It is a law of our nature that one day in seven must be obsei-ved as a day of relaxation and refreshment, if not for public worshij*. lOxperience h;is shown that the ohseiwance of one day in seven as a day of rest is adniii-ahh; service to a state, considered merely as a civil institution." "The sta- bility of government, the welfare of the subject, and the interests of society, have made it necessary that the day of rest observed bj' the i)eople of a nation should be uniform, and that its observance should be, to some extent, com- pulsory, not by way of enforcing the conscience of those upon whom the law operates, but by way of protection to those who ts to do in the Sabbath laws is to regulate its observance." "The Christian Sabbath is, then, one of the civil institutions of the State, and to which the business and duties of life are, by the common law, made to conform and adapt themselves." Lindenniuller v People, 33 Barb. (K Y.) 548. The Christian Sabbath is a civil institution older than our government, and respected as a day of rest by our constitu- tion, and the regulation of its observance as a civil institu- tion is within the ])ower of the Legislature as much as any regulations and laws having for their object the preserva- SUNDAY 7(17 tion of good morals and the peace and good order of society. Karwisch v Mayor, etc., Atlanta, 44 Ga. 205. It is no part of the object of tlie act to enforce the observ- ance of a religious duty. The act does not, to any extent, rest upon the ground that it is immoral or irreligious to labor ou the Sabbath any more than upon any other day. It simply prescribes a day of rest from motives ol public policy as a civil reguhition. The principles on which the statute rests are wlioliy secnhir, and they are none the less so be- cause they may happen to concur witli tlie dietates of reli- gion. The Legislature has no power over things spiritual but only over things temporal, nor any i»ower whatever to enforce religious duties, simply because lliey are religious, but only, within the limits of the constitution, to nmintain justice and ])romote the jmblic welfare. The act rests on j)ublic policy alone. !Mc(Jatrick v ^^'ason, 4 Ohio St. ")(>(». State Legislatures, and Congress within the District of Columbia, have ])ower to set apart Sunday as a day of rest and prohibit labor thereon. This is not done for the purpose of enforcing religious observance, but the regulation is made in the interest of good order and the welfare of soiiety. The Legislature might select any other d;iy, but by selecting the Sabbath day has selected the day society generally recognizes as a day of rest, irrespective of any legal recpiire- ment. Referring to the Maryland act of 17l';'.. among otliei- things prohibiting blasphemy, the court siiid it was evi- dently intended (o prevent the desecration of the Lonl's Day, and not jwimarily to enfoi-ce a day of rest. It was held that this statute, anntaiiis provisions relative to Sunday observance, and prohibiting business on Sunday, city authorities have no power to enact an ordinance on i1m' same subject, but they may enact ordinances on subjects noi embraced in the general law. Kothschibl v Darien, GI) 4. Repairing on Sunday a belt in a mill wlii
  • yt'd innny hands. A l)ersou who gratuitously assisted the owner of the wheel pit in clearing it cnit on Sunday, and during sueh service was injured, was not entitled to recover ilamages for the injury, for the reason lh;il his illegal act in woi-king on Sunday was so inseparably connected with the catise of action as to pre- 770 TIN': ('l\ IL l-AW ANh Till; (111 Kdl vcnl his iii;iiiil;iiiiiii^ (lie snil. .M((Ir;illi v Mcruiii, 112 Miiss. IVilco.\, -4 X. V. iloo. 772 Tin-: ('I\'IIv LAW AND Till: (iniKil Kolli V II:ix, (IS Mo. App. 2.S.'i, sustained I lie Viilidity of u notice tluit a coiifrnct for sdeef improvements wftuld be let on a a defense that the plaintiff was unlawfully engaged in worldly em])loynient on Sunday when the injury occurred. Mohney V Clark, 2(i Pa. 342. Preserving Property, if properly i^ exposed to imminent danger, it would not be unhiwlul lo pieserve it on Sunday, 771 Tin-: ("IN IL LAW A N h I'lli: (III K("ll :iii(l reiiiovt' il (o ;i \>\mr of sjilcly. I';mii:il«'(' v W'ilks, I'L' Barb. (N. Y.) 5.^1), snst;iiiiiii^' ;i ((nitiMct jn-ovidiiij; fur moving; lo ;i plncc of safety lo<;s fonniiij^ a part of a i-all, wliicli had heeii broken uj) in a storm. Process. A writ of inquiiy to damages cannot be executed on a Snnday, nor can damaj^es be assesseri(Ii. Geo. 1 i Fort. ( TCng. ) ?,7:\. Criminal process may be served on Sunday if such service is necessarj' on that day. With this limitation a warrant issued umler a statute restricting the sale of intoxicating drinks might be served on Sunday unless it could be shown that the service was not necessary. Keith v Tuttle, 28 Me. 327. A writ issued on Sunday was held void. Haynes v Sledge and Maxy, 11 Ala. 530. Promissory Note. In Towle v Larrabee, 26 Me. 464, it was held that a ])roniissory note made on the Lord's Day, given and received as the consideration for articles purchased on that day, is void. A note signed and delivered on Sunday is, as between the parties, invalid. It is otherwise if it be only signed on that day and subsequently delivered. The note in this instance was indorsed on Monday. If it was an accommoda- tion paper and indorsed on Monday, it apparently then first became a binding contract and an action could be nmin- taiued upon it. Bank of Cumberland v Mayberry. 48 Me. 198. A i)romissory note, though executed on Sunday is valid if delivered on some otlier day. Hofer v Cowan, McClung Co.. 55 Cent. Law Journal (Ct. App. Ky.) 21)0. A promissory note given on Sunday is void as between the parties and a subsequent promise to pay it will not make it valid. Pope v Linn, 50 Me. 83. A note given on Snnday for a horse purchased on that d;iy is void. O'Ponnell v Sweeney. 5 Ala. 467; see also SUNDAY 775 Plaisted v Palmer, 03 Me. 57(J, clieck given for purchase l)rice. A subsequent innocent indorsee for value is protected against any detect in a promissory note arising from tlie fact that it was given on Sunday. State C'ai)ital Bank v Thomi)son, 42 N. H. ;i«l). Under S Vic, Ch. 45, sec. 2, a note made on Sunday in ])ayment of goods sold on that day is void as hetwetn the original parties, but not as against an indorsee for value, Jind witlionl notice. Ilouliston v I'arsons, !) U]>. Can. i^. K. (iSl ; .see also ('rond)ie v Overholtzer, 11 Up. Can. ,")."». The obligation to rej)ay a loan is not defeated by the fact that the note on which it is borrowed was made on Sunday, or that authority to deliver it was given on that day, so long as the lender knew nothing of these facts. Beman v Wessels, 53 Mich. 54!). A promissory note executed upon Sunday in consumma- tion of a contract previously made, not being a work of necessity or charity, is void. But though such note be written and signed on Sunday, yet it will not, on tliat ac- count, be void if not delivered until .some other day. Love- joy V Whipple, 18 Vt. 379. A note made on Sunday is void and a recovery cannot be ha. A i>r(»niiss(»ry note given on Snnday ft»r an antecedent debt is valid and binding. Kanlnian \ llanini, I'A) Mo. 'ASl. 77(1 tin: CI \'IL LAW A N I » I 1 1 1 ; ( liriK IJ A iKtlc ^i\t'ii (III Siiiirohihition against bnsiness on Snnday relates only to the time between niidnily the necessai-y elements of a contract, withont (lci)cn7 Miss. 405. Sale of a horse invalid. Knights v Brown, U:', Me. r),~)7. A contract for the sah* of horses on Sunday is secular labor or employment \\ ithin the N'ermont statute. Such a contract cannot be enforced, and an action cannot be main- tained on a warranty made on the sale or exchange of horses on that day. Lyon v Strong, G Vt. 219. An action cannot be maintained for a deceit ])racticed in the exchange of horses on the Lord's Day. Kobeson v French, 12 Met. (Mass.) 24. In Tucker v Mowry, 12 Mich. 378, it was held that a con- tract of sale made on Sunday is void ; and the vendor may on a subsequent day tender back the purchase i>rice, and recover his ])roperty by replevin if it is not returned on demand. The mere making of a bargain on Sunday Tor the sale ol' a horse is not void in New York unless the horse was pub- licly exposed for sale. The sale as made was not void at common law in New Yoric, nor did it \iolate any statute. Miller v Roessler, 4 E. 1). Smith (N. Y.) 234. A contract for the sale of a hor.se was initiated by certain negotiations on Sunday, but the hor.se was not delivered. n«»r the money paid until the following Tuesday. The contract was not void as violating the Sunday law. Hloxsome v Williams, 3 Barn. & Cre. (Kng.) 232. In Ohio it was held that a contract lor ihe sale of land made on Snndav was n<)t invalid and did not constitute 780 TIIK (M\IL LAW AND Till; <'HI KCII (-oiniiioii ImImh- iimicr (lie Siiiiosui"e for sale of goods, wares, and merchandise on Sunday. Batsford v Every, 44 Barh. (N. Y.) 618. A horse was sold privately on Sunday b}^ a horse dealer to one who knew the seller's calling. It was held that such a sale did not violate the Sunday statute of North Carolina, and did not j)revent the jturchaser from nuiintaining an action for deceit on the sale of a horse. Melvin v Easley, 7 Jones Law Rep. (N. C.) 356. A sale of goods on a Sunday, which is not made in the exercise of the ordinary calling of the vendor, or his agent, is not void at common law or by the statute of 29 Car. 11, chap. 7. Drury v Defontaiue, 1 Taunt. (Eng. ) 135. A contract for the sale of a horse on Sunday is void. The seller of a horse on Sunday cannot recover the animal back from the i)urchaser, or nuiintain trover for its value, on the ground that the contract was void and that no title passed. If the seller of the horse on Sunday was made drunk by the purchaser thereof, for the purpose of defrauding him, the parties were not in pari delicto and the seller can re- cover his horse. Block v McMurray, 56 Miss. 217. A horse dealer cannot maintain an action upon a con- tract for the sale and warranty of a horse made by him upon a Sunday. Fennell v Ridler, 5 Barn. & Cres. (Eng.) 406. Salesman, Services on Sunday. In Wisconsin a traveling salesman, under a contract by v.l.uh he was to receive a salary and also his expenses not exceeding an average speci- fied amount for each working day, was permitted to include Sunday among the working days, where he had actually SUNDAY 781 traveled or rendered service ou that day. Orusteiu v Yalir & Lange Drug Co., 119 Wis. 429. Saloon. A saloon is open within the contenij)lation of 3 How. Stat., sec. 2283 (Michi<;an j, requiring saloons to be kept closed during Sunday, wliere a door leading from the saloon into a hallway is left o])en, and jteople are allowed to enter the hallway which does not connect with anj^ room other than the saloon. Peoi)le v Schottey, IIG Mich. 1. Saloon Closing, Mandamus. In l'eoi)le v Bnsso, 141 111. App. 218, it was hehl that a peremptory mandamus V\'ould not be granted on the application of a private citizen to comi)el the mayor of the city to enforce Sunday saloon closing laws. See same rule as to a police commissioner who had granted saloon privileges in addition to those prescribed by statute. A mandamus was refused to c()ni))el him to enforce the law or vacate the order j)romulgated by him Gowan v Smith, 157 Mich. 443. Search Warrant. A search warrant is not a civil process, and it may be executed on Sunday. Wright v Dressel, 140 Mass. 147. Seaweed. The gathering of sea^veed about ten o'clock on tlie evening of the Lord's Day on a beach at a considerable distance from any house or public road is not a work of necessity in the sense of the Massachusetts General Statutes, chap. 84, sec. 1, althliil»il iii^ siilcs (»r :;(»(»(|s on Siiii(|;iy \\;is held to iii(lii(|«* in.icliiiics ;nit(>iii;ilir;illy vciMliii;^ iiicicaiil ilc wiiros. A ciisloiiKM- jiiil iiMtiicy in llic slot mikI t!i«' iicicliiiio automnt- icaliy piodiued (he articles sold, "(loods in these inachines are exposed to sale as actually and ellec tually as if the owner or operator were i)resent sliowin^ the ^oods and deliveriii}^ the same on receipt of jirice. The intent and ellect is an actual sale and deliveiy of <;oods to every customer who will ])ay the ])rice as 83. The Kentucky act of iyo:>, sec. 1303, prohibiting keeping oi)en a barroom or .selling licjuor thei-ein on Snnday, was sus- tained as an exerci.se of i)olico power, notwitlistanding the ])rovision of the constitution requiring the General As- sembly to pi'ovide a law whereby the .sense of the j)eople of any city, etc., may be taken as to whether or not liquors shall be sold therein, or the sale thereof regulated. Keep- ing a barroom open on Sunday and selling liquor on that day are distinct offenses. Commonwealth by Earth v McCann, 12:5 Ky. 247. Statute of Limitations. A part payment made ui)on Sunday will not take a debt out of the operation of the Statute of limitations. riai)p v ^ale, 112 Mass. 308. Statute, Unconstitutional. In Ex I'arte Newman, 9 Cal. 502, the California act of April, 1858, "for the better observance of the Sabbath," was held to be a violation of sections 1 and 4 of the State constitution relating to the independence of the citizen and religious toleration. The constitution when it forbids disci'imination or preference in religion does not mean meiely to guarantee toleration but religious liberty in its largest sense, and a perfect equality without distinc- tion between religious sects. The enforced observance of a day held sacred by one of these .sects is a discrimination in favor of that sect, and a violation of the religious freedom of the others. Considered as a munici])al regulation, the Legislature has no right to forbid or enjoin the lawful pur- suit of a lawful occupation on one day of the week any more than it can f'oi-hid it nltogcther. Statute, When Retrospective. In Maine it was held that an act passed in 1880 regulating defenses on certain contracts made on Sunday applied to a contract made in 187<'», and a defense was rejected because not complying with the later statute. The statute was remedial and might be retrospec- tive. Berry v CI:n-y, 77 Me. 482. Subscriptions on Sunday. See Sub.scrii)tions. 784 Till'; <'I\IL LAW AM) Till: <"in KMIF Sunset. A mortgage t\v('(\ iii;i«i<', cxccnlcd, ;iiiil recorded after sunset on Sunday was sustained in Tracy v Jenks, '.\2 Illass. 4(1.'), under a statute of that State, passed in 1701, wliic'h jtroliihited oi-dinary business between the preceding midnight and sunset on Sunday. Surety Contract. A surety contract executed on Sunday is not invalid unless ' lawful or unlawful according to the motive and object of the party, it was held, in an action for the arrest of the plaintiff on a charge of violating the statute for the due observation of tliat day, tliat the course of conduct of the plaintitf immediately preceding the arrest, particularly his coming into town from another place, and riding up and down the streets, and going from one public house to another, was admissible to show with what intent the plaintiff was riding at the time of the arrest. Ward v (Jreen, 11 Conn. 455. One who travels from one town to another on the Lord's Day for the sole i)urpose of visiting a friend whom he knows lo be sick, and thinks may be in need of assistance, and of rendering such assistance as on inquiry he might lind neces- sary, is traveling from charity; and in an action against a railroad corporation, foi- injuries sustained while a pas- senger on that day, on piitting in evidence that he was travel- ing for the pui'i)ose above stated, he is entitled to go (o the jiny on the question whether he was traveling lawfully, or not, although he otters no evidence of the ground of his belief that his friend was in need of assistance. Doyle v Lynn & r>oston Kailroad Com]>auy, IIS IMass. 195. The plaintitf lived a mile from the church, and going thither with his lady in his coach u]K)n a Sunday, was robbed; and brought tliis action against (he hundred, and recovere l>A\\' AM> Till: r>\. Violation, Remedy For. The violation of the Virginia Sun- day law was held not to be a misdemeanor, and the forfeiture imi»ose(l tlierefor is recoxcrable only by a civil ^^■arranl and not by a criminal wai-rant against the otlcnder. >\'ells v Commonwealth. 107 \'a. 8:J4. Warrant. An escape warrant may be executed on Sunday. James ^ Tarsons ( Ilill. L* Anne) Forts. (I-aig.) .■!7I. A warrant cauuol be iss\ied on Sunday for I raveling on that day, nor can an arrest be nuide nn .Mass. ;',i*l. 788 'IMII'] ("l\ IL l-.\\\ AM) Tin; « ||i lajll Warrant of Attorney. A wan-inl ol ;itlorney executed on Suiidiiy was su.staiiu'd in Bakn- v I.nkciis, o5 I*a. St. 146. Will. Exe(Mition of a will on tlu* I^ord'.s Day by a testator is not "work, labor, or business," within tin* nieaniii}; of Massaclin.setts jjeneral statutes, cliaj). St. s<'c. 1, and a will soexec'uteoi-ation nndcr IIh* I'cnnsyivania law and tlici'dore subject to ta.xalion. American Sunday' School Union v Philadelphia, Kil Ua. St. .'.OT. Camp Meeting- Associations. See Cani]) Meetinj^s. Cemetery. The New York act of 1ST!», chap. :'.1(), exempts from assessment eemelery lands owned l»y a religious cor- poration. A claim of ('X''mi»tion was snslaincd in Matter 793 70-i Till': ('l\'H. LAW AXh Till; rmiMil of W'iiilc rijiiiis riTshytcrijiii ( "liiirrli. 111' Ajtp. 1 )iv. I N. Y .) WImtc, out of forty acrrs of hind alh'j^cd to lie held l).v a cliiircli as a buryinjjj j^rouiid, only one acic was adnally used for l»ni-ial purposes and tlir i-cniaindcr as faiinland, it was held that the rcniainin;; lliirly-ninc acres were subject to taxation. Mnlioy v Clinrclunan, ^)'2 la. L'.'IS. Corporate Securities. In Pennsylvania it was held that bonds and iintrtj^ajics owned by a religious corporation, the income of which was used for the i)aynient of the ])as1or's salary, were subject to taxation under the act of 1851, which subjected to taxation the ]>ro])erty of an association or incorporated conii)any from which an income or reAenue was derived. Presbyterian Church v Montgomery County, 'i Grant's (\\s. (Pa.) 245. Dissenters. Conscientious dissenters are liable to be taxed for pro]>riate to the jnirpose, and is used for no other, it comes within the TAXATION 795 limits prescribed by the statute. Maimix v Couuty Com- missioiiei's, Ohio Dec. 18. Liquor Tax Law. A two-stor}- buihliiig, the iij^per story of which was used for religious worship by a Jewish congre- gation and the lower story for its Sunday school and also by several Jewish charitable societies, which paid rent for the use of the building, was held to be a church under the liquor tax law. Matter of McCusker, 47 A. D. (N. Y.) 113. Masses. A testatrix bequeathed to the pastor of a Konuin Catholic church, and to his successors as pastors, money to be used in saying low nuisses for the repose of the soul of the testatrix and others named by her. The bequest was held liable to taxation under the transfer tax act. Matter of McAvoy, 112 A. D. (X. Y.) 377. Member, Exemption. Members of unincorporated societies may be exemj)ted from assessments for sujtport of parish church. Adams v Howe, 14 Mass. 340. Under the Massachusetts act of 1811, chap. G, sec. 2, a per- son becoming a mend)er of any religious societj^, though of the same denomination as the society to which he previously belonged, and filing a certificate i)ursuant to the statute, is exempted from taxation in every other religious society'. Holbrook v Ilolbrook, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 248. Member, Liability. In Muz/y v Wilkins, Smith's N. H. Kep. 1, it was held that a Presbyterian could not be taxed for the support of a Congregational minister. Members, Support of Church. Mcndx'rs may be exempted from taxation foi- sn])i>ort of parish clnircli. Adams v Ilowe, 14 Mass. 340. Member, When Liability Arises. Wliere a religious society voted to raise a snm of money, without a]»pro]>riating it, intending tliat it should be assessed on a valuation of the 1st of May following, and be applied to defray expenses to be incurred after that day, it w:is held that a ]>ers()n who separated himself from the society after the vote, and before the first of ;Miiy, was not linble to assessment. Inglee V Bosworth, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 501. 700 Till'; ('i\ II. LAW ANh Tin; riirijcii Ministers. In l'('iiiisylv;iiii;i il \\;is licld in ( "oniinonuciillli V (^uyler, 5 W;itts & S. (I'n.) 27;"), Hint the act of ISJl, pro- viding for taxing {salaries of ])ul)lic officers, did not apply to a Presbyterian minister. He did not hold a pul)lic office, and liis position was not within the statute. By the Connecticnt act of 1702 a fund jjrovided for the maintenance of the luinistry of the gos])el was exemj)t from taxation, and this exenii)tion w as not abolished by the adop- tion of a State constitution, iioi- by subsequent State stat- utes. Such a fund, owned by an incorj)orated religious society, was assessed on the town tax list, and the tax was collected from a member of the societ3^ In an action by him against the town to recover the amount so paid it was held that he was entitled to judgment, for the reason that the property' was exempt. From the opinion in this case, it seems that members of an incorporated religious society are liable personally for the debts of the corporation. Atwater v Woodbridge, Conn. 22.'3. Assessors act judicially in determining a minister's claim to exemption from taxation and are not liable personally for an erroneous decision. "Rarhyte v Shepherd, 85 N. Y. 238. New Hampshire. The constitution of New Hampshire does not exempt church property- from taxation. A statute of the State exemjjted such property up to the value of SI 0,000 and jtrovided for taxing the excess. Franklin Street Society V Manchester, 00 N. H. 342. Ownership and Use. In order to eutitle church property to exemi»ti()n from taxation it must not only be used exclu- sively for religious purposes but must be owned by the con- gregation. In this instance the laud was owned by an indi- vidual who had erected thereon a house of worship for the use of a religious society. The property was held to be subject to taxation. People ex rel Swigert v Anderson, 117 Til. 50. Parsonage. The use of property, and not the ownership, determines the question of exemption. Parsonages are not exeni])t although erected on a ]>ortion of a church lot, which would otherwise be exempt, and occupied by the minister TAXATION 797 free of rent, if the language of the exemption only includes places actually' used for religious worship with the grounds attached thereto and appurtenant to the house of worship. A parsonage which was not occupied by the minister of the church, but was rented out, was held not to be exempt from taxation under the provision of the Kentucky constitution exeni])ting from taxation a parsonage occupied as a home, and lor no otlici- jmrjioses, by the minister of any religion. Broadway Christian (Mnu'ch v Commonwealth, 2:) Ky. (Part 11 j KJ!*.'). A parsonage erected by a religious society on their church lot is liable to taxation as real estate. State, Church of the Kedeemer v Axtell, 41 N. J. L. 117. A building used by a religious society as a rectory or par- sonage is subject to taxation. First Presbyterian Church v New Orleans, 30 J.a. Ann. 251). Under the provisions of the fourth clause of the sixth section of the Indiana assessment law (1 (J. & 11. G9 ) a par- sonage that has been erected for the convenience and accom- modation of the pastor of a church is not exempted from taxation. Trustees of Methodist Episco])al Church v Ellis, nS Ind. ;:5. A parsonage is used for a residence, and therefore pri- marily for a scculai- ]»urpose. A statute exempting it from taxation \\as held invalid under the Illinois const itutiort a tax ujKjn that part <»r the clinrcli building in use as a j)arsonage, tlie bnilding being exempt nmler the act of May 14, 1874. Xorlhani])i(»n < "onniy v St. Peter's ( "liniiii, ."> Pa. Co. Ct. 41(5. In Iowa a parsonage was held exenipl I roin taxation. Cook V Hutch ins. 4(1 la. 7(Mi. 798 THE CI\ II. LAW A M > I'lli; (I I IK* 11 r;n'S()ii;i;i;(' is siil)j('(l to l;i.\;il idii. Stale, I'Mrst KcIoiiimmI Dutch dnirch v Lyon, 'A2 N. .1. I.. ;'.(;(). Tlui ])arsoiiajj(» was held lial)l(! (o taxation although stand- ing on the same parcel of land as the clnirch edifice, front- ing on the same street, and separated Irom the church by a narrow si)ace. l*eoj)le ex rel Hutchinson v Collison, 22 Aid). N. C. (N. Y.) 52. Pennsylvania Rule. In ]*ennsylvania it was held that tlie constitutional i)rovision exempting church i)roi)erty from taxation relates to taxes pi-oper, or general public contribu- tions, levied and collected by the State, or by its authorized municipal agencies, for general governmental purposes as distinguished from peculiar forms of taxation or special assessments imposed upon property, within limited areas for the payment of local improvements theiein, by which pro^)- erty assessed is specially and peculiarly benefited and en- hanced in value to an amount at least equal to the assess- ment, and that, therefore, a church was liable to assessment for paving a street in front of its property. Broad Street, Sewickley Methodist Episcopal Church, 105 Pa. St. 475. Resulting Benefits. "l*roperty is made more secure both by the education of children, and the religious and moral instruction of adults. In this additional security every owner of an estate receives a compensation for the moneys paid by him toward the support of those institutions.'' The propertj^ of a manufacturing corporation was held liable to taxation for ])arish ]»uri)oses. Amesbury Nail Factory (^ompany v Weed, IT Mass. rA. Sunday School Building. A corporation was organized for the i)urpose of erecting a Sunday school building. The first story was used for Sunday school and religious meet- ings. The second story was leased to the city for public school purj)oses. A special act exem])ted the property of this Sunday school association from all taxation. It was held that the entire property was exempt. Howard Sunday School Association A])]>eal, 70 Pa. .'Vt4. Transfer Tax. A devise to a reliirious societv of land and TAXATION 700 buil(liiiy;s thereon, to be used exclusively as a parsonage, is not subject to the succession tax uuder the Massachusetts act of 1801. First Fniversalist Society. Salem v Jiradlord, 185 Mass. :J10. A bequest to St. TaiiTs Protestant Episco])al Cliurcli, I'onghkeepsie, was held liable to taxation. Catlin v Trinity College, li:; N. Y. i:;:i. Use for Other Purposes. Chni-ch ])ro])erty occasionally rented for lectures, concerts, i-eadings, amateur theati'icals, and other like entertainments does not thereby become sub- ject to taxation, especially if the income is u.sed for the bene- fit of the local society. Such use of the i)ro])erTy is not a de- parture from the ordinary purposes of the property sullicient to show an intention to devote it to commercial purposes. First Tnitarian Society, Hartford v Hartford, (50 Conn. 'M\S. Worship, Boston. The inhabitants of Boston never were comjxdlable by law to i)ay taxes for the sui)port of public worshij). Attorney-(Teneral v Proprietors Meetinghouse in Federal Street, Boston, :\ (Jray (Mass.) 1, ;J0. Young Men's Christian Association. A branch association in Auburn, Maine, owned real property a part of which was rented for a boarding house and another part for stores. The portions of the proi)erty so rented were held liable to taxation. Auburn v Y. M. C. A., Auburn, 8<'> Me. 214. Under the revenue act of Illinois, real estate of a Young Men's Christian Association, the object of which associa- tion is the improvement of the si)iritual, mental, social, and physical condition of young men, which real estate is leased to various tenants for profit, is not exempt from taxa- tion. Peojde e.x rel (lore v Young Men's Christ i;ni .Kssocia- tion, 157 111. 40:{. Proi)erty owned by this associalictn in Louisville, Ken- tucky, was hehl exempt from taxation on the grountl Ihat the buildings were used as j)laces of religious worship. Adjacent vacant lots held for sale were al.so e.vempt. Com- monwealth V Young Men's Christian Association, 1*5 Ky. Law Rep. 040. TOWN Connecticut, ecclesiastical aiTairs, 800. Maine, parochial powers, 801. Mjissachusetts, parochial powers, 801. New Hampshire, gospel land, 802. New Hampshire, parochial powers, 802. Connecticut, Ecclesiastical Affairs. The iiihabitant.s of each town ill this State (Coiiiiecticut j not divided into .societie.s, are b^- law a corjioration for tlie purpo.se of supporting jjublic worship and the gospel ministry, as well as for civil purposes; and in their corporate capacity' have i)ower to receive and hold estates, real and personal, for said uses, and to call and settle ministers, build meetinghouses, etc. The name and description bj^ which they receive estates, and transact business in their ecclesiastical and civil capacity* is the same, to wit, the inhabitants of the town of, etc. When part of the inhabitants of such town are constituted a new and distinct society the remaining inhabitants are by law considered, for ecclesiastical i>nrposes, as the same cor- poration, having continuance and succession, by the name of the inhabitants of the first society, and which before existed by the name of the inhabitants of the town, and as holding the meetinghouse and all other estates that the inhabitants of such town received, acquired, and held, for any of the uses for which societies are constituted, and as bound to perform all the contracts and agreements made by the inhabitants of such town, with the minister for his sup- port, or respecting any other matter appropriate to a society. Huntington v Carpenter, Kirby (Conn.i 45. In Connecticut every town incorporated by law contains in it all the rights, powers, and privileges of an ecclesiastical society, and is subject to all the duties, and so long as it 800 TOWN 801 remains in one entire body, may manage its ecclesiastical concerns in town meeting; but as soon as the inhabitants become separated, for ecclesiastical purposes, as a part being set off and annexed to other societies, they must cease to transact their ecclesiastical business in town meeting— as a town they include all the divisions — as an ecclesiastical society they exclude them. And this ecclesiastical society continues to exist through all the divisions and subdivisions, and hath right to have and hohl all interests granted to the town for ecclesiastical uses, at a time when there was no other ecclesiastical society in the town that could lake. Sedgwick, etc. v TMerce, 2 Koot (Conn.j 4.'U. Maine, Parochial Powers, hi Maine towns in which no distinct and separate jKirish or icligious society has l)een establisheroceedings must be in the name of the parish. Alna, Inhabitants of v Plummer, 3 Me. 88. Massachusetts, Parochial Powers. The town settles a min- ister and makes other contracts of a parochial nature; it also establishes schools, engages instructors, and makes contracts in regard to other munici])al objects. It also ])urchases anerty, real and pei'sonal, some expressed to l»e I'oi- ilic support of a minister an<] others for the supi>ort of schools, all of which are, or may be, held and managed under one corporate organization and by one set of officers. After- ward a part of such town is set olV into a distinct territoi-ial or poll parish, and the remainder of the town by law be- comes a j)ari.sh. After the sej>ai-ation all those rights, duties, and obligations which belonged to the t(»wn in its parochial character devolve npon that portion of its inhab- itants, who by o|»eiation (»r law become successors lo tlie town in that cajiacity; whilst all those which bebtngxMl to the town in its nMinici[)al character continue so to belong. SOL' TIM': CIX IL LAW AM> 'I'lli; CIUKCIl Molwillishmdiiij; llic erection of :i new juii'isli. Stclibiiis V Jeiniiii^s, 10 Tick. (M;iss.) 171'. Towns iii.iy jisscss t;ix«'s for pni-isli |)iii']»os(*s ;nul coiifluct jtai'ociiiul j)i'oce(M]iii<^s. Aslihy v W'ciiiii^toii, S Pick. (MasH. ) 524. New Hampshire, Gospel Land. In a j;ranf to a townsliip it was j»i-ovi repealing the law authorizing towns to vote and grant money for the settlement, maintenance, and support of the ministry' did not deprive them of the right to appro- priate property previously acrincii>al his ju-incipal's money when due, whether it be trust funds or not. Moinit Calvary Church v Albers, 174 Mo, ;531. Liability. A treasurer of a religious society is personally responsible for its fnnds received by him, and may l>e re- quired to make restitnticm <»f any funds that may have been niisaj)plied. The board of trustees Iiave no power to direct tlie use of a trust fund for the payment of the pastor's sal- ary. Immanuel Presbyteiian (Munch \ Kiedy. 101 La. ;'»ll. Funds were contributed foi' the juirpose of eretting a building for the use of a Sunday school. The treasurei- of the church received the money, but aflei- tlie terminalion of Ids office refused to ]tay oncc the fund to the cliurch. It was held that the society had a right to recover the fund. ''Though the sub.scription may have been set on foot with- (uit authority from the (huicli as a corporation, yet if the money was raised appaiently as a <-hurch fund, and tin' donors, at the time of giving, supp(»sed that tliey were giv- ing to the church, and intend«'d so to do, the churdi coidd adopt the acts of those wlio laised the fuml and claim th<* 803 SOI Till', <'i\iL LAW AM) 'I'lii; <'iiri;(ii iK'iictil of IIh' (litii.il ions tor the |iiir-])(»sc lor' which llicv were l^ivcii." The chin'cii Wiis csiM'ciiilly ;iiitlM»ri/-('(l l»y st;iliitc lo accomplish llic jd-ccisc jmrjtosc lor which Ihc riiiioratif)n. Ilis authority must be established by evidence. Wilson v Tabernacle Bapt. Church, 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 2G8. TRUSTEES Abandonment of office, 80G. Actions, de facto trustees, 806. Actions, Illinois rule, 806. Actions, pre-orKanization contracts, 807. Action, trespaiis, 807. Appointment by court, 807. Appointment by minister, 807. Borrowing money, 807. Building committee, 808. By-laws, 808. By-laws, assessments on pewholders, 808. Closing church, 808. Control of property, 808. Conveyance, 800. Conveyance by, when required^ 809. Corporate character, Maryland rule, 809. Corporate control of, 809. Covenant of warranty, 810. De facto, 810. Diversion of property, 810. Election, 811. Election, burden of proof, 812. Election, place, 812. Emj)loyment of counsel, 812. E.xcluding minister from church edifice, 812. Forcible entry and detainer, 812. Holding over, 813. Individual authority, 813.' Individual habihty, 813. Joint interest, 814. LiabiUty, proi)erty sold to |)astor, 814. Meeting, duty to attend, S14. Meeting necessary, 814. Mingling charital)li' and other funds, 815. Minister's employnienl, Sl.'j. Occupying i)roperly ;ifter termination of contract, 815. Official term, 816. 805 sm 'rili; ('l\IL LAW AM) Tin: CllUUCH Ollicial title must be Hhowii, SlG. Ouster, elTect, Sl(». Possession of properlj', arti(i]>atin<; in the oriianizalion of an- othei' society, he may be deemed to lia\e abdicated his ottice. which thereby became vacant and mi^ht be liHed by a new election. Laight SI. Church v Noe. IL* How. Vv. i X. V.) 4i»7. Actions. De Facto Trustees. The trustees W. Y;\. 74. Appointment by Minister. The preacher in charge, by a certificate in due form, ajipointed trustees of the society. It was held that this constituted the persons ti-ustees of the proi)erty. On the day of their a]»pointment the trustees received a dee was erected on the land in 1854. An a(lion was brought to quiet Ihe title, which involvesed of by Ihe court. Methodist l'pisco|»al Church, New. irk v (Mark, 41 Mich. 7:10. Borrowing Money. The power to borrow money is implied in a charter of a religious society uidess such power is actuallv iclmild llic clnirrli ('(lilicr \\;is held (u he ;i d('l)l ;i<;;niis( llic coiiMtnilion, ;iiid iiii wclioii \v;is iiiaiiitain- nldc lluM-con. I'^iT-sl liaplisl ('iinr<-li, lOrie v (Jangliej', S5 I*a. SI. 271. Building Committee. Where a building conuiiittee repre- senting an nnincorporated religious association consists of n\c nicnd)ers, authority to make binding contracts in behalf of the coninuttee would have to be exercised by a majority td* the UKMubers, either directly or by delegating the i)o\ver to a less nnndter. One member alone coidd not contract without being authorized so to do by a majority. New Ebenezer Association v (Jress Lundjer Company, SI) Ga. 1-5. By-Laws. The society or congregation appoints the trus- tees, and nmy remove them and lill the vacancies. It may ado))! such rules and regulations in ndation to the duties of tlie trustees, and the management of its society, as the mend)ers may deem proper. Calkins v Cheney, 02 Til. 4(i;>. By-Laws, Assessments on Pewholders. The trustees of a reli- gions association may adui)t by laws or resolutions to equal- ize the anu)unt necessary for its suj)i»ort, and assess the pro- l)ortionable amount on each pewholder, thougli there is no l)rovision in the constitution or articles of association authorizing them so to do. A i)ewholder was liable for any increased assessment so levied by the trustees. Currj' V First Presbyterian Congregation, 2 Pittsbui'gh (I*a.) 40. Closing Church. The trustees of a religious society do not have the j>ower of closing its church at their own will, be- cause of their judgment to keei> the church oi>en will be to defeat the i)urj)ose foi- which the association Mas formed. Their i)ower is only to manage the prudential affairs of the society. Canadian Keligious Association v Parmenter, 180 Mass. 415. See Ministers, lOxclusion from Church Editice. Control of Property. Tiie tiustees, as oflScers of the cor- poration, have entire control over tlip ])roi)erty owned by TRUSTEES son the corporation, including tlie clmrcli or phue ot worship, and courts of equity have no jurisdiction to interfere with the actions and doings of tlie trustees in the niaiiagcnient of the property belonging to the cor])oratioii, for the reason that the Legislature had expressly exempted religious (or- porations from the jurisdiction which liad been given to these courts over other corporations. Ishaiii v I'lillagt-r, li Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 8G:J. But see the act of 1875, chap. 1\), also the act of 187(5, chap. 17(5. These acts concern the trus- tees as agents of llie cori)oration. The title to tlie i)roperty continued in the corporation, but it was made tlie duty of the trustees to use and manage the i)roperty and revenues of the corporation according to the rules, usages, and dis- cipline of the church or denomination to which it belongs, that is, the si)iritual bot. Church v Yates, 1 Hoffman (1i. (N. Y.) 141. Corporate Character, Maryland Rule. The trustees and not the members constitute the corj^jration. African Methodist Bethel Church, Baltimore v CarmacU, l' Md. <"h. 1 \.'>. Corporate Control of. T\obertson v Bullions, 11 N. V. LM57, sustained the right of a pin-tion of the corpoi-ators to pre- vent the trustees fi-0 tliey became a j)art of the Hartwick Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. In 1837 the trustees of the two churches, in connection with the pastor and the church councils, dissolved their connec- tion with the Hartwick Synod and united with other churches in forming a new synod, which adopted a declara- tion of faith, essentially variant in tliree princii)les and cardinal doctrines, from the Augsburg Confession. Held that these proceedings of the trustees were a ])erv(Msion <>t their trust, and an unlawful diversion of the proi)erty of the churches from the objects and pur])oses for which it was originally contributed." Kniskern v Lutheran Church, 1 Sandf. c'h. (N. Y.) 439. Under the religious cor])orations act of New York, 1813, as modified by the laws of IST."), chaj). 70, and laws of 187(>, chap. 176, the trustees cannot ])('niiit the use of tiic ciiurili edifice by a clergyman \\lio adojits and adxocates religious views at variance; with the articles of faitii of the denomina- tion to which he and llie trustees belong; and the adher- ents of the church who maintained the oi-iginal faith are entitled to an injuncticni restraining such use of the ]»rop- erty. Isham v Trustees of the First Tresbyterian Chnich of ]>unkirk, (i:*, How. I*r. (N. Y.) 4(15. Election. If the rules of a church recpiire its trustees to be elected on a ])articular day in the year, after nolici' given on the ])receding Sunday by the j)astor, a bo;ird of trustees elected on a Tin; (IN IL LAW AND Till: ( IK iiCH Mil niiiiiial clcclidii of (iiic lliiid oC ilic imiiilici', \\liifli chjction Wiis rciniircd lo Ix' ;il Iciisl six roof' is on ])ersons claiming to have been elected. African Baptist Church v White, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 64G. Election, Place. When the usual jdace of meeting of a society has been changed by them, an election of trustees at the old place of meeting is invalid. Miller v lOnglish, '2\ N. J. Law, ?A1. Employment of Counsel. In Parshley v Third Meth. Church, 147 N. Y. 583, plaintiff brought an action to recover for legal services as counsel in ])rosecuting charges against the min- ister in a church tribunal. There was no official action by the trustees for the plaintiff's employment, the only author- ity being conferred by the individual suggestion of certain trustees, and there was no evidence of a ratiticatiou by the board. The plaintiff" was held not entitled to recover; the court ex])ressed some doubt whether the board of trustees could lawfully em])]oy counsel to take proceedings against a minister in a churcli tribunal. Excluding Minister from Church Edifice. See Ministers. Forcible Entry and Detainer. A majority of the corpo- rators forcibly expelled the trustees from the church edifice and assumed control thereof. It was held that the trustees could not maintain an action for forcible entry and detainer but that the action must be brought in the name of the cor- poration for the rea.sou that the corporation as such, and trustep:s si:i iiul llie trustees, held I lie le«>al title to the properly. Teoijle ex rel Fulton v Fulton, 1 1 X. V. 94. Holding Over. Trustees i-ej;ul;ivly eleiMed for a lixetl period hold their ollices until i-emoved by others beiny; eleeted in a similar manner; but sueh remo\al cannot lake place iu less than one year alter Iheir election. American Triniitive Society v IMlling. 4 Zab. (N. J.) (nh). Trustees do not hold over where successors have been actually chosen. altlion<;li the election \\as subsequently de- clared invalid, dudgment of ouster in such case creates a vacancy which may be filled by a new election. Peo2)le ex rel Cock V Fleming-. .ID Hun (N. Y.) 518; 13 N. Y. Supp. 715. Individual Authority. Trustees of a religious corporation organized under the general act of 1813 as amended have no sejtarate or individual authority to bind the cor]>ora- tion, notwithstanding evidence that a majority agreed as t<» a particulai* transaction. The trustees can only act as a body. Peoi)le"s Bank v St. Anthony's rhurch, 101) N. Y. 512. Individual Liability. Tru.stees made a written agreement with a contractor for the completion of a parsonage, sign- ing the contract as individuals, and not as trustees, although tbey were described in the i)aper as trustees. Afterward the contractor made another agreement with the trustees as such, which agreement was signed by them as trustees. The contractor bi-onght an action against the trustees who signed the first agreement, seeking to recover of them individually. It was held that their individual liability liad been merged in the official liability by reason of the second contract, and that an action could not be maintained against theni as iiidi viduals. McCJhee v L(>se, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 371. A minister was called by an instrument under a form ])rescribed by the lule of the denomination and signed by three elders and one trustee. This was held not to be a call by the officers signing it, but was a call of the congregation, and the per.sons signing the call were not individmilly liable for the minislei-'s salai-y. Paddock v Hrowii. <"> Hill. (N. Y.) 530. 814 'I'lli; ("l\ IL LAW AM> Till: (IHIMII Joint Interest, 'rnislcrs ;ir(' in hiw lint ;i sin^ilc person, iiiid :in iiclion ("innol he ni;iinl:iin<'(l liy clinrcli lnist(^H a<;;iiiisl :i cotnistcc I'oi" li-cspiiss lo llic j»r<)|»<'rty lor llic rea- Koii lh;it ;is ti-iislcc he li;is the same iMtci-csl :is tlic other trustees, ;iihI lie cnnnid he hojii phiintill' ;inj)iscopal ( liuicli. IMiltiu'v, v Stewart, 27 Barb. (N. V.) n."):;. Liability, Property Sold to Pastor. The trustees of a chui-ch are not as such liable for the price of lumber sold and deliv- ered to the pastor on his irulividual account, wlien in making; the purcha.se he neither acted as agent of the trustees nor had authority to do so, and this is so though the hunber \\ as with their knowleroving tJie property of tlie chur. (N. Y. ) (551. A writ of nmudanius was granted on the ai)plication of the rector to compel certain vestrymen to attend a meeting of the vestry. Meeting Necessary. Trustees cannot bind the corporation except by action at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Even a nuijority of the trustees cannot legally act except in this formal manner. Ross v Crockett, 14 I^a. Ann. 811 ; see also Thompson v ^^'est, 50 Xeb. G77. The trustees of a religious corporation, organized under the incorporation act of Illinois, are the only persons em- powered to bind the corjKirate body legally, and in order to do this the trustees must meet as a board and take action as su( h. The sei)arate and individual action of the trustees, or any number of them, without holding a meeting of the board, is uot binding u])on the corporation, and cannot of itself create a corjKirate liability. First Presbyterian Churcli, Chicago Heights v McColiy, lL»(; 111. App. ;'.:'►:'.. TKrsTi:i:s sir> Under the New Voik religious corporations ;ul of ISI:;, as amended in ISij:}, trustees have no separate or individual aulliority to bind a corjKU-aliou. They must act as a ImmIv. The trustees ot a corpoiatiou ha\e no separate or indi\ idual authority to hind the corporation, and this allliongli the majority or the whole nund>er, acting singly and not collec- tively as a board, shoidd assent to the particular transaction. People's Bank v St. Aulhony's Koniaii Catholic Church, 10I> N. Y. 512. The trustees of a religious corporation can alone bind the corporate body, and to execute this |>o\\('r they ninsl meet as a boararate action of the ti-usteeai('d that such employment, though ai)iu-oved by a majority of the ccmgre- gation, might destroy the peace and li.-nniony <»f the church. (Jerman Kef. Ch v P>us(lie, ."i San(». Occupying Property After Termination of Contract. As to sk; thio (M\il law and tiii: ('IIckcii \\w ri^lit of a iiiiiiisfcr to occujiy flni cliurrh cililicc al'tci- liis contract with the society, see Conway v Carpenter, 80 llun. (N. Y. ) 421), where it was held that after sucli a termina- tion of the contract, even if unlawful, the minister haosed by the General Conference in 1864, and he was therefore entitled to liold only one year unless reelected. Currier v Trinity Society, M. K. Church, Charlestown, 1()1> Mass. H;.5. Official Title Must Be Shown. Trustees must show title to office in action relating to church property. Antones et al V Eslava's Heirs, U Port. (Ala.) 527. Ouster, Effect. A vacancy is created by a judgment ousting certain trustees illegally declared to have been elected. New elections may be ordered to till the vacancy. People ex rel Cock v Fleming, 59 Hnn ( X. Y. i 518, 13 N. Y. Supp. 715. Possession of Property. The trustees held the church prop- erty in trust for the church and congregation and it is their possession ; and the courts are bound to protect them against every irregular and unlawful intrusion made against their will, whether by members of the congregation or by strang- ers. People V Runkle, John. ( N. Y.) 147. Trustees of a religious society organized under the act of 1813, chap. (JO, sec. 3, were held to be vested with the custoroperty ; and such trustees may sue in the name of the corjtoration and to recover possession of the property TKUSTICES 817 from wliuh they were evicted by persons tlaiining to be ii majority of the corixirators. Tlie trustees are tiie legal rei)resentatives of the corporation and the individual cor- porators liave no control over its 1em]>oralities except to vote at the election of the trustees. The corporators cannot take possession of the property and control it as against the trustees. The cor]>orators who took i>ossession of the prop- erty in defiance of the trustees were trespassers. An eviction of the trustees was in legal eftect an eviction of the corpora- tion. First M. E. Church in Attica v Filkins, 3 T. & C. (N. Y.) 279. See also IVople ex rel Fulton v Fulton, ]1 N. Y. 94. Powers, Georgia Rule. In Georgia, it was held that trustees appointed b}' the superior court have priuui facie a right to represent the trust committed to them, and to protect it from an improper and illegal diversion by others. Bates v Houston, (U) Ga. 198. Powers, Maine Rule. In Maine, trustees of Methodist Epis- copal churches hold pioperty in trust for the use of the society or church, and their powers and duties are con- tinued to their successors. The title to property is in those jiersons who are trustees for the time being. They have no authority to create a debt for materials to be used in build- ing a church edifice, and an action cannot be maintained against them for such a «lebt. Hailey v Methodist i^iiiscopal Ghurch, FreeiK>rt, 71 Me. 4 72. Powers, New York Rule. Under the New Voik religions corporations act of 18i:> "the relation of the trustees to the society is not that of a i)rivate trustee to the beneficiaries of the trust, but they are the managing oflicers of the corpora- tion, and trustees in the same sense in which the j)resident and directors of a bank or railroad com])auy are trustees, and are invested, in regard to the temporal afiairs of the society, with the i)owers sjjecilically conferred by the sta- tute, and with the ordinary discretionary po\Aers of similar corporate oflicers. Gram v Prussia Emigrjited Evangelical ].,utheriin Geiinan Societv, .".(i \. V. 1<)1. SIS TIM': ('l\ll. LAW AND Till; ClK JICII Powers, Pennsylvania Rule. A climrli ciiniiol Im* Itoiiiid by tlic action of I lie liustccs Ik'voikI (lie express poweis j^raiited by the iiiemheis. Miller v Clinicli, 1 I'liila. (I'a.i 4S. Presumption of Official Title. I'eisons who are in the ojjen and jteaeeahle exercise ol" the j)o\ver.s and duties of oHicers in a corporation are ])resiimed to have been duly elected, and to be entitled to the position they occupy. StianpM-s cannot be jiei-initted to c«nitest their title, or to iiM])each the validity of their acts by assigning irregulaiities in their eleciion. or in any of the antecedent pi'oce«Mlings of the corpo) at ion. Keformed ^lethodist Society, Douglas v l)i-ai)er, !)T Mass. 341). Promissory Note. Where the business of a church cor])ora- tioii is required by the articles of incorporation to be con- ducted by its officers as a board of trustees, the president and secretary have no power to execute a note binding upon the cor])oratioii without authority from such board. Au- thority conferred by the trustees to erect a church building, however, would carry with it the power to contract debts necessary for that purpose, and notes executed therefor would be valid. Cattron v First Universalist Society, Man- chester, 40 la. 106. The defendants gave a proniis.sory note for labor per- formed in the erection of a parsonage. The note was signed by the defendants as trustees. They were held to be agents of the society and personally liable. Chick v Trevett, '20 ]\Ie. 4(52. The trustees of the society gave their i»roniissory note for money borrowed, to be used in the erection of a church edi- fice. The note was signed by them as trustees of the society. It was held that the note became their individual obligation and judgment was rendered accordingly. Parol evidence was inadmissible to ex})lain the character and purpose of the note, and to show that it was understood to be an obli- gation against the church. Hayes, et al, v Brubaker, (55 lud. 27. Five trustees of the society made a promissory note, each person signing it as trustee. This was held to be the act of TRUSTEES SI I) the society. TIk' Irnstccs arc llic corpoi-ali' body, and iliey alone can act lor and hind (lie soricty hy Ilic assniiii'd name. Little V Bailey, 87 111. SM). Where one of the trnstees negotiated a loan tor ihc society, and he and another trnstee signed a promissory n<»ic in which the trustees were described as snch, and in which they assumed to j;ive the note for and on behalf of the chui-ch, aud the note was afterward signed by the other trustees, but witlunit any action by the board either authoi-i/>ing the loan or the giving of the note, it was held that the society was not liable, but that the holder might recover against the trustees indi\ idnally. Dennison v Austin, 15 Wis. ;}:U. A pastor's wife brought an action on a note for the balance due him on salary. The note had been given by the trustees. There was some (piestion relative to the authority to give the note and whetiier it had received the sanction of the society by a ])ro]>er resolution. The judgment for the plaintilf was athrmed on ajtpeal. (Jladstone Baptist (Mmrch V Scott, 1*5 Ky. Law Hep. 1*37. The trustees gave a promissory note, describing them- selves in it as trustees of the society, and signing it in the same manner. This was held to be the note of the corpora- tion, and the makers were not individually liable. New Market Savings Baidc v (lillet, KM) 111. 2."4. An incorjjorated church may delegate to their vestry and wardens the i)ower of transferring a note by indorsement, (larvey v (N>lcock. 1 Nott \: Mr(\ ( S. Car. I KIS. Property, Trustees Cannot Distribute. The trustees have no autlioi'ity to nte the |)i<»|>erty of the siK-iety among its individual members oj- any class of them, nor can this authoi'- ity be conferred by the county court by an order directing a sale of the church pro])eity. W'heaton v (Jates, 18 N. Y. 31)5. Quorum. Under the New York religious coi-porations act the jirovision recjuiring a majority of the vestrymen was held to contem])late a nmjority of the legal innnher. and not mei'ely of a less nund»er actually in othce. Moore v Rector, St. Thomas, 4 Abb. N. U. (N. V.) 51. .SIM) Tin-: CI NIL i.ANV AM) riii: rm imii Quo Warranto. Tlic title of ii\;il clniiiKiiits t(i tin* <»llic(» of tniHtec of a roli^ioiiH corporation (aiiiKtt \u' (Ictonnined ill an cqnitablo action hronj^ht by one claimant or Het of claimants aj^ainst another clainuiut or set of claimants. The remedy is by an action brought by the attorney -general in the name of the i)eoi)le. Keis v Rolule, .*U Hun i N. V.) 161. The title as corporators of trustees <](! facto ol an incor- porated religions society cannot be imjieached in a collateral proceeding by showing that they are not trustees de jui-e. This can be done only in a direct jiroceeding by information in the nature of quo warranto. First rresbyterian Society, Gallipolis v Sniithers, 12 Ohio St. 248. This was held the pr()]»er remedy to test the title to office of trustees of a religious society. Commonwealth ex rel Gordon v Graham, 64 Pa. St. 339. The title to office of a rival trustee of a religious corpora- tion cannot be tried in an action of ejectment. Such a ques- tion can be determined only in an action of quo warranto brought by the attorney-general. Concord Society, Strykers- ville V Stanton, 38 Hun (N. Y.) 1. It is the settled law of this country that an information in the nature of a quo warranto will lie against one who intrudes himself into the office of trustee of a church cor- poration. Lawson v Kolbenson, 01 111. 405. Religious Services. "The trustees of all religious societies hold the i)roperty subject to its appropriate use, and have no legal right to determine when the religions meet- ings shall be held, or who shall officiate, unless sncli jjower is given to them by the rules and discipline of the denomi- nation to which they belong, and they may be com- pelled by proi)er i)roceedings at law, or in equity, to fulfill their duty." American Primitive Society v Pilling, 4 Zab. (N. J.) ()53. Removal. Trustees are not necessarily communing mem- bers of the church. Excommunication from communing mend)ers does not disqualify them, even if the excision be regular. They cannot be removed from their trusteeship TRUSTEES 821 by a iJiiuoi'ity of ihc (liiirtli sucK'ty or iiiet.4iiig, uillmut Wiii'uiug, iiTid artiiig willioiU cliarges, witliout citalioii <»i- trial, and in direct contravention of the church rules. Jioul din V Alexander, 15 Wall. 131 (U. S.) 131. An action bj' an individual member ol the society lor the removal of an alleged faithless trustee was sustained. Nash V Sutton, 117 N. Car. 231. Representative Character, Cannot Act in Two Capacities. An attempt to consolidate this society \\ith a Wesley an society to be organized for the sole purpose of consolidation and take proi)erty of the original society was held invalid. It appeared that a majority of the board of trustees of the original society were also a majority of the proposed new Wesleyan society, and it was held that a consolidation could not be effected. By the joint action of such majorities such trustees could not act in two capacities; the Court Street church and its proi)erty could not in this manner be trans- ferred to a society belonging to another denomination, which society was proposed to be organized for the sole purpose of such consolidation and transfer. Matter of M. E. Society V Perry, 51 Hun (N. Y. ) 10-1. Representative Character. The trustees of an incorporated religious society can alone bind the corporation. The action of the vestry has no such force. Where the act relied upon was adoi)ted at a meeting of the conference or council, which consisted of the minister, elders, deacons, and Irus tees, convened in mass, the corporation was not bouml, al- though a majoritj' of the trustees were i)resent. A\ here tli<' exercise of corporate acts is vested in a select body, an art done bj' the persons conji)osing that body in a mass meeting of all the corporators, or in union or amalgamated \\\l\\ other like boersons directly connected with the society. Such persons S2l.» Tlir: <'I\'IL LAW AND TIFi: cm IMII are (Mil il led lo llic use in (-oiiiinon of llic cImmcIi cfljiicc loi- Worsliip n\\(\ lo llic IxMiclil of the rcNciiiK'S of llic cliiil-ili to :ii(l in llic siippoi'l of llic jMihlic worship in tlic clinrch cdi- lite. Tlic.v, and llicy alone, have a personal pecuniary inter- est in the e of the coi-))oi-atioii. Kuliii- ski V Dambrowski, 2i) Wis. 10!). Trustees alone can represent the society in making con- tracts, and from it alone they receive their instructions which are not exi)resse(l in their charter. A meeting of the church members, as such, is not a meeting of the incorpo- rated society, and it cannot instruct the trustees in their duties or assume any power over them. The court granted an application by the trustees for an injunction restraining certain members of the church from interfering with the possession of the church property by the trustees. Baptist Congregation v Scannel, 3 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 48. Roman Catholic, How Chosen. Under a statute authorizing the incorporation of a Koman Catholic congregation it was held that the provision in the statute for the selection of two lay members by a committee of the congregation was mandatory, and that persons chosen by the congregation without a committee were not entitled to hold the office. Stale V Cetty. <>!) Conn. I'SC. Seating, Power to Regulate. In Sheldon v Vail, 28 Hun (N. Y. ) :*54, it was held that the trustees of a free church might regulate the seating and forcibly remove from a seat a person who had been asked to take another place. Status. The otfice of trustee does not confer on the incum- bent any legal interest in the property of the corporation, or impose on him any personal liability for its debts or as.sessments ; therefore a commissioner ai>pointed to deter- mine the damages to land taken for a street was not disquali- fied because he was a trustee of a religious cor])oration own- TRUSTEES SL':; ing premises liable to assessments lor beiielits. IN'opJc v Mayor, (irj N. Y. 2U\. These otHcers are Inistees in the same sense with the presi- dent and directors of a hank, or of a railroad coiupany. They are the ofiieers of the eorporation tinji its concerns for the connnon henelit of themselves and all other cor[)orators ; and over whom the body corporate retains control, through its power to super- sede them at every recurring election. Robertson v Bullions, 11 N. Y. 243. Statute of Limitations Cannot Be Waived. Trustees of a religious cori)()ration should not be permitted to allow claims against the corjjoration which are barred by the stat- ute of limitations. Matter of Orthodox Congregational Church, Union Village, Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 398. Temporalities. Trustees have control of the temporalities belonging to the church. Bristor v Burr, ]20 N. Y. 427. Title to Office. Ti-ustees were elected at a time other than that fixed by the custom of the church, and without the usual notice. The election did not make the persons chosen trus- tees de jure. x\n entrance into the church by persons thus irregularly chosen was held not to affect the rights of the existing trustees who held office under previous elections, and were entitlea|)tist Ch. v Parker ami others, :'.(; liarb. ( N. V. i 171. TRUSTS Advowson, 825. Archbishop, moral trust, 825. Auburn Thoolof^iral Seminary, 826. Beneficiary, how determined, 826. Bi.shop, 826 Cemeteries, 827. Charitable, defined, 827. Church, incapacity, 827. Christnuus presents, 827. Church library, Sunday school, 828. Corporate cajiacity, 828. Court to administer, 828. Dedication of land for religious purposes, 829. Denominational limitation, 829. Denominational use, 830. Discretion of trustees, 830. Diversion, 830. Donor's intention, 831. Equity jurisdiction, 831. Foreign, unincorporated society, 832. Funds, how applied, 832. Home for aged persons, 833. Implied from bequest or conveyance, 833. Indefiniteness, 833. Legislature cannot modify, 834. Legislative power, 834. Limitation, 834. Marine Bible Society, 835. Missions, 835. Object, how ascertained, 835. Other State.s, 836. Parol, when insufficient, 836. Parsonage, 837. Philips Academy Divinity School, 837. Poor Jewish families, 837. Poor ministers, 837. Princeton Theological Seminary, 838. Religious services, 838. 824 TRUSTS 825 Sectarian purpose, 839. Sunday school, 840. Suspending power of alienation, 840. Title, 840. Unincorporated society, 840. Universalist Church, 842. Worship, usage, how determined, 842. Advowson. A testator gave so niuch of his residuaiy per sonal estate as should be applicable to charitable purpose.^ to trustees upon trust "to invest the same, apply the income, or any portion of the capital, in grants for or toward the purchase of advowsons or presentations or in erecting or contributing to the erection, improvement, or endowment of churches, chai)els, or schools, or in paying, or contribut- ing to the salaries or income of rectors, vicars or incumbents, masters or teachers, but upon the following conditions." The specified conditions were in effect that no churches, schools, clergy or teachers should receive any benefit unless they belonged to the Evangelical party in the Church of England. None of the conditions applied in terms to the purchase of advowsons or presentations, and the will did not create a charitable trust as to the advowsons. and there being no apportionment, the whole bequest failed, and tiiere was an intestacy. Hunter v Attorney General, SO Law Times Kep. X. S. (Eng.) 732. Archbishop, Moral Trust. Testator gave the residue of his estate to St. Teresa's Church, and also to St. Joseph's House for Homeless Industrious Boys, with a jjroviso that if he died within tliirty days after making the will, then the residue should go to Archbishop 1*. J. Kjan, of Philadelphia, absolutely. The testator died witliin thirty days after mak- ing the will. The arclibishoit test i lied that he did not know testator, and had not heard of him. It was held that the property became the absolute ])roperty of the arclibishop, but he acknowledged his oblig;ili«»n to administer it accord- ing to the testator's intention, and for the advancement of religious and charitable interests. It was not legal) v im- 82(1 Till-: ('i\'ii. LAW AND Tni: ciirKcn j)ivsse\)(tr\y. Flood V Kyaii, L'L'O |»a. 450. Auburn Theological Seminary. I'rcvious to tlic Revised Statutes a peciiiiiary le. Beneficiary, How Determined. If a deed is made to thi*eo named persons as trustees for "The Christian Church," a court of equity should enforce the trust in favor of ''the Church of Christ," where it is shown that the Church of Christ was legally incorporated, and that the persons named as trustees in the deed were in fact the trustees of the Church of Christ, and there was no i)roof that there was any lejjally organized or any unorganized religious society, or church having the name "The Christian Church" at the time the deed was made, nor one thereafter legally organized. Church of Christ v Christian Church, Hammond, 103 111. 144. Bishop. A conveyance to a bishop and his successors of a lot on which there was a church, and" in which church the grantor had a technical fee, and for which conveyance he received a valuable consideration, with the provision that the property should be forever for the use of the Protestant Episcopal Church at Old Town, Maine, was held not to con- tain a condition which could be the basis of a forfeiture, but that the i)roperty was received by the bishop in trust for the benefit of the local parish. Neely v Hoskins, 84 Me. 88«J. A trust conferred upon a bishop or other ecclesiastical functionary, so far as concerns title and ownershij) of land, is in itself not ditferent from a trust vested in any other natural person. The death of a bishop who simply holds lands in trust, like that of any other individual who occui)ies the position of a trustee, vests the trust in the courts. If a successor in the trust is desired, ap]ieal must be made to the TRUSTS 827 pi'Oi)ei' court for his ai)poiiitineiit. This is so whether Ihe individual be an ecclesiastical functionary of the highest rank or a layman of the humblest degree. Dwenger v Geary, IVi hid. io<;. Cemeteries. A snm of money was bequeathed to ecclesias- tical societies to be Invested as a perjjetual hind, tlie annual income thereof, or so much thereol as sliould be necessary, to be applied in keeping in good order certain burial lots, and the remainder of the income, if any. api)lied to the main- tenance of the religious services of the societies. It vas held that a bequest for keeping burial lots or cemeteries in good order or repair was not given in charity, and, therefore, was not protected by the statute of charitable u.ses. Coit V Comstock, 51 Conn. 352. Charitable, Defined. Charitable trusts include all gifts in trust for religious and educational purposes in their ever- varying diversity; all gifts for the relief and comfort of the poor, the sick and the alflicted, and all gifts for the public convenience, benefit, utility or ornament, in whatever manner the donors desire to have them applied. Carter v Whitcomb, 74 N. H. 482. Church, Incapacity. A trust created by the rules of a church, which is not shown capable of making contracts, accepting benefits, or compelling performance, is not recog- nized by the law. Baxter v McDonnell, 155 N. Y. S3. Christmas Presents. Testator bequeathed to the Sunday school of this society a fund the interest of which was to be used annually in making Cliristmas presents to the members of the school. It does not aiti>ear what tlie gifts were to be; it does not appear that they are even to be rewards of merit, or to be used as a means of inducing attendance on the part of scholars at the school, or to piomote tlieir good com! net there, or of inciting them to attention to religious instruc- tion given to them there; nor whether they are to be given to all the scliohirs or j)art only. The gift is in trust, and it is not a charity in the legal sense, and was void, (loodell v Union Association of the Chihhen's Home, 2!» N. .1. l''<|. •">2. 828 Till-: ('l\ II. LAW AM) rili: CHURCH Church Library, Sunday School. Testator IxMiiicatlnMl t<» tlic clmrcli ii IuihI wliich was to Ix' kcjil invested by the clinicli and the income ]»ai(l to his housekeeper diii'in^ her life, l)Ut alter her death the income was to he used for the imrchase of a church library, the su|)]>ort of a Sabbath school in thcf chuT-ch. and for otlier churcli jiniposes as mifjht be deter- mined by the society. It was held that the corj)oration could not act as trustee in a matter in whidi it had no interest, but in this case the j»ower of the corjtoration to take the property for its own use carried with it as an incident the duty of administering the trust for the benefit of the house- keeper. Matter of ITowe, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 213. Corporate Capacity. When the powers of a corporation are not defined and restricted by its charter, or by any general law, its capacity to take, hold, and dispose of real estate is precisely the same as that of a natural person, and such a corporation may hold lands as trustee. Real estate may be granted to any religious corporation, in trust, for any specific use or pur])ose comprehended in the general object of its incorporation. Tucker v St. Clement's Church, New York, 3 Sandf. Sup. Ct. (N. Y.) 242, atf'd 8 N. Y. 558 n. Court to Administer. Testator in 1850 made a w ill, devising certain property to be applied to the education of poor young men of Bedford County, that may be deemed by the court worth}- and intend preparing themselves for the ministry, without regard to religious sect, being Christian as a matter of course. Testator died in 1873, and his heirs contested the validity of the trust. It was held that the testator intended to vest the discretion of the selection in the court of conmion pleas, and Avhile that court could not exercise such a discre- tion either by itself, or a trustee of its ap{)ointment at the date of the w'ill, yet at the time of the death of testator it had acquired that capacity by virtue of the act of 2Gth of Ai)ril, 1855, which empowers said courts to act as testa- mentary trustees. Although the act of 1855 is prospective only, and the court, therefore, had no power to act as trus- tee at the date of the will, the testator here having appointed TRUSTS 829 the court, the act removed this disability, and made it com- peteut to administer the trust. Mann v Mullin, 84 Pa. St. 207. If a legacy for charitable purposes is given to an associa- tion which is incajiable of undertaking tl\e trust, tliis court will appoint a trustee to receive the legacy and apply it to the purpose intended by the testator. In this case a legacy was given to the Bible Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but that Bible Society had been discontinued before tlie will was made. The total fund available was less than this legacy. The will also gave a legacy to the American Bible Society; that society being willing to undertake the trust, the court directed the payment to it of the fund in trust that the society should expend the amount received in the circulation and distribution of Bibles. Bliss v American Bible Society, 2 Allen (Mass.) 3:54. Dedication of Land for Religious Purposes. Two persons, owners of real estate, gave it to two religious societies for the purpose of erecting thereon a church and establishing a burning ground. The agreement was by parol. Members of the congregation and others contributed funds with which the church was erected, and it was used as a house of wor- ship by both congregations. In an action to recover posses- sion of the })roperty brought bj' a person who claimed to derive title through a judgment against one of the grantors, on which his interest had been sold, it was held that the per- sons who made the dedication and the successor of one of them, through the sheriff's sale, held the property in trust for the uses originally intended. The legal elfect of the agreement was to vest the equitable title in the original subscribers to the fund for the erection of a liouse <»r wor ship, and also in tlieir rejtresentatives a)Ml successois. and it was a dedication for a valuable consitleration i<» them. In Pennsylvania, religious and charitable institutions have always been favored without respect to forms. Beaver v Filson, 8 Pa. St. :V21. Denominational Limitation. Wiii'ic a (U'ed of lands gave to trustees the right to ;ii)point. not ;in individual coritoration 830 THIO (:!I\'I1. I.AW AM) THi; (III K(|I or society, hul soiiu* ivli^^ioiis ihMioiiiiiiiitioii lo cxiM-cisc ccclc- siastical control over llic prcniiKes, namely, llic occnicilioii for rcli<;i51. Discretion of Trustees. A devise for the "dis.semi nation of the gospel at home and abroad" was held not void for uncer- tainty. The method of administering the trust, and the instrumentalities to be used, were committed to the discre- tion of the trustees. Attorney-General v Wallace, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) Oil. Diversion. A change in the ecclesiastical relation of a church for whose benefit property is held in trust does not necessarily involve any perversion of the trust or diversion of the fund from its legitimate purpose. Swedesborough Ch. V Shivers, 16 N. J. Eq. 453. "A fund created by a religious society for the instruction and education of children in the faith and doctrines of the society as professed at the time of the creation of the fund cannot be diverted from its original object and destination ; if a diversion be made or attempted, a court of equity will interpose and correct the procedure." In such case the ques- tion is not which faith or doctrine is the scnnnlest or most orthodox, but for Mhat object or purpose was the fund orig- inally established by the founders of it. The court \\ill en- force the trust, but will not seek to enforce the peculiar faith and doctriues. Field v Field, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 3M5. TRUSTS 8:11 Where a trust was established lor the i)iui)ose of erec-tin«^ i) schoolhoiise and church, and maintaining a buryinj^ {ground, the society designated as trustees cannot create a new use, or convey the estate for j>urj)oses inconsistent witli those for which tliey held it, and, therefore, a grant by the trustees to another religious society of equal rights and privileges to the property was held invalid, but it was held that this diversion of the property might be ratified by the beneficiaries, and was deemed to have been ratified by Arti- cles of Association between the original society and the grantee society, by which it was agreed that the i)ropei'ty should be used and enjoyed by the two societies as tenants in common. Brown v Lutheran Church, 2.'> Ta. St. 495. Donor's Intention. The donor's intention must be imjilic- itly followed, or nothing can be done. Attorney General V Bishop of Oxford, 1 Bro. C. C. (Eng.) Uk n. Equity Jurisdiction. It is the duty of equity tribunals to give effect to the powers of the trust if they be legal, and to that end they must ascertain and determine its scope and object; and in that investigation they are authori/.ed to resort to the early hi.story of the church, as contained in standard and authentic works on the subject, prior in date to the existence of the pjirticular controver.sy. Ebbinghaus V Killian, 1 Mackey (Dis. of Col.) 247. If i)roperty is dedicated by will or deed of the donor for the express jiurpose of l)eing held and exclusively u.sed for the teaching, support, or maintenance of some specific dogma, or creed or form of leligion, and that purjtose is declareosition be not to unlawful jiurposes, and what he may do himself he may )illes Instate, 21S Pa. KVJ. .s;',i Till-: (M\ 11. i-AW ANh Tin: cm kch A I>('(|ii('sl lor llic iiiiiiistcis of tlic New Vink ^'(•;l^ly nieetiii;; <»r I'^ricmls cMllcd ( )r(Iio(l(».\, who .nr in liniitol :iiiil sti';iih'ii(Ml (ii-ciiiiisliiMccs, is iiof loo \ii;;nc or uiiccrljiiii, or loo iiMlcfiiiilc in lis ohjccls. So of a lu'ipu'st foi- llio relief ol" such indigent residents ol' llie low m of I"'liisliin^-. as the trus- lee or Irnstees of the town for the lime hein'^ shonid s(de the trustees cannot take a trust for the sole benefit of members of the church as distinguished from other members of the congregation, nor for tlie benefit of any por- tion of the corporators to the exclusion of others, no trust being authorized by the statute except for the use and benefit of the whole society. The trustees of a religious corporation in this State cannot receive a trust limited to the support of a particular faith, or a particular class of doctrines, for the reason that it is inconsistent with those provisions of the statute which give to the majority of the corporators, with- out regard to their religious tenets, the entire control over TRUSTS 835 the revemies of the coipoiation. KobeiMson v IJulliuiis, 11 N. Y. 243; Gram v rni.ssia Kiiiigrated Evangelical Lutheran German Society, 36 N. Y. IGl ; see also Bellpoii Tarish v Tooker, 2U Barb. (N. Y.) 25(1. Marine Bible Society. The testator made a bequest to the Marine Bible Society, but there was no such society in exist- ence at the time of his death. There had been previously a society known as the Boston Young Men's Marine Bible Societ}', organized for the ]mri)ose of circnlatinj; Bibles among destitute seamen. The court sustained the trust, not- withstanding the nonexistence of the society named in tlif will, and appointed a trustee to receive and di.sjHj.Ne of the legacy, by appropriating the avails thereof to the purchase of Bibles, to be distributed among destitute seamen, as near as nmy be in coid'oi-mity with the constitution and by-laws of the Boston Young Men's Marine Bible Society, as it for- merly existed. Winslow v Cummings, 3 Gush. (Mass.) 358. Missions. A becpiest of money to be a]>i)lied to the sup- I)ort of missionaries in India, under the direction of the General Assembly Board of Missions of the Presbyterian Ghurch in the United States, was held void for uncertainty. The court could not delei-mine whether all missionaries were to be beneficiaries, or only Presbyterian missionaries, or whether missionaries in service at the date of Ihe will, or at the death of the testatrix, or for all future time were to be included. The true rule as to such bequests is that the beneticiai-ies must be certain and detinite. and so clearly ascertained that Ihev have a standing in a court of eipiity to enforce the trust. IJoard of Foreign Missions of tiie IMcsby- terian Glnu-ch v McMastcr. l•^'(l. Uas. No. l.r>S(; i('ir. Ct. Md.l. Object, How Ascertained. Land was conNc.vcd to ihr trus- tees of the society. There was no trust unless the niert* con- veyance to a religions society constituted a trust. It was held that although Ihe religious opinions of ilie gr.inlor might not be incpiiicd into for tin' pnipo.se of ascertaining the nature and extent of the Irusi, the circumstances sur- s:u\ Till-: cix iL LAW and tiii; riii kch I oiiiidiiij; llic iiKikiii^ ami a('tt'|»t in;; ol' llic coiucyaiicc may bo inquired into for llic pniposi? of ascertaining the object of the trust. In this case a trust was iinplit'd that the property should be used for the purposes of those adher- ing and in subordination to the religious denomination to which it was conveyed. Tlie ]>resbvtery decided tiiat the minority were adhei'ing and in subordination to it; and that those trustees who had withdrawn from the society were not adherents of the Presbytery. It was held that the seceding trustees could not, as they had attempted to do, lease the property to a Congregational church. First Constitutional Presbj'terian Churcli v Congregational Society, 2?> la. 567. Other States. The validity of a bequest of a New York testatrix to a religious denomination for the purpose of acquiring real property in another State on which to erect a church and rectory must be determined by the law of such other State. Mount v Tuttle, 183 N. Y. 358. Parol, When Insufficient. A trust in land cannot be created by parol in an unincorporated religious society. Where several persons, members of different denominations, and some apparently not members of auj- denomination, signed a subscription paper for the erection of a church editice, the paper providing that the building when not occupied by the Baptists be opened for any Cliristian denomination con- tributing to its erection and paying their portion of the inci- dental expenses. The Universalists and Liberal Christians joined the enterprise. The money was paid to a Baptist minister, who bought a lot and erected a building thereon, which was used bj^ the Baptists on Sundays and other days and also by the Universalists. The minister conveyed the property to certain persons, describing them as trustees of the Baptist society. There was no such corporation. The grantees refused to allow the house to be used by any de- nomination except the Baptists, and in an action against them it was held that the subscribers to the fund for the erection of the church had acquired no right in the premises, nor was any valid trust created on their part which would TKLSTS 837 authorize the court to grant tlie relief soufjjiit. Follett v Badeau, 2G Hun. (N. Y.) 253. Parsonage. A conveyance of i)roi)erty in trust for use as a parsouage to be occupied by ministers of the Methodist Epis- copal Church of the United States, according to the rules and Discipline adopted by the General Conference, was held void for uncertainty under the statutes of N'irginia and West Virginia. The j)roperty w;is not speciticnlly conveyed in trust for the use of a local congregation as the minister's resideuce. The projierty was conveyed for the benefit of a particular circuit, but a circuit is not ji permanent tcni torial divisiou, as its boundaries were likely to be and in this case had beeu changed. The trust was, therefore, not for the benefit of a particular local congregation as reipiired by statute. The members of the Methodist Episcoj)al Church residing within the bounds of the circuit, liable at any time to be changed, did not constitute a congregation within the meaning of the statute. There were, in fact, several distinct congregations within the circuit mentioned in the deed. Carskadon v Torreyson, 17 W. \'a. 43. Philips Academy Divinity School. F'or a history of its foundation and purposes, .see Trustees Philips Academy v King, 12 Mass. oMJ, where the court sustained a be(iuest to that part of the academy known as the divinity school, to be administered according to the plan of the "associate foundation" previously established, and hehl that technical inter])retation of biblical texts in stijiport of the principh's of Calvinism should not j>revail as against the more liberal purpose of inculcating the broack'r i>rinciples of Chris- tianity as api)]ied to the mode of daily life and the regiilatioii of personal conduct. Poor Jewish Families. A i»e(inesl for tlie benelit of jioor deserving Jewi.sh families, residing in New Haven, Connect- icut, was sustained in Hronson v Sti'ouse, ~u C(mn. 1 17. The trustees had power to determine what families wert* within the descrijition and niighl disl»uisc the fniid accordingly. Poor Ministers. A heipiesi for llic Iicnriii nf pooi' minisiers 8.'?8 TIM-: ('l\II. LAW ANh Till: ("lirKCIl of a spccilKMl i(']i;;i()iis (l('iH»iiiiii:il ion is Viilioint llie tnistci's. Shot well v Mott. '1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 4(). Princeton Theological Seminary. The Associate Reforme*! Church authorized (he collection of funds a)id the establish- ment of a theolojjical seminary ^\ith a suitable library. In Associate Reformed Church v Trustees Theological Semi- nary, Princeton, 4 N. J. ICq. 77, it was held that the General Synod had no power to elt'ect a consolidation with the Gen- eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church and thereby transfer the library and funds from the theological semi- nary of the Associate Keformed Church to the I'resbyterian Theological Seminary at Princeton. Religious Services. A bequest to a person in trust for the purpose of maintaining religious services during her lifetime in a private unincorporated memorial chapel, was void for the reason that there was not in existence any person, cor- poration, or clergj'man who could enforce the trust; and a bequest over, after this trustee's decease, to the parochial fund of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Western New York was also void, for the reason that the trustees of this fund could not take the trust under the act creating the organization. The trust attempted to be estab- lished through this society provided that the income thereof should be used for paying a clergjinau who should hold on ju-oper application and j)roofs, to see that the house was ((nitrollcd by a society of Christians, and not by Mohammedans, i)a^ans, or inti- dels, even tliou<;h a majority of the ori<;inal society have ajjostatized from the faith of the sect which formed the society. The denominatictnal name of a religious society to which, or to whose use, a donation or grant is made, and the doc- trines actually taught therein at tlie time of the gift ov grant, and immediately after, and the length of time ihcy continue to be thus taught without interruption may be resorted to, to limit and define the trust in re.spect to doc- trines deemed fundamental ; that wliere the conveyance is merely to the religious corporation b}' name, with no other designation of its pur])Oses or trusts (as in this ca.se), the denominational name, in connection with the contemjiora- neous acts of the corjjorators, may be a suilicient guide to the nature of the trust; that where there is no sjiecific designa- tion in the deed as to the particular religious tenets or doc- trines which it is to be used to advance or sujipoit. ilic denominational name may indicate the n;itui(' of liie trust, so far as respects doctrines admitted to be fundanwutal ; and that, if the .society of one religions sect or denomination becomes incorj)orated with a strict |»|)(>s('(l jiihI iidvcrsc to llic fiiiMliiiiMMital princij)leK of Uic fiiidi :iii:; x. ii. i. Sunday School. riojKMlv \\;is coiucycd lo li-ustccs in trust for the uses of a Saldcitli school, for the dilfusioii of Clirislian pi-inciides as t;m<;lit and jiracticed by Christian Ihaiiiiclical denominations, witli power lo erect, repair, and renew Irom time to time all buildings necessary to carry out tiie object and j)urposes of the trust herein described. The trustees and their successors had power to sell the land to this society, and received in exchange other land which was subsequently reconveyed to the society. Such transfer re(piired the concurrence of all the trustees, and it was there- fore held that the trustee who did not give his consent could maintain an action to set aside the conveyance and restore tlie ])roperty. Morville v P^)wle, 144 Mass. 109. Suspending Power of Alienation. A conveyance to trustees of an unincorporated religious society for the purpose of erecting a house of worship on the land conveyed, with the provision that vacancies in the office of trustee should be filled by the congregation, does not susj)end the power of alienation, for the reason that such trustees are persons in being, by whom an absolute fee in possession could be con- veyed. Fadness v Braunborg, 7."» Wis, 257. Title. A conveyance of property to a religious society for general religious purposes vests the title in the trustees of the society and they become seized for the use of the body. Each member of the church becomes entitled to a beneficial interest in the property of the church so long as his or her connection or membership continues. Brunnenmeyer v Buhre, :{2 111. 18.S. Unincorporated Society. Lan AYis. 257. A conveyance of land to a conimiltee of a congregation or an unincorjiorated religious society, vests the title in such committee as trustees "for a body of individuals who have united together and contributed of their means to pur- chase land and erect a house of public wcuship,"' and the pewholders and other jxtsoiis .issim i.ited with the congrc- Slli Til 10 ('l\IL LAW AM) Till; rjll KCJl {pillion •.[]■(' hciK'liciMrics of the liusl. An iiiiinroipoiMfi'd fougrejiiil ion or socicly is iii(;ip;il»lc oT t;ikini'o|)('i'1y, hill lli(! (•onvcyiiiicc iniist be to a p(M"soii or jjcrsonis ill tiMisI I'oi- tho society. The legal estate is in the trust»*eH, l)nt llie heneticial estate is in the members. Such a trust may he terminated and new denominational relations assumed and formed hy consent, and esjiecially l)y the unanimous consent of the ineinhers ot the society. Attoi-ney-General v ]*roi>rietors of meetinglujuse in Federal Street, '.i (Jray (Mass.) 1. A purchase of land for a rovision for the erection of a building, and the employment of a preacher, was hehl a charity and valid. Cory Uuiversalist Societj' v Beatty, 28 N. J. Eq. 570. Worship, Usage, How Determined. "Where an institution exists for the purpose of religious worship, and it cannot be discovered from the deed declaring the trust what forin or species of religious worship was intended, the court will inquire into the usage of the congregation respecting such worship, and if the usage turns out upon inquirs^ to be such as can be supported, it will be the duty of the court to TRUSTS si:; administer the trust in sncli manner as best to estahlish the usage, considering it as a nmtter of implied contract between the mendiers of the congregation. Where a congre- gation becomes dissentient among themselves tlie nature of the original institution must alone be looked to as the guide for the decision of the court, and to refer to any other ( li terion — as to the sense of the existing nmjority, would be to make a new institution." "If any persons seeking the benefit of a trust for cluiritable ]>uri»oses should object to the adoption of a different system from that which was inteiuled by the original donors and foinnlers; and if others of those who are interested think j)roi)er to adhere to the origimil system, the leaning of tlie court must be to sui)port those adhering to the original system, and not to sacrifice the original system to any change of sentiment in the per- sons seeking alteration, however commendable that ]»ro]»osed alteration nmy be." Attorney-General v Tearson, '.\ Merv. (lOng.) o53. UNINCORPORATED SOCIETY Bequest to, void, 844. Church assessments, 844. Couveyance to, valid, 844. Incorporation, effect, 845. Incorporation, effect on title to land, 845. Members, liability, 845. Property, how held, 846. Right to sue, 846. Roman Catholic, 846. Trustees, protected, 846. Bequest to. Void. Tn New York a voluntary unincorpo- rated as.sociation has no legal capacity to receive a bequest even for a charitable purpose. Pratt v Koraan Catholic Orphan Asylum, 20 App. l^iv. (N. Y.) 352. A bequest to an unincorporated association or society is void — there can be no valid trust without a certain donee or beneficiary. First Presbyterian Society, Chili v Bowen. 21 Hun (N. Y.) 389. Clmrcli Assessments. Members may be exempted from assessment for support of parish church. Adams v Howe, 14 Mass. 340. Conveyance to, Valid. An unincorporated society may purchase land for a church and take the title in the name of designated members to be convej^ed to the corporation to be subsequently organized. Upon such a conveyance to the c()r])()ration the trust im])osed on the first grantees is fully discharged, and no trust follows as against the corporation itself. Centenary Methodist Episcopal Church v Parker, 43 N. J. Eq. 307. A conveyance to an unincorporated religious society of land for church purposes is valid, and vests title in the oflS- cers of the society. Alden v St. Peter's Parish, Sycamore, 158 111. 631. 844 UNINCORroiiATlOl) SOCIETY 845 Incorporation, Effect. If an iiniiicoi-porated society be come.s iiicoipoiak'd, property owned by it passes to the new eorporatiou. Gewin v Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church, IGG Ala. 345. Incorporation, Effect on Title to Land. A couveyance was made in 1882 to certain per.sous, describing them as trustees of this society. The next year, 1883, the society erected a church edilice on the land. In December, 1885, the society was incorporated. The trustees named in tlie incorporation j)apers were the same i)ersons named as grantees in the deed. Under the statute (he corporation became the owner of prop erty previously acquired bj"^ the unincorporated society, including that conveyed to trustees as above described, and was held to be in possession of it at the time of this action, but owing to defects in several conveyances, it seems that the church had not acquired a good title to the property. De Sanchez v Grace Methodist lOpiscopal Ghurch, 114 Gal. -i)5. Members, Liability. Members of a church organization liaving no legal existence, who are directly instrumetital in incurring liabilities for it, or who authorize or ratify trans- actions made in its name, are personall}' liable, while those nicnduM's \\li<) do not in any way ]tartici]>atc in such transac- lions are exempt from liability. The niendiei-s of a linildiiig committee of such an organization who Ii.inc t liarge of the work of coiisti'ucting a church building are personally liable lor materials furni.shed to them for such jnnpo.se, althou.uli the account was charged in the name of (he sociely, and although the seller was infoi-med that the church in(ende.l to raise the necessai-y funds by a <'hurch fair and by indi- vidual subscriptions. (Mark \ O'Konrke. Ill Mitli. KIS. In Thurmond v Cedar Spring Baptist Ciiurcli, 110 Ga. 810, it was held that the mendtei's of an uninc(»r|M»ratetl iiji gious societj'' were liable as joint pi-omissois or par(ners foe a debt contracted in the erection of a church edilice. The societ}' was not incorporated, and it had not tiled and recorded its name ami objects as reipiired by (he code. It ^\as lield tliat (lie society could not ln' swa] as such but sir, Tin: ri\ iL LAW A\i» T\\\: earing that un(h'r the laws of Massa<'husetts such a society was entitled to take and hold ]»i-oi»erty. Doctrines and Worship, Schism. This society was incor]>o- rated in 1827 for the jtnrpose of promoting religions knowl- edge and Christian virtues. In 1828 a meetinghouse was erected for the purpose of promoting Christian worship. The fund for erecting the house was ])rovided by stock, sold to several i)ersons, nearly all of whom were mend)ei-s of the society. A conveyance of the land on which the nieeting house was erected was made to five ])ers(nis in trust for the general purposes of the society, which conveyance vested the proprietors of the jirojterty with the management ;iiid control thereof, including the sale and oc(n|t;incy of the pews. At a meeting of the ]>ro]>rietors, hehl jtrior to the sale of the i)ews, an annuiil ]»ew l;ix was established, the pro- ceeds to be used foi- the jtromotion of public worship under the direction of tlie society. Pews were s(d(l and conveyed in accordance with these regulations. \';ic;incies in the board of trustees were duly tilled fi-om liine to time by elec- tion. The legal title to the ].i'o|K'rty was held by trustees of the society in trust for the use of the stockholdns or j)roprietors of snid nieetinghou.se, but not for their genei;il or unrestricted use. A question arose as to the right to the title ;ind jmsses- sion of the ]>roperty, growing out of i-eligions ojiinions an- nounced by the pastor of the society, it was ilaimed by one 847 848 THE ('I\ll. LAW AND Till: CI KIRCH piirly llial. Ik; had ceased (o hold, iiiaiiilaiii, and |»r(!aclj the doctrines of Christianit}' as licM by the founders of the so- ciety and their successors, and Ihat he had preached do(r- trines oi)i)Osee society. The trust was reposed in this society because it was composed of Unitarian (Chris- tians, and tlie trust was not established for the benefit of persons who were simply members of a civil corporation. Tt was held that the defendants, who claimed to be a ma- jority of the society, liad in fact, most of them seceded from the doctrines and faith of the original sect which founded the society, and were no longer in any proper sense of the term Unitarian Christians. The nieetingliou>e of this society was dedicated by Christian ministers of the Unitarian con- gregational churches in the usual form, and the first min- ister was ordaineo you believe in Jesus Thrist as the ^Messiah, and regard his religion as a revelation of Ood?" The Lord's Su])i)ei' was administered April 2(1, 1S2!>. The court h(dd that this society was not only Chiistian in name but also in its [irinciples, doctrines, and (U-dinances. Tin- court further held that the society, since its organization an!, 18(14, and conlin\ied as such uniil April 1, 1808, when he resigned. iMirinu ilie latter part <»f his ministry he said that "Jesns Christ was like other men. with no more authority,'' and compared Christ with Car rison ami other good men; that he considered ('lii-ist as a mere man, and fallible like other men; lliat ("hiisl was not sno TIIK ('l\ IL l>A\V AM) Till: (III IM || (lie Mcssijili, ;iim1 IIkiI if lie (Cliiistj liclicxcd liimsclf to he llic M('ssi;ili, lie w;is iiiislnUcn. I*'iii;illy .Mr. AhbotI s;iith of ^larch, ISdS, was from the writings of Ixalph Waldo l>merson. The 1st of Ai)ril, ISdS, Mr. Abbott commenced j)reaching for an inde|)endent society in a hall in Dover, and after l)reaching there a few Sabbaths, he returned to the church of the Unitarian Society, and preached there alternate Sun- days for a few months. Later, in a communication to the Liberal Christian, i)nb]ished in New York, Mr. Abbott said, among other things: "1 have come to the conclusion that in no sense is Jesus the Messiah or Christ of God. The soul is its own Christ. Humanity is its own Messiah. I reject Christianity that I may still cleave to religion, which admits of no mediator, because it is immediate." "Religion has no more to do with Jesus than it has with Judas. It leaves the soul alone with God. It acknowledges no leader; is loyal to no master; imitates no exemplar, looks to no redeemer; needs no Saviour, knows no Christ." He said he could not make the confession that Jesus was the Christ of God. In May, 18(18, a large number of members of the society made a written protest against the use of the church prop- erty excei^t for the avowed purposes of its organization. Mr. Abbott admitted the general change of sentiment from that of a minister of the gospel of Jesus at the time of his ordination to that of the gospel of humanity. After Mr. Abbott's resignation some of the wardens who sympathized with him invited him to continue to occupy the pulpit, but he declined to do so unless the society would UNITARIANS 851 chaniife its name to conroriii to Iiis own cliaii'rt' of view l»v which he had ceased to be either a Unitarian or a Christian. At a parish meeting on the 12tli of Ajjril, 18(IS, the wardens were instructed to eni]»h)y only rnitarian Christians to sn]i- ply the desk. Mr. Abbott's friends organized an indejiendenl society. This society held its first nieetinj; on the iMlth of April, 18(>S, in the American Ilall, at which time Mr. .\hl»(»ii took charge of the services. On the I'Tlli of April mini her parish meeting of the regular society was held, and wjirtjcns were elected and a resolution adojyted assigning the use of the church to each n\' the two divisions of the society lur one half the time, under which arrangement the indeiM'udent so- ciety was permitted to occupy the church half of the time. Mr. Abbott occupied the jtnlpit. The court said that the defendants, excejd Mr. Abbott, by forming an imiependent society had abandoned the regu- lar Unitarian society, and forfeited all right to that society's pr()])erty, which belonged to the old society, and it could not be tiii: ciirKfii of llio clmrcli, and resort was liad to llie courts. Suits were instituted in the courts of several of the States of the (.'nion, ant (Uie the courts resolved that the liherals represented the church and were entitled to the church property." The jtresent case involves the rij^ht to a parcel of land in the viilajje of Stevensville, in the county of Welland, with a church building erected thereon. The land was conveyed to trustees of tiie Tnited l^retliren in Christ "in trust for the United Brethren in Christ forever." The ijlaintilFs repre- sent the Liberals, and the defendants the Radicals, or Con- servatives. Since the division in 1(S80 the church building had been occupied by the Radicals subsequently known as the Conservatives. On the trial it was established by admis- sion that there was then no confjrejjation of Liberals at Stevensville, and that the i»laintitl's trustees were a])pointed b}' the yearlj^ conference of the United Brethren Church for Canada, and also by resohition of the Qinirterly Conference of the circuit to which Stevensville belongs, and not by the congregation at Stevensville. The court says, citing Itter v How'e, 23 Out. A. R. 250, that the plaintiffs represent the denomination known as the United Brethren in Christ. Two of the defendants were also two of the trustees to whom the title to the property was originally conveyed. The court said the title to the property was in these two defendants as surviving trustees, and although they had withdrawn from the original denomination, they were bound to hold and administer the property on behalf of, and for the i)ur- poses of their cestuis que trust of that denomination, and not for those who, though calling themselves by the name of the United Brethren in Christ, are not that body. The persons who, calling themselves Radicals, withdrew from the original denomination had no authority to consider themselves the true church. The plaintitrs. and those in harmony with them have been adjudged to be the church, and as such entitled to the use and benefit of the property held for it, and there being no congregation at Stevensville, UNITED BKKTHKEN IN CHRIST 855 the court, nmler the Unlaiio statute, dirctted tliat the pro- ceedings be taken for the appointment of trustees by the court. Division. Trior to May 13, 1881), the church of tlie United Brethren in Christ was a united single ecclesiastical organ- ization, governed by a system of judicatories, consisting of the official board having authority in and over a particuUir congregation ; (Quarterly and Annual Conferences having jurisdiction over the churclies within a particuhir territory, and a General Conference, composed of representatives elected by the Annual Conference, whicli liad jurisdiction over all. A division occurred in the General Conference of 1889, and a small minority withdrew from the place in which the Conference was in session, and organized themselves into a General Conference and claimed to be the true and only organization having valid succession and authority as the General Conference of the church. This division ex- tended into many of the Annual Conferences and congrega- tions. Those thus withdrawing were in large part a party which, in the United Church, had been known as ^'Radicals," and those remaining were called "Liberals." The voluntary religious society, called the church of the United Brethren in Christ, was organized in the year 1800, or about that time. No creed or formal confession of faith was adopted until 1815, when the General Conference of that year adopted and promulgated the instrument called the Old Confession of Faith. In 1S41 (he General Conference of that year adopted an instrument for the government of the church, being the body of organic hiw called the Old Constitution. That constitution was never submitted to the mendiers of the society for their adoj)tion or a])])roval, and was the act of the General Conference alone, a body then coinposemissiou of (piestions relating to the altera- tion of the constitution and revision of the confession of faith, and ])rescribed the method of ascertaining the opinion of the society, and provided that if two thiron take effect. The (Teneral Conference of 188!) adopted a resolution, reported by a special committee, confirming the action of the General Conference of 188,'). and the commission created by it, in submitting to the society an amended constitution and a revised confession of faith, and declaring that such amended constitution and new confession of faith had been duly adopted, and were in full force and elfect. Brundage v Deardorf. 02 Fed. 214. aft'g 55 Fed. 830. Government. This church was an or^Lianized religi(uis society liavinu ollicial bodies for the government of the church, its members, congregations, and ollicers. each being clothed with <-ertain pow«'rs. as follows: First. The official board of each congregation, which UNiTi:i' i;ki;'i"iikk.\ ix ciiinsT sn? meets inoiitlily jumI traiisjuts llic Itusiiicss ni the <()ii«;i-(';;a- tions. It c ol the (•(»iij;iH'j;a( ion, or hold iii('iMh('islii]» Ihcicin. Second. TIic (^uailcilv ( "onrciciKc i(iiii|Miscd ol ihc |»re- sidiiiji' ehU'i- of the district and thi* jircaciu'r in cliar^ic aiireseiil('(l a irporl rccoinnu'ndin;; a revision ol" the coiistitutioii, and also of jlie confession of faitli. On the adoption of this report a conunisslon was a|)pointed willi power to pre]»are a i)lan for suhniittinj^ the jtroposed revised y tlie required percentage of the vote, the whole number of votes cast must be considered as including; all the legal voters, observing that any other rule would be iinitracticablc and would lead to endless confusion and contention. The Gen- eral Conference of 188!) determined and declared the adop- tion of the revised constitution and confession of faith. This was the highest declaration that could be made by the church. The General Conference had power to make this determination, and the civil courts were bound by such adjudication. The court held tliat the constitution and confession of faith adopted in 1S80 became the true constitu- tion and confession of faith of the denomination, and the members of the denomination who adhered to this constitu- tion and confession constituted the true church, and those who rejected this action by the General Conference of l.ssi) became seceders. Lamb v Cain, 129 lud, 480. See also Philomath College v Wyatt, 27 Or. .'iDO, where it was held that members of the church who had joined it since the adop- tion of the constitution of 1841 are presumed to know the contents of the constitution, and to have assented to it, and were bonn. Its first (Jeneral Cotifeivuce was liehl at Ml. Pleasant, Pennsylvania, in 1815. at wliicli time a form of IHscipline and a confession of faith were ad<»pte(l. I'jt to this time the church was without any foiinal I)iseii)line or confession of faith, nor until the year 1811 did it have any constitution. A constitution was adojited by llie (leneral Conference of 1841. SCO Till': CINIL LAW ANI> Till: ('IirKM'lI Al tlic ( Iciicr;! 1 ( '(Mirciciicc ol' ISSK ;i new const i 1 lit ion wn7, when a General Con- ference, held at Germantown, Ohio, formulated and unani- mously adopted one. The members of that Conference doubted their authority to adopt a constitution, and there- fore the Conference issued a circular to give notice to tlie church throughout the nation that "we intend to present a memorial to the next General Conference, praying them to ratify the constitution now adopted." The Conference met (piadrennially, and when it assembled in 1841 it appears to have ignored entirely the constitution of 18:37 and the validity of its adoption and adopted another, which is one of the subjects of this controversy. The regularity of the adoption of this^'onstitution was early questioned by some members of the church. It is too late now, however, to ques- tion it, since it was recognized and treated as the organic law of the (liiirch for nearly tifty years. It provided for a UNITEJ) BKIOTIIKKX IX CHRIST 801 Geueral Confereuce to consist of the l^isliops. and (»f elders elected by the members of every Conference district throngh- out the society. All ecclesiastical j^ower to make or repeal any rule of discipline was vested in this Confeivnce. The Discipline, which was early adopted, made it the duty of the General Ccniference "to examine the administratira/.7.ell, ll'S Mo. It:'.. Majority's Right. A division of the society occurred in consequence of diiTerences ai-ising fi-oiii I lie a; Horsman v Allen, 129 Cal. I'il ; Brundage v Deardorf, 02 Fed. 214 aff'g. 55 Fed. 839; Itter v Howe, 2.3 Out. App. Rep. (Can.) 256. Philomath College. An action was brought by the college (Philomath ('ollege v Wyatt, 27 Or. ."{OO ) which involved the status of the religious bodies from wliich the parties claimed to derive their title and their right to hold the col- lege i)roperty. P]ach set of trustees was elected by an Annual Conference claiming to be the Annual Conference of the said church in Oregon, and the decision of the case turned on the question which was the true Annual Confer- ence; and this decision depended on the question whether the revised confession of faith and amended constitution of the church had been regularly adoitted, and were in force. This confession of faith and amended constitution had been api)roved by more than two thirds of the members of the church voting thereon, in November, 1888, according to a plan submitted by a revision comjuission created by the General Conference of 1885. The result of this vote was reported to the General Conference of 1880, and it was approved. Following this ratification the proclamation was issued by the bisho])s announcing the adoption of the revised confession of faith and amended constitution, which there- upon became operative and in full force. The plaintiff, the college, adhered to the revised confession of faith and amended constitution as approved and proclaimed in 1880. UNITED BRI:TUK1:N IX CUKiST 8(i:{ The defendaiil.s a(lht'irorated, 865 8(;(; TUio CIVIL law and ^riii': cHrucii orectero]ter conveyance. Fourth Universalist l»arish v Wensley, 5 Wkly. Note Cas. (l*a.) 273. VOTERS Assessment, 868. Contribution, 868. Episcojjulians at Congregational meeting, 869. Qualifications, how dotermined, 869. Qualifications, how fixed, 870. Quahficalions, in general, 870. Stated attendants, 872. Withdrawal, effect, 872. Women, meeting for incorporation, 872. Assessment. If the law requires an assessment as the basis of a right to vote at a parish meeting, the omission of a i^er- son's name from the assessment list deprives him of the right to vote even if he has the requisite property. Sparrow v Wood, 1(1 Mass. 457. Contribution. A person whose right to vote depends on his contribntion to the church and expenses must contribute to its support according to tbe usages and customs thereof. This undoubtedly means substantial and vital aid and sup- port, material su])port without which the organization can- not exercise its ordinary functions and perform its custom- ary and appro})riate duties and ministrations. It means the parting with, and contribution of, a portion of one's worldly substance, in the usual and customary way, to be used in meeting and defraying the expenses incurred by the church, congregation, or society in the sui)port of public and divine worship. People v Tuthill, 31 N. Y. 550. In State v Crowell, 9 N. J. L. 391, it was held that a per- son was not entitled to vote as a member of a Presbyterian congregation, who does not contribute his just proportion according to his own engagements or the rules of that con- gregation, to all the necessary expenses of the church, and that an election of trustees of a Presbyterian Church made 868 VOTERS stiu by i>ei'.sous not being coutribiitors to the support of the church (and therefore not qualitied by their rules to vote; is void. Episcopalians at Con^egational Meeting. The First Societj' of Chatham, not Episcopalian, was entitled lo Ihe iiicoiiie of the proceeds of certain lands granted in .lannary, 1702, by the town of Middletown, wliicli tlien inchnU'd tlie town of Chatham afterward erected, such income to he ajiplied in support of schools or of a minister, in the discretion of the members of the society. Subsequently 10piscoi»alians resid- ing in Chatham assumed the right to vote at a meeting of the First Society and did vote to ai)proi)riate tlie income of the fund for tlie support of sdiools. It was hehl that the Episcopalians were not members of the First Society, and had no right to vote at a society meeting, and no right to any part of the money resulting from such original ai>pro- priation of land. Sage, etc. Committee of the First Society, Chatliam V White, 2 Root (Conn.) 111. Qualifications, How Determined. The presiding officer at a church election acts judicially in receiving a vote, and if unchallenged, the i)erson offering the vote is jnesumed to possess the re(piisite qualifications, and after the result of the election has been declared the presiding officer caiinot reconsider the niattei-, determine that the voter was not qualified, and reject his vote. Ke Williams, 57 Misc. (N. V. I 327. The society was incor]»oraews were made free and there was mi pt-w rent. After this change it was held that ]»ersoiis wi're memlters of the corporation and ilierefoi-e \ (iters, who had, during (he year jireceding an election, been regnlai' attendants at the church services, and had contributed not less than >^'2 for it.s ST(t T\\\: CIN IL LAW A.\h Till': < IUKCII sii|»|M)rt. ( '(Hiiiiioiiw cnllli ex rcl Scull \ Mori'isoii, ]'.', l'liil;i. (I'M.) v.\ry. Aliens otherwise (|n;iline(l were lieleared that the charter of a congregation was granted by the Pennsylvania pro]>riefoi-s in 17<>r) under which a voter must have been a contributing mend>er and a communicant. This charter was confirmed by the assembly in 1780 with sonu» alterations, one of which was that no pei-son should be entitled to vote who was under the age of eighteen years. It was held that considering both charters together, a voter must have been a contributfU", a commnnicant. aini eigliiceii years of age. The question as lo the (pialilicat ion of \uters at an elec- tion for trustees of a religious society ari.ses for tlecision when the voter oilers his vole. If the vote is not challenged. it must be received; if it is clialleugtMJ. the iiis|>ectors must determine the question of (pialilicat ion. Having rec«'ived the vote, the inspectors have decided the question, and they cannot afterward disregard the vote on the grouml that it is illegal, and the inspectors, at the chtse t>\' the |iolls. ha\in^ .S72 'I'lii: ri\iL LAW AM) 'iiii: ciii i.'cii (■illi\;iss('(l llic \()I('S iiiid (IccliilHMl tli:it ccrl;!!!! pcisoiis li:i(| icccivcd ;i spccilicd iiiniilK'r, wliicli w.is ;i |tliir;ilify of ;ill the voles received, (iiniiol ;ir(er\v;ir(| i-cv icw tlieir own iiction ill receiviiij; llie voles ;nid make :i cerlitieate ersoual and cannot be suj)i)lied by another. The regular attendance of the wife, or other members of the family, will not answer. And no amount of conti-ibntion to the support of the church or society can be accei)ted in lieu of this personal presence statedly. J*ersons who attend a few times only in the course of the year, as com]»ared with the nund)er of stated times for wor- ship within such year, and at irregular and uncertain inter- vals are clearly not stated attendants. Peojde v Tuthill, 31 X. Y. 550. Withdrawal, Effect. A member of this society withdrew thei-efrom, and afterward demanded the right to vote at a parish meeting, producing a certificate of the clerk of the society that he had ceased to be a member thereof. It was held that until he joined this society he was subject to taxa- tion in the i)arish, and was a voter therein, and that when he ceased to be a member of the society his original rela- tions to the ])arish were restored including the liability to taxation and tlie right to vote. Oakes v Hill, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 333. Women, Meeting for Incorporation. The . certificate of VOTERS 873 incorporation recited that the meeting was ((niiitoscil »»r tlie male members of the society, but it did not a]»pear that the female members were excluded, or were prevented fnim participating in the meeting. It was held that tlie female members of the society, if any, must be presumed to liave absented themselves from tlie meeting; and if they did, the male members were competent to take the necessary pro- ceedings for incorporation. Lynch v Pfeiffer, 110 N. Y. 33. WESLEYAN METHODISTS Bequest sustained, 874. Conference, powers rchiting to the trijil and suspension of a minister, 874. History, 874. Member when right of action lost, 875. Request Sustained. Testatrix gave certain property to the trustees to be ajiplied according- to directions to be given by the annual meeting of the ministers of the Wesleyan Meth- odists of Canada, including a small annual payment to the local society for the su})port of preaching. The provision in the will did not constitute a charitable use, and was there- fore valid, at least in part. Doe v Read, 3 U. C. K. B. (Can.) 244. Testator bequeathed a fund to the Wesleyan Methodist Society of Belturbet, and to the Wesleyan Methodist Society of Ireland. These becpiests were held valid. The court said that the two societies named by the testator in his will were, respectively, the local Methodist Society of BeHurbet and the General Methodist Society of Ireland. The addition by the testator of the word "Wesleyan" did not throw the least doubt on his meaning. Hadden v Dandy, 51 N. J. Eq. 154. Conference, Powers Relating to the Trial and Suspension of a Minister. The Conference liad power to sid)init to a com- mittee questions relating to the conduct and trial of a min- ister. The committee had power to susjumkI tlie minister for a specified period. Dempsey v North Michigan Conference. Weslej'an Methodist Connection of America, 98 Mich. 444. History. A large nund)er of Wesleynn Methodist Associa- tions cooperated in June, 1S4;>, in forming a convention at which a religious denomination was organized called the Wesleyan ^lethodist Convention of America. The conven- tion adopted a Discii)line and rules regarding the details of 874 \vksjj:van mi:tii()I)Ists sir. organization inclndiii^ Annual ConrcrciKcs. aixl also a Gen- eral Conference to meet once in four years. l»e<^inninj; in 1SI4. Smith V Bowers, 57 App. i)iv. (N. Y. i L*r>2 allinned 171 N. V. GG9. Member, When Right of Action Lost. In Smith \ r.uwers. 57 App, Div. 252, allirmed 171 X. V. in;:), it was licl.l ili:il a person wlio had for more than a vear ceased to he a staled attendant at the servi<-es of the cliur»li of which he had formerly been a member, and whose name had heen dro|t|tcd from the roll of niend)ers, could not nniintain an action against the society, nor its trustees, to jtrevent the use of the church property for purjtoses inconsistent with the discipline and rules of the association. WILL Auburn Theological Seminary, 876. Hishop to be appointed, 877. Capacity to take, 877. Conditional bequest, 877. Constitutional limitation, 877. Conveyance, includes will, 878. Corporation, bequest by nonresident, 878. Dissolution of society, effect, 879. Foreign beneficiary, 870. Foreign society, 880. Identifying beneficiary, 880. Indefiniteness, 881. Intention, 884. Legacy forfeited by change of doctrine, 885. Legislative sanction, 885. Misdescription, 886. Parol evidence, 886. Perpetuity, 886. Quakers, yearly neeting, void devise, 886. Religion, advantiement, 886. Reward of merit, 887. Sailors' Home, Boston, Miu'jsachusett.s, 887. Slavery and intemi)erance, 888. Sunday school, SSS. Testator's religious opinions, 888. Time limit, 888. Trustee, will acknowledging trust, 892. Undue influence, 892. Unincorporated society, 892. Unitarians, 893. Ursuline Community, 893. Young Men's Christian Association, 893. Auburn Theological Seminary. A legacy to the Auburn Theolojiicnl Seiiiiiiary, ]);iyable on the death of the testator's daughter without lawful issue, was sustained in Trustees of Auburn Tlieological Seminary v Kelloiijj:. 1(» N. Y. S.S. The 876 WILL 877 seminary was authorized by its diailcr to take a legacy for the purposes specilied in Ihc will, namely, "to endow a professorsliij) in Ihc seminary." Bishop to Be Appointed. A legacy (in lOnglandi for the establishment of a bishoj) in America, not yet appointed, is not void, but the money was to remain in court until the appointment of a bishoj). Attorney-CJeneral v Hishop of Chester, 1 Bro. C. Cases (Eng.) 444. Capacity to Take. Testator made a bequest to this .society to be paid after tive years from his death. The fund be- queathed was larger than the society was authorized to receive at the time of the testator's death, but before the first payment became due, the Legislatuie increased the amount which the .society was authorized to take, but it was held that I his did not aid the society, the watit of capacity at the death of the testator could not be removed by subsecpient legislation ; such legislation could oidy be prosjtective in its operation. r''irst (.'ongregalional Clinrch, New Orleans v Henderson, I Kob. (La. I 211. Conditional Bequest. A gift to a chnrcli tor Ihc purpose of aiding in the payment of a mortgage on the church |>roperty, on condition that the remaining amount of the debl should be raised within two years after the testator's death, was held to be a condition pi-ece tiii; cihkcii The coiirl held lt» he iii\alise(| to he siillicieiil to <'rect a <-Iinr(li (liei-eoii. Siicli devise and Itecniesl wei-e pioliih- iled l»y llie Missouri const iliitioii. First IJaptist Cliiirch v Robbersoii, 71 Mo. 320. A will of testatrix was rcj^ularly admitted to probate, except a clause wliich <;ave the residue of the estate to I'eter Kicliard Keiirick. In a jiroceedin^- for the probate of this clause its jtrohate was contested on tiie ^i-ound that it vio- lated the i)rovision of the constitution of lS(;.j forlddding any gift, bequest, or devise for the su|»i»oit. use. or benefit of any minister, public teacher, or ])reacher of the gospel as such, or to anv^ religious sect, order, or denominalion. It appeared that prior to the present will the testatrix made anotlier will, in which the residue of the estate was given to I'eter Kichard Keurick in his otticial cajtacity as arch- bishop of the Koman Catholic Church for the benefit of the church. The first will was nuule ])rior to the adojition of the constitution, and a new will was thereafter made, omit- ting the archbishop's title and the object of the bequest. It was held that the bequest was void under the constitution. Ken rick v Cole, 01 Mo. 572. In Boyce v Christian, 09 Mo. 492, it was held that this societv' was a religious sect and therefore incapable under the Missouri constitution of receiving a devise, notwithstand- ing it was but a local congregation uncontrolled by any genei-al ecclesiastical organization. Conveyance, Includes Will. A will is a conveyance within the meaning of the 3 Vic. chap. 4, clause 10, relative to a (h'ed or conveyance made to a bi.sho]) or rector or other incumbent of the Church of England, provided such deed or conveyance be made and executed at least six months before the death of the person. Doe Baker v Clark, 7 U. C. Q. B. (Can.) 44. Corporation. Bequest by Nonresident. A New York act of ISCiO, chap. 3(;0, which ])r 'i'lli; CIUKCir sjilisi rcli/^iods (Iciioiiiiiijil ion in the ('(»iiiit_v oT HcrUsliirc as ;i pcrinancnl I'lnHl, llic nsc l<» he applied annually for the suppofi of lliat tlcnorninal ir»n. is not \<»i Sim. (Eng. ) 7. Testator gave his residuary estate to the Orthodox Protes- tant Clergjnien of Delphi and their successors to be ex- pended in the education of colored children, "both umle and fenuile, in such way aud manner as they may deem best, of which a majority of them shall determine; and my object in this becpiest being to j)r<)mote the moral and religious imj)rovement and well-being of the colored race." There was no organization like that named in the will either in Deljihi, Indiana, or elsewhere. It was. therefore, held that there was no trustee couipetent to 1ak<' the devise. The devise was also held void for uncertainty, tni- the ica- son that it was impossible to select the beneliciaries intended to be the objects of the tcstatoi-'s bounty ; no nu'thod was pre- scribed for selecting tlic coloj-ed cliildicn \\h() should re- ceive the pro])osed instruction, (iiinies I].\eculors v Har- mon and others, '.\~t Ind. 1!)S. Testator gave his i-ejil estate to his \\ilc \'{}V life, with a provision that ujKtn her death the real estate should be dis- l>oseid>uply so nnnh thereof to the church or to the ednr;ition and inainten.ince of poor children as lie. in his \\isd(»ni niiglit think proper and leijal. SSI Tin: ("I\ IL LAW AM> Till: ("IHIU'H The (U'visc \v;is iicld void lor iiiKcitiiiiil \ , the court ol)s<*rv- ingthiit il is uiicertain what churcji is intended. It is uncer- tain what poor cliildren are intended to be the i"e(i|)ients of the testator's bounty. The poor chiblren of no particular city, town, church, or State are desigiiatee names at the time of the testator's death, they will be con sidered the societies referred to in the will and cai);!l)lc of taking the bequest whether incorporated or not. (.'arter v Balfour Adm., 19 Ala. (N. S.) 814. Testator made a bequest to the Catholic Church, and the Baptist, I'resbyterian, and Methodist Churches. It was held that the churches in the town where the testator resided were intended as the objects of his bounty. Trustees, Catholic Clyirch Taylorsville v Ottutt's Adm., G B. Mon. (Ky.j 5o5. For the i)uri)ose of exi)laining a devise to a l*rotestant Episcopal church in New Canaan, Connecticut, evidence was admitted to show that there was an incorporated society with a comjjlete organization bearing that title, and that there was also another body composed only of communicants and baptized persons called the church, and that the testator referred to the latter body and intended tlie devise for iis benefit and not for the incorporated society. Ayres v Wet^d. IG Conn. 2!)1. Legacy Forfeited by Change of Doctrine. Teslator, a I'lii tarian, made a bequest to a town for the support of Uni- tarian doctrines and teachings. The society afterward changed its faith and doctrine and became Ti'initarian. It was held that the legacy was thereby forfeited. IMinci'toii v Adams, 10 C^ush. (Mass.) 121). Legislative Sanction. Under the ])r(»visi(»iis of art. ;!S of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, tiiat "ev(M\\ dc\isi' or bequest of lands and of goods and chattels, to or loi- the benefit of any minister, jjublic teaclier, or minister ol ilic gospel, as such, or any religious sect, order, or denominatictii, without prior or subsequent sanction of the Legishiturc simll be void," it was lichl tiiat such sanction by tlic Lcgislaturt* was valid, even if expressed in ;in act passed after the death of the testatrix. The Legislature had jtower to exjunsss its sanction witliin a reasonable time after such death. Church lOxtension of the Methodist I'piseojial Church v Smiili. .")G Md. 3G2. ssd Tin: ciN'ii. LAW AM) Tin: ciii imwi So in MiiMcr ol' l-'il/jiiiiiioiis, 111) Misc. i X. V. i Tol, il \va> lield that wlici*' a l(»r('i('<;islatiirc of its domicile, the court directed that the legatee he given a r<*asonahle time to ohtain the legislative sanction. Testatrix by a will, which was admitted to probate in Septend)er, 1S7(», gave a legacy to the above society-. The Legislature in 1878 passed an act approving the befpiest, biit the executor's tinal account had already been tiled. The society was held entitled to receive the legacy. Ivnglainl^v X'estry Prince George's Parish, 53 Md. 400. Misdescription. Legacies were given to religious societies by names which were not their (orrect corporate names but which phiinly described the resi)ective institutions the tes- tator had in mind, but no other institution of similar name claimed either of them. The bequests were sustaine(L Re Dickenson's Estate, 50 Misc. (N. Y.) 232. Parol Evidence. If the object of the bequest is uncertain, parol evidence is admissible to explain the testator's inten- tion. Koy V Rowzie, 25 Gratt. (Va.) 599. Perpetuity. A provision in a will directing the executor to ])ay the net annual income derived from the rent of certain real estate to religious corporations for twenty years, after which the pro])erty was to be sold, created a ]>erpetuity under the Wisconsin statute, and was therefore void. I>e Wolf V Lawson, (H Wis. -inu. Quakers, Yearly Meeting, Void Devise. A devise to a Yearly Meeting of Quakers for the jturpose of aiding a boarding school in Provi be paid to several organizations in WILL SS7 (lirt'eieiit portions, it was held that these residuary hetiuesls (lid not eoiifstitute a trust, nor was the j)rovision void for uncertainty. Tlu' money devoted to tlie advancement of religion was to be e.\])ended by well-known religions organ- izations, and they were entitled to receive the resilic t«'stiiiM»iiv ccjiscd Uic I'ijjlit to the lej^acy cciiscd, ami tlMM-calicr tlic icsiduaiy lejjatees became entitled to the fund. Mailer ol Oi'tliodox roiif^regatioiial Clmicli, Cnioii X'illajif. (I Aldi. \. ('. (N. Y.) :'.os. Sunday School. Testatrix bequeathed to tlie society a siiin of money for tlie use of the Sunday s<-iiool, one lialf for tlie libraiy and one half for runiiin*^ expenses. This was lield to be a trust to be administered by the court by the apjioinl nient of a trustee if necessary. Cowan's Estate, 4 Pa. Dist. Rep. 4:^5. Testator's Religious Opinions. In Attorney-General ex rel Bailey v Moore's Executors, 10 N. J. Eq. 5fl.'*>, it is said thai *'the cases in whieh consideiation of the religious faith of the founder of a charity is resorted to for the purj)Ose of ascertaining his intent, are, without exception, cases in which the primary object of the foundation was the propaga- tion of religious doctrines, or the donor in the instrument of foundation has made some ex])ress ])rovisiou relative to the 1-eligious instruction to be given.'' Time Limit. A testator died five days after making his will. A bequest to the college (of St. Frauds Xavier) was held invalid, for the reason that it was not made at least two months prior to the testator's death as required by sec. G of the act of 1848, chai>. 311). Matter of Fitziramons, 211 Misc. (N. Y.) 731. A bequest to the society (of St. A'incent de Paul ) was sus- tained on the ground that the society was not subject to the two months' limitation in the act of 1848, chaj). 319. Matter of Fitzimmons, 21) Mi.sc. (N. Y.) 731. A devise of the residuary estate to. the Roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor was held void because the will was made within two months of the testatrix' death. Marx \ McOlynn, 88 N. Y. 357. A devise to tlie societv was held void under a will ma. Ke Carnell's Estate, \) riiila. (Pa.) :V22. Testatrix made jnovision in her will for the education of a relative for the Treshylerian miiustry, directing the jtay- ment of the expenses occasioned by his education until he should have become an ordained I'resbyterian minister; but if he should refuse to accept the provision for his education, or neglect to pursue the required studies to lit liini for the ministry, then the money available for such epearing that the will was made within one month before teslatoi-'s death. Rhymers Appeal. !i;'. I'a. S(. 141'. Teslati-ix executed a will on October S, 1S!>!I. between the houi's of 'A and .") o'clock r. m. She died on Xovembei* S of the same year between the houis of 7 and S o'clock w m. rt was held that the t<'stali-ix died within one calendai- month after the execution of the will, the court observing that the manifest m<>aning of iIk- sialule. Pennsylvania act of 1855, is that such a monlh nmsl lully elajise between the S!M) Till': ('l\IL L.\\V AND 'I'lli: CIHIMH dates of llic Iwo cvciils. A ciilciKljii- iimhiIIi is mndc n|) of days, ill lliis case* lliirty-oiu* days, and llic liinc i. In Harris v American Baptist Home Mission Society, 33 Hun (N. Y.) 411, it was held that a bequest to this society was not subject to the i)rovision contained in chap. 310 of the laws of 1848, making invalid such a bequest made within two months prior to the death of the testator, A gift to Yale College mad<* bv a will executed within two WILL .SDL months before the testator's death, and including property, the annual income of which exceeded !?10,UU0, was sustaiiuMl. The only living relative of the testator was an aunt. Ke Lampson, Kil N. Y. 511. See Kavanagh's Will, 125 N. Y. 418. Testator died within one month after the will was made. The case holds that the court may take judicial notice that the fifth edition of the revised statutes, published in 1851), was in common use in 18<5(;, when an act was i)assed applying to certain provisions of the revised statutes, and that under the circumstances this edition of the revised statutes must have been intended by the Legislature. A person executed a will, disposing of her property to vari- ous persons and societies. Two days after the execution of the will she, then being very ill, w^as informed that if she should die within a month the bequests to charities would fail. She thereui)on executed documents making an imme- diate transfer of property for the purposes, or some of them, indicate reason dial (lie will was made in ]>nrsuance of a jtroniisc by llie testatrix to one who bequeathed the i»r(»|i('i-ty to her (hat she would give to the church. The church was entitled to iuvttkc the aid of a court of equity to comj)el the jx'rforniance of the promise. I\e Hoffner's Estate, Kil ra..'.'.l. Testatrix bequeathed a fund t() the j»aslor of the cliufth, but there was no trust or c(uire- vious liberal gifts, and contrary to his intentions, expre.s.sed before and after making the conveyance, and the pastor had opportunities to exert influence, the law presumes that the conveyance is invalid, and in the absence of evidence, over- coming the i)resumi)tion, the conveyance must be set aside. Good V Zook, IK; la. r)82. Unincorporated Society. A devise directly to a voluntary association w'as held void in Tennessee, but having been made to trustees for the use and benefit of the association (Friendship Church, Polk County) it was sustained. Equity WILL .vj;; would eufoi'te the liust. Cobb v Denton, (j Baxter (Tenn.) 235. A bequest to the Ladies' Mite Society was held invalid for the reason that the society was not incoi'i»orated. Such an unincorporated society could not take the property by be- quest, and was incapable of enforcing the trust declared by the will for its benefit. Church Extension of the Meth odist Episcopal Church v Smith, 50 Md. ;;()L*. Testator devised land to Francis Asbury for the use of the Methodist society and a school. The Methodist society was not incorporated, and was, therefore, incapable to take the devise which was held void. Muri)liy v Dallam. 1 Uland Ch. (Md.) 529. Unitarians. A legacy to the minister or niinistei-s to be applied by them to the suj)port of Unitarians was sustained. Ke Barnett. 21) (.'58 Vt. 1) L. J. Ch. (Eng.) 871. TJrsuline Community. A bequest to Bishop l-^ngland, of South Carolina, in trust for the ladies of the Ursuliue order residing in Charleston, was sustained. It appeared that at the time the will was executed there was in Charleston an institution which had been incorporated by the Iiame of "Tlie Ladies Ursnline Community of the City of Charleston," and it was and now is known and spoken of invariably as "The Ladies of the Ursuline Convent" or ''order"; and there had not been and was not any similar society or institution in the State of South Carolina. The designation in the will was deemed sufficiently dclinite. Banks v i'liclan, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) SO. Young Men's Christian Association. Testatm- hcMpicathcil the interest of .ifljOOO yearly to help form a ^'oullg Men's Christian Association. The gift was sustained. Coodtll v Union Association of the Children's Home, 21> N. .1. lOtj. ."12. WINP]BRENNERIANS See the article uii ('liurcli of (lud at Ilarrishiirg. 894 WITNESS Atheist, 895. Child, 895. Competency, 897. Deuf mute, 899. Evidence, 899. Idolater, 899. Immunity from ex:unination, 900. Oath, 900. , Party, religious belief, 900. Quaker, 900. Religious belief, 900. Roman Catholic, oath how administered, 903. Universalist, 904. Atheist. In Anoiiynions, Fed. Cas. No. 446, it is said that the testimony oi" an atheist is not admissible. The Connecticut court permitted evidence to show that a witness was an atheist. Beardsly v Foot, 2 Root (Conn.) 399. An affidavit cannot be excluded by the presentation of a counter affidavit that the first affiant is an atheist, llis competency cannot be questioned ex parte, but lie must have an oi)portunity to explain his views. Leonard v Ma- Tiard, 1 Hall's Sup. Ct. (N. Y.) 200. Child. Where a child of tender years, upon hcin^ ex- amined by the court as to her competency to Icstily as a w i1- ness, stated that if she swore falsely and did wroii^ she would j?o to hell, but that if she told the truth and did ri<;ht she would go 1o heaven, such answei's show ilic (iiild to be a comj)etent witness witliont being (piestioned as lo her belief in a Supreme Being. (Jrimes v Stale. lor» Ala. SC. A child nine years of age testitied. (»n a preliminary examination, that she "understood llie nature of an oath, and that if slie dir:i|>cr, CS ill. 17. A cliild (en years of a^c, upon cxaiiiinal ion, said she did not know Nvliat (Jo«l and llie laws of llie (•f)niitr3' would do to her if she swore falsel}-, but that she would tell the truth. She was held to be a competent witness. Davidson v State, 31) Tex. 121). A child can be examined as a witness if tlH?re is a belief in a state of rewards and punishments, and a conviction that punishment will follow falsehood, although she was ignor- ant of the meaning of an oath. Commonwealth v Ellenger, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 352. It is for the trial court to determine after a proper examination whether a child understands the nature of an oath, the obligation it imposes, and his responsibility to the Supreme Being for not testifying to the truth. Com- monwealth V Mullius, 2 Allen (Mass.) 295. A girl of thirteen years of age called as witness said she understood an oath was to tell the truth, and that she would be punished if she did not, but did not know how or by whom she would be punished. Before being sworn, she was instructed by a Christian minister who told her God would punish her if, after taking the oath, she testified what was not true; and that she did not know this before. She was held to be competent. Commonwealth v Lynes. 142 Mass. 577. A Negro girl about nine years of age who said she did not know what the Bible was ; had never been to church but once, and that was to her mother's funeral; did not know what book it was she laid her hand on when sworn ; had heard tell of God, but did not know who it was; and if she swore to a lie, she would be put in jail, but did not know she would be punished in any other way, was held incom- petent as a witness. Carter v State, G3 Ala. 52. In Jones v Brooklyn B. and W. E. R. Co., 21 St. Rep. (N. Y.) IGl), a boy eleven years old testified that he believed in heaven, the home of God, and in hell, the home of the devil. WITNIOSS Sl»7 thai at death the good will go to heaven and the bad to hell, and that it was bad to lie. He was held competent as a witness. A boy of twelve years who could repeat the Lord's Prayer, and had heard that the bad man caught those who lied, cursed, etc., but had never heard of God, or the devil, Or of heaven or hell, or of the Bible, and had never heard and had no idea what became of the good, or of the bad alttT death, is not a competent witness. State v Belton, 24 S. Car. 185. A girl ten years old said she attended Sunday school, and knew it was wrong to tell a lie. It was held not to be error to admit her as a witness. Johnson v State, 1 Tex. Ct. Ajtp. (;09. Competency. One who believes in the existence of God, ami that an oath is binding on the conscience, is a competent witness, though he does not believe in a future state of rewards and i»unishnients. Brock v ^lilligan, 10 Ohio 121. A })erson who believes in a God, thougli not in future |)unisliments, is a competent witness. The Pennsylvania act of 1SS5 removed every form of incompetenc3' including that arising from defect of religious belief. Commonwealtli v Kauffman, 1 I'a. Co. Ct. 410. No person is incapacitated from being a witness on ac- count of his religious belief. Pei-rv v Coiiinionwcalth, :{ Graft. (Va.) (>:\2. In Massachusetts it was held in (commonwealth v Burke, 1() Gray (Mass.) ^{8, that a person offered as a witness could not be examined as to his religious belief. The i)urpo.»;e anS 'nil; ('l\ IL LAW .\M> Till: (IN K'CII ^ions creed, is cuiiiiielenl , heiii;; sumii ncciddin;^ In lii:it I'onii (>r <):illi \\lii
  • etent by reason of his dis- belief in God. Londener v Lichten, 11 Mo. App. 385. All persons who believe in the existence of a God and a future state, though they disbelieve in a punishment here- WITNESS SIM» al'tei' lor crimes ('(umiiitlcMl Ihmv, are coiiipetent witnesses. Noble V People, 1 111. 54 (Breese, Beecberj. It seems tbat a member of an eleemosynary corporation is a competent witness in a suit in wbicb the c()ri)<)ration is a party. Miller v Trustees of Mariner's Church, 7 Me. 51. A person not believing;' in the existence of a Suj)ieme Beinetency of a witness on account of his religions belief, he may be either interrogated person- ally concerning it, or his dechirations to others ui>on the subject may be shown. The (luestion, whethci" or not such declarations have been correctly understood and reported, will, of course, be open to pr(»of of a like clianutcr. TIarnd v State, 3S Tenn. 125. A person \\h() does not believe in the existence of a God, nor in a future state of rewards and punishments, cannot be a witness in a court of justii-e un(U'r any circumstances. Jackson v GridU'v, is .lolms. ( N. V.) i)8. NoTi: : Cnder tlic New Voi"U constitution (art. 1. sec. 3) \Hy2 Tin: (MX II. LAW AM) Tlli; ("IHKCII as aiiK'iKk'd in ISKi, "no [xm-soii shall he i'cihIci'ciI iiicoin- peteut to be a witneK.s on accoiiiii ol liis opiiiioiiK on niatterH of relij^ions belief." In Coinnionwealth v liuy.zell, \i\ Tick. (Mass.) l')'.',, the court held that the relijijious laitli ol a wiliie.ss was not a subject for ar<;nnient or jM-oof, loi" the pur|)ose of showiii}^ that he was entitled to more or less credit than witnesses of a different religious sect; and that unn. Tn I'ennsylvania a belief in a fntnic slate of i'e\varon the tpiestion of compe- tency. Blair v Seaver, 2fi Pa. 274. In U. S. V Kennedy, .*> McLean (V. S. i 17.") it was held that a witness to be competent must believe in (!od, and in rewards and punishments, but that he is competent if these are received in this life. In State v Townsend, 2 Ilarr. (Del.i 54:5, it was held that a person could not be a witness who did not believe in a (i<»d and a future slate (d" existence. A jterson who believes in a (Jod and also in I lie Ilible. but does not believe that the only ]tnnislinient inllicted fttr wronjijs in this life is the ]»anins of a j^uilty conscience, or in a future state of rewards and punishments after death, is a comjtetent witness. Hennett \- Slate, I Swan (Tenn.i 111. Roman Catholic, Oath How Administered. In ("(ininmn- weallh V Buzzell, IC I'ick. (Mass. i I.".;;. I.'.C. et. se(|. (:'.:: Mass. I, in the course of the tiial the wit nesses wci-e severally called to be sworn on the Holy l]\ an^clists. When Uishoji Fenwick was called to take llie oaili. he in(|nii-e(| the reason for this
  • ii of I lie |iro|»citv \\;is N-t r«»r ji l»(»;inliii^' Iionsc, :iii,(HM) \v;is nindc on tlic nonc'ccniptcd poi-lion of tlic j>rop('rt_v. II w;is licld tlnil the rented porli(»n of the property w;is liable to ta.xatioii. Aulmrn v V. M. C A., Aid)iirn, StI Me. 244; see also the article on Kelij^ious Wor- ship, subtitle Buildiugs, Exemption from Taxatiou. INDEX Abbott, Francis E., chango of n*- ligious opinions, 849. Actions, general article, 1; agent, when liable, 1; architect for plans, 2; building comniittee, 2; compromise, when effect ual, -i; corporation against majority of members, 4; damages against rail- road company for disturbing re- ligious services, 4; debts, a; ejectment, 5; elections, tj; forci- ble entry and detainer, (i; juror, (i; mechanic's lien, 7; minister's salary, 8, 348; minister, statute of limitations, 13; partition, 13; jHTSonal judgment, when not proper, 14; promissory note, 14; (luieting title, 15; rector, deposi- tion, when no action for damages. If); reforming deed, 15; n'|)levin f(jr seal, 16; Shakers, 1(3; specific performance, 16; title, action to compel conveyance, 16; trespjuss, 16; trustees, de facto, 18; trus- tees, Illinois rule, 18; trustees. New ^'ork rule, 18; trustees, restraining unauthorized acts, 18; trustees, right to sue, 19; trus- tees, title to ofhce, 20; unincor- IKjrated associations, 20; unin- cori)orated society, 20; when minister cannot recover parish fund, 184; damages not recover- able for disturbing person in religious meeting, 202; Evangel- ical Association, Des Moines Annual Conference, relative to status of Bishop, 243; non(> by trustees after term expires, 246; Universalist Church, how brought, H{')r). Acts, 15; ([uoted, 111. Adams, R.ev. lulward P., pastor of Presbyterian Church, Dunkirk, deposed, .377. Adverse Possession, when not su.s- tained, 15; 30 years' occu|)ancy, 17; burial groimd, 58; notes rel- ative to, 521. Advowson, note on, bequest in- valid, 825. A f r i c a n M e t h o d i s t Episcopal Church, organization, 21; amend- ing charter, 21; dismissing p;utor, 21; municipal ordinance against meetings, 21; Similar to Methoes, KHi; when jiastor lestrained from using church, 289. Barbarians, invading Roman Em- pire, protected church j^roperty, 682. Barclay's Treatise on Church Gov- ernment, quoted, 223. Belief, Religious. See Rehgious Be- lief. Bells, cliimc, bequest sustained, 39; fixtiu-e, 39; injunction again.st ringing, 39, 40; nuisance, 40; chimes, keeping in rejiair, 80. Benedict, St., founder of order of St. Benedict, 172. Bible, insj)inition, 41; New Testa- ment, 41; not a sectarian book, 41, 4.''), 7ir); Old Testament, 42; Protestant translations, 42; schools, use in, 43; versions, 4G; school authorities to determine question as to use of, 40; only creed of Cami)bellites, 51; basis of ecclesia.st ical government, 101; constitution in liarniony with, 100; only creed, Church of Clod at Ilarrisburg, 124; ('ongrega- tionalist, oiih' standard in test of religious truth, 179; biusis of Protestant reformation, 54.'); gov- ernment not capable of intcr- jm'ting, .593; may be used in Cirard College, .594; in schools, note on, 054; Iowa, use in schools, 71.3; rea3, ()()4, (581; when holds prop- erty in triLst, 604, 605; when not liable in damages, (")0(); may remove or suspend priest, 079; when priest not bishoi)'s agent, 080; when ])riest luus no action against, 081; no title to sul>- scription for church edifice, 737, 740; Protestant Episcopal Church, trust for local parish, 820; death of, tru.st pius.ses to coiu-t, 826; to be established, legacy for, sus- tained, 877. Blasphemy, described, 49, 98; liis- torical sketch, 49. Board of Church Erection Fund, Presbyterian Church, notei;.\ Uoiivicr's Law I )icl ionaiy, <|iiiil((l, ilcfiniiiK cliaprl, (17. Howiiiaii, Samuel, liislioj), .Me- morial ('luircli, 15;?. liroad, bcMiucst for supplyitiji, 70. Hnnvrr, M. H. H., Mctliodist Mis- sion at Wascoi)um, Oregon, ',i')'2. ikitish subjects, rifj;lits iJiotectcfl by treaty of peace, 70. lirockway, Rev. .\lbert A., rector, note on transfer, r)5!). IJrowne, Robert, founded sect of Independents, 2S2. Buildinfj, church is, under mechan- ic's lien law, S. Buildinp; Committee, when not personally liai)le, 2; when liable, 2, 3; action may be ratified by society, 3; when not liable, 14, 629; powers, 808. Building contract, when trustees Hable on, 17. By-Laws, when property bound by subsequent alterations, 54; regu- lating elections, 234; may be modified by subsequent meeting, 235, 314; admission of member, 317; parish, 439; regulating for- fcitui'e of pews, 455; regulating interments, sustained, 538; effect as contract, 601; power to make, 629; society's authority to make, 808; may regulate powers of trustees, 808; assessment of pew holders, 808; Universalist Churcli, relative to pews, 805; Universalist Church, stock certificates, 800; fixing qualifications of voters, 870. California Missions, status, 666. Call, minister described, 373; rela- tion to congregation, 373. Calvin, John, Disciples establish Presbyterian Church, 482; rela- tion to Protestant reformation, 545. Calvinists, members of German so- ciety, 276; note on, 575. Calvinistic Baptists, minister s, scope of ordination, 374. Cambridge Platform, cited, organ- ization of Congregational Church, 183. Campbell, Alexander, founder of Campbelliles, 51; quoted organ- ization of cliurch, 19H. ( 'am|)l)('llites, congregation, jmiwith, 51 ; m.'ijority, control of j)roperty, 52; division, two |)arties, 52. Camp Meetings, by laws, 54; eiuM- ment, 54; municipal onlinance, 54; Ocean Grove A.s.s(Kiatirican lievolution, 70; chapel, 71; church yard, rejjair of vault, 71; common law, 71; diversion, 72; donors' opinions, 72; foreign country, 73; (leorgia, 73; hospitalitj' not a charitable u.se, 73; Illinois, 74; incorporated society, 74; indef- inite, 74; limitation of, cy ])res, 75; Maine, 76; Massachu.setts. 76; masses, 76; New \'ork, 77; Or- phan Asylum, 77; religious read- ing, 77; religious services, 77; Roman Catholic, clergymen, 80; sermons ami music, 80; Shakers, 80; South Carolina, 81; Sunday school, diversion, 81; unincor- porated society, SI; Unitaiian, 82; vault and loml), n'pairs, 82; ecclesiastical authorities to reg- ulate administration of, 128; gift for services, sustained, 471; Cal- ifornia, gift for m;i.s.ses sustained, 474; be<|uest to Reformed Dutch Church, 585. Charity, alteration or diversion, in- valid, 1; beneficiaries, pre.>', beginning of Protestantism, 54o. Charters and General Laws of Ma.ssachu.setts, cited, organiza- tion of Congregational churches, 182. Chesterfield Preparative Meeting, Friends, note on, 2(>1. Children, poor, beciuest for, 75; ward, religious education. 281; entitle^cience, ()22; neglecting to furnish medical aid for, 649; child as witness, 895. Christ, Jesus, all Christians believe in him, 98; believers constitute church. 108. Christ Church. New York, formed from Trinity Church, 304. Christian, defined. 97, 98; general chi.s.sifieation, 97. Christian Catholic Ajiostolic Church of Zion, founded by .lohn .\Ie\- ander Dowie, 148. Christian Church, formed fiom divi- sion of Campbelliles. .VJ; organ- ization. 92; form of government. 93; changing doctrine. 9;!; ( "hiuch of Christ. 94; division. efTect on property rights. 94; incorpora- tion, efTect, 95; oflicers constitute cor|)oration. 96; tinincorporated society, 96; when entitkil to u.-- aration, efTect, 642; threefold aspect, 643; withdrawal, effect, 645; secession, when an abandon- ment, 695; when seceders cannot make independent church, 698; property, sacred character of, protected by barbarians, ()82; when may not separate from general organization, 705; corpor- ate securities, subject to taxation, 794; property, exemption, Xew Hampsliiie rule, 79(3; property u.sed for other purposes, when not taxable, 799, 851; trustees, ap- pointment by minister, 807; early history, when to be examined by coiu't, 831; dis,solution, eflfect on legacy, 879; when may invoke aid of court to comjiel perform- ance of promise to make will, 891. Church Edifice, proper place of public worship, 116; defined, 119; not subject to execution, 119; when may be closed, 119; meeting house, le:ise of, 436; may be removed without court order, 535, 538, 540; when meeting house cannot be taken in execution, 641 ; used for other purpose, when may not be ta.xed, 799, 851. Church of Christ, formed from division of Campbellites, 52; deed for benefit of. sustained, 94; en- titled to benefit of trust, 826. (^hurch of England, trust for prop- agating doctrines in Scotland partly invalid, 88; clergATiien, regular defined, 120; clergA'men, neglect of dutv, 120; communion, 120; established church, 121; evil liver, 122; Maryland, 122; min- ister cannot refitse to btu-v child XDEX inn of a dissenter, 122; not a cor- poration, 122; Quaker not bound to accept office of church warden, 123; sacrament, who may take, 123; King, lioad of, 222; parish, 433; rule as to pews, 4(51; prayers for the dead not prohibited, 47(); institution of clergymen, defined, 563; advowson, note on, bequest invalid, 825. Church of (iod at Harrisburg, his- tory and form of government, 124. Churcli of the Lady of the Lake, entitled to legacy, 880. (■liurch Wardens, Christian Church, part of (ioj-poration, 95; (Quaker not bound to accept office of, 123, 2()(); account, spiritual court can- not settle, 120; business powers limited, 12(5; ecclesiastical powers, 126; moral guardians, 120; Eng- land, account cannot be settled by church judicatory, 229; elec- tion of, rector may be i-equired to recognize, 240; distribution and control of pews, 447, 454, 460; Protestant Episcopal Church, sta- tus, 571; may preserve order at religious .service, 054; Louisiana, ju-e legal owners of j)roperty, 673. Churchyard, burial in, 59. (Jivil Courts, decline to exj)re.s,s opinion on difTerences among Campbellites, 52; secular courts must respect regulat ions ;md cus- toms of chuicli, 113; charitable \isv, 128: church aibitration con- clusive, 128; church judicatories, limits of judicial review, 133; civil rights only, 138; church judicatories, when action final, 128; con.solidation of churches, 144; constitution of church, 142; criH^d, 142; criterion, 142; Cum- berland I'resbyterian Church, 14)}; diversion of chuicli funds, 144; diversion of property, 144; doc- trine, 145; Dowie's succe.s.sor, 148; eccle.sia.st ical ((uestions, 148; elec- tions, 149; expulsion of members, 150; Friends, form of gnvernment, 151; here.sy, 151; judicial notice, 152; jurisdiction, true ruk', 152; jurisdiction, l.");5; members, sta- tus, 154; minister, 155; non- interference, 156; officers, powers, 156; property rights, three classes, 157; property rights, 157; Prot- estant Ei)i.scopal vestr>-, 158; Quakers, who are ovenseers, 158; rehgious questions, 158; resulting trust, beneficiaries, 162; salary, payment cannot be enforced, 102; schism, 162; separation, 163; temporalities, 163; trusts, 163; United Brethren in Christ, 1(55; worship and doctrine, 106; no control over election of deacons, 19(5; no jurisdiction over (juestions of doctrine, 215; may determine whether church tribunal is U-gally constituted, 229; jurisdiction, gen- eral rule, 285; cannot determine question as to confession of sins, 300; cannot determine (juestion of chiu-ch membership, 319; cannot determine question relative to forms of worship, 302; jurisdiction over question of expulsion, 322; when consolidation of churches binding on, 339; church investi- gations not binding on, 341; no jurisdiction of C|uestion as to jjropriet}- of excommunication of priest, 387; no juri.-^dicfion of question of removal of jMustor, 398; rule as to rlisorganized .so- cieties, effect of division, 527; cannot determine questions of doctrine, 619; no juri.sdiction to ; Texits, sectarian aid prohibited, 717; Wisconsin, .sec- tarian instruction prohibit*^!, 718; Ma.ssachus<>(ls, Shakers, religious freedom, 722; wh(>n restrictions on Sunday barix-ring, unconstitu- tional, 747; South (".•uoiina, mu- nicipal ordinances i-egulating .'^abballi observance, v.-did. 7('»S; .Maryland, Kentucky and Texas, Sunday ob.servance statute, sus- I. lined, 782; California, Sunday laws imconstitution;d. 78;{: ( leor- gia, exemption of churcli |)ro|)erty from tax.it ion, v;ilid, 791; llhnois, taxation for loc.il imi)rovenu'iits, exemption unconstitutional, 7'.M; New IIam|)shire, exemption of chinch jiroperly, 79t); Kentucky, when pai*son;ige exemj)! from !)l(i i.\i)i:x (■•ixiition, 79(i; Illinois, when p;ir- soiian'' not cxfiiii)! from taxation, 7'.)7; I'liitcd lirctlircn in Christ, So?; limitation of doviso for religious purposes, 877; United States privileges and immunities of citizens, foreign henefieiarios under will, S79. Contract, minister, laws of denom- ination presumed to be included, .■}74; limitations on religious cor- porations, 002; note on, 634; lial)ility of bishop on, (ifil ; con- ditional, 732; United Brethren in Christ, relation of members to association, Sdl. Contribution. ;us basis of right to vote, 868, 87 L Convention, Bafjtist, powers anfl functions, 33. Corporation, may sue members, 4; may sue trustees, 4; may recover damages against railroad com- pany for disturl)ing religious services, 4; church, distinct from society, 107, 112; Church of England not a, 122; who are members of, 154; Congregational Church, deacons constitute, 181; relation to society, cannot ex]iel member, 321; corporators cannot regulate services, 342; foreign, not subject to New York law as to sal(> of property, 540; no power to expel member of society, 609, 610; reorganization, efTect, 610; relati(m to church, 610; as trus- tee, when may execute trust, 614; who constitute, 615; relation to congregation, 631; dissolution, notes on, 636; organization, sub- stantial compliance with law, 637: changing name, 640; reincorpora- tion, identity, 641; validity of organization may be questioned in action on subscription, 733; may receive property in trust, 828; limitation of property, how- question determined, 906. Corvallis College, Oregon, note on, 364. Council, Baptist, described, 33; in early chm-ch, settled doctrinal controversies, 111; advisory. Con- gregational Church, 183. Courts, ancient Hebrew Coiuts sat on the Sabbath, 758; charging jury on Simday unlawful, 758; early Christian (;ustom as to courts on the Sal)bath, 759; New \'(irk City rruigistrates may sit on Siinday, 759. Cowflerv, Oliver, minor chilflren receive title to land in Inde- pendence, Mis.souri, 410. ( Vanmer, Thomtv-s, Archbishop, re- lation to Protestant reformation, 545. Crawford, Rev., mini.ster Reformed Pre.sbvterian Church, 587. Creed. ' Baptist, described, 32; Campbellites, Bible only, 51; relation to church, 110; Bible only. Church of CJod at Harris- burg, 124; civil courts will not .settle diiTerences, 142; Friends, defined, 261; Mormon, 407 ('rofts, George D., Librarian BufTalo Law Library, acknowledgments to, vi. (\iba, Spanish appropriations for support of church in, 685. Cumberland Presbyterian Church, altering confession of faith, su.s- tained, union with Presbyterian Church, 143; hi.story, 190; courts, 191; general a.s.sembly, 192; gen- eral assembly, powers, 192; name, doctrines, etc.. how changed, 193; Presbytery, 193; session, 194; synod, 194; unincorporated so- ciety, liability, 194; union with Presbyterian Church, 194; dis.sent from Westminster Confession of Faith, 190; points of difTerence, 190; general as.semblv formed. 191; membership, 1906, 191; union with regular Pre.-, how constituted, 193; sv-nod, how constituted, 194. Curate, Ix'gislature cannot deter- mine what constitutes, 126; sta- tus. 550. Cuthbert, Katherine L., Assistant Librarian BufTalo Law Libnu-y. acknowledgments to, vi. Cv Pres, applving rule of to char- "itable beque.xts. 76, 86, 88; altering teiras of trust, 83. INDEX !»1 D Dalles, IMctliodisl inissioii al, '•'>')l. Dama}j;cs, may Ix' recovered a^^ainst railroad company for disturbing I'eligions ser\ ices, \)\i\ not for depreciation in value of chun-li property, 4; individual member may not reco\('r damages for disturbinf^ him wliiie attondinff religious service, 4, 202; rector, deposition, no action for, 15; when society not lialile for injury received by emplijyee, tiOT; mem- ber expelled, no claim against, corporation, GOO; when bishop not lia))h' for, GtiG. Davies, Ilemy E. Judge, John Street Church case, 34G. Deacons, Baptist Church, 196; ecclesiastical officer, 19G; courts no control over election of, 19G; when not liable on l)uii(ling con- tract, 3; Shakers, may maintain action for trespass, IG; officers in Baptist Church, 3G; Christian Church, part of corporation, 95; Christian Church, jjowers and functions of, 93; when tliey con- stitute the corj)oration, 111; Church of Cod at Ilari-isburg, 124; when validity of election not subject to inquii-y by civil courts, 14 9; ('ongivgational Church, constitute (!orporat ion, ISl, but see page 1s is conveyance to society, 5; a<'tion to reform, 15; of burial lot, VfTect, 63; of vault or burial lot, title of purchaser, 65; when presumed, 634. Denomination, defined, 197; con- tract with minister, rules pre- sumed, to be included in, 374; iLse of i)roperty, 524, .527; when chuirhes in different denomina- tions may not consolidate, 584, 600; character of corporation, 604; society may change relations, 630; based on religioa^j Ix-lief, t)35; union with another, elTert, (>45. ()9li; changing relation.-^, elTecl, ()9G; limitation ami use of prop- erty in trust, 829, 8:50; when may^ prescribe qualifications of votei-s,' 870. Des Moines .\mm:d Conference Evangelical As.sociation, action concerning iiishi, 355; .Mctl\<)ilist l]i>isci>i>al ( 'hurcii, Soutli, 3G1; Methodist Epi.sco|)al Church, Soutli, pui)lishing house, :W.); Methodist Protest .nut Cliunh, trustei's of local .socii-ty. .371; .Methodist I'lijiscopjil-Church subon filiate to St .ate Ljiw, 605; binding on society, 636; United Hntliren in ("lirisi, when formu- !)1S iNi)i:x l;ilc(i, H')7; \\c.n1p;ation, 203; evidence, 205; extent, 208; extent, one person, 208; father removing child, 208; fightinji, 209; grantor preventing occupancy of proi)erty, 209; in- tention, 209; interrui)ti()n by ex- IM'Ued member, 209; intoxicating hquor, 209; intoxication, 210; meeting ])n!vented, 211; motive, 211 ; patrolman's imreasonable in- terference, 211; preaching by rival, 211; protest against min- ister, 211; removal of disturber, 212, 654; riot, 213; Salvation Army, 213; scope of statute, 213; singing, 213; singing by choir. 214; statutes constitutional, 214; summary conviction, 214; Sunday school, 214; individual member of congregation cannot recover damages for, 429; disturber may be removed, 569; what constitutes meeting for religious service, 652; preserving ordiM- at, 653. Doctrine, civil courts no juri.sdic- tion, 147, 215; how ascertained, 215; predestination, 215; occasion of religious controversies. 111; cluu-ch speaks for itself, 145; new. effect of, 147; judgment of church judicature conclusive, 148; when may not be altered, 159; courts will not inquire into questions relating to, 166; Cumberland P r e s b y t e r i an Cliui-ch, how changed, 193; jurisdiction of church over. 223; Arminius noted, 250; when church may not change, 253: when jiew owners cannot decide what shall b(^ preached, 452; abandoning, ef- fect on |>roperiy, .521, 523, 521, 526; deviation in, efTe<;t, on trast, 586; civil courls no juri.sdiction over, 619, ' riglits, <)30; when change do<'s not affect slat as of society, 636; .s; when no jurisdiction to exconinmnieate minister, 387. Ecclesi;i.stical Oourts, arhitrar\' pro- ceedings, 221; denominational rules, 222; ecclesiasiicul question, defined, 222; lui^land, 222; Eng- land, jurisdicf ion, 22.'5; Friends, 223; judges, should be imi)artial, 223; judgment, ett'eet, 224; judg- ment, how enforced, 22(); judg- ment, when binding on civil courts, 227; judgment, when con- clu-sive, 227; jin-isdiction, general rule, 227; jurisdiction, when ex- clusive, 227; Legislature, jiu-is- diction, 228; mandamus, 228; members, trial, 228; object and piu-pose, 229; pew holder's right, 229; power limited, 229; jjower, necessity of lunitation, 229; Scot- land, 230; secret investigations, 230; state not bound bv decision, 230; Vermont, 231. Ec(!lesiastical Law, oiigin, 232; sub- ordinate to civil law, '2'A2; i)art of common law, 222; decisions of ecclesiastical courts, 230; English, basis of Protestant Episcopal Church system, .'i.'iL Eddy, Marj' Baker G., author of Science and Health, 10.5. Education, d<>fined, 44; bequest for, 70, 71; religious reading, bequest for, 77; charity for, valid, 84; of young men for ministry, 8.5; poor children, trust for, too indefinite, 87; for instruction of Baptist young men, void, 90; minister, defined, .380. Ejectment, action against minister occupying parsonag<>, .5; right of action, .5; trustees of unincor- porated society cannot main- tain, t). Elders, Christian Church, i)owers and functions of, 94; Church of (!od at Harrisbmg, 124. Eldershi]), Church of God at Ilarrisburg, general and local. l)owers and functions, 124. J'^ldcjn, Lord, ruling as to dissenters, noted, 19!). Election, Doctrine of, schism caused by discussion, 428. ]\Ieclions, adjourmiienl, 2.33; bur- den of proof, 2.34; by laws, 234; certificate cannot be modified, 2.34; hand vote, 23.5; illegal votes, 23.5; mandamus, requiring notice, 23.5; meeting, justice may call. 23.5; method, congi-egation may regulate, 23.5; nominations, 23t); notice, 23(1; place, 2.3(1; i)residing ollicers, 23(t; referee, 237; regular- ity, qualificali(jns of voters, 237; rescinding vote, 238; silence, ef- fect, 2.38, 310; validity, notice. 239; validity, other meeting at same time, 239; voter, right can- not be reconsidered, 240; when reception of illegal votes does not vitiate election, 238; special, when may be ordered, (>, 237, 311; comt may supervise, and order special election, (5; when civil courts will in(|uire into, 149; Protestant Episcopal Church, rec- tor's authority, .5.51. Elizabeth, Queen, England, estab- lished church in reign of, 592. Elizabeth, Statute of, scope and application, ()9; not in force in Penn.-;ylvania, 70; (Jeorgia, trusts enforced without •statute, 73; in force in Illinois. 74; when be- (juest cannot be sustained with- out, 75; in force in Maine, 7(1; not in force in New York, 77; not adojjted in South Carolina, 81. Emerson, Ralph Waldo, writings of used as text of sermon by Fran- cis E. .\bbott, 8.50. Encyclopedia of Religious Knowl- edge, quoted, 97. England, ecclesia.stieal law and court, defineil, 222; jurisdiction of ecdesiiistical courts. 223; re- ligious toleration act, .592. England, .John, Bishop, bequest in trust for I'rsuline Community, sustained. 893. Established Church. Church of England. 121; in M:u-vland, 122; Legislature caiuiot take any ac- tion to form one, 12t>. l]vangelical .Vssociatioii, minister's right to compensatiiin a property right, 11; Zion Church, liav City, Nlichigan, note on, ;{82; liistory i>L'M i.\ih;\ ;itiil I'diiii oI' jioviTiniiciit, I'll; i)iM;iiiiiz;iti()ii, '24:{; (l('.scri|)ii()M. '244; division of property, cITcct, 24"); expulsion of nif-TnlxT Icnni- natos oflicc, 24.'j; (icncnil Con- fnco, place of in<'i'tinn, 24(>; niinisler, power of appointment, 247; secession, when seceders contract for, 002. Execution, when church may not be taken on, 119. Expulsion, of member, when court will not consider regularity of, 34, 150; of minority by majority siLstained, 148, ir)4; court will not determine who ought to be members, 1.5t); when void, 151; Shakers, no action for damages by expelled member, 721. F Fenwick, .John, Bishop, method of taking oath :us witness, 904. Ferdinand, King Of Spain, head of Catholic Church in .\merican ]H)ssessions, 687. Fink's .Vsylum, note on, 54t). Fixture, church bell a, 39. Forcible I'hitry and Detainer, action for, 6; action must be in name of corporation, H, 812. Foreign Corporation, when ma>- take under West N'irginia will, S(). Im)X, Cieorge, followers called Quak- ers, 202. I'ranconia (Jonference, Mennonites, note on, 320. J'ree Baptist Church, creed, 250; property, when transfer to regular Baptist church invalid, 2.50. Free Church of Scotland, organiza- tion noted, 199; organization, 2.52; diversion of f)roi)erty, 252; minor- ity's right, 2.53; union did not affect freedom of piivate opinion, 254; see note on Fre<; Portuguese Church, 487. Freedmen, defined, 87; bequest for, too indefinite, 87. Freemason, when not entitled to burial in Roman Catholic cem- etery, f)4, 308, 607. Free Portuguese Church, note on, 487. Friends, organization and method^ of business considered by court, 152; history, 2.55; three groups, 256; described, 257; business, how- transacted. 200; cre<'d, 261; Ohio Quarterly Meeting, 201; Philadel- phia Nearly Meeting, 202; Pre- parative meeting, only one regu- lar, 204; affirmation. 205; division of st)ciety, effect, presiding officer, 265; exempted from military duty, 200; meetings, 200; office, when not bound to accept, 200; title, not forfeited by removal of building, 207; unincorporated, clerk, status and powers. 2()5; declaration of religious toleration, 050; when legacy to Vearlj- Meet- ing invalid, 880. Friendship Liberal League, descrip- tion, 2()S. Fugitive Slaves, trust providing for care of, 84. G General .\ssembly. Associate Re- formed Church. 25; Presbyterian Church, organic law. 115; Presby- terian Church political deliver- ances, 131, 499; Presbyterian Church, action relative to union with Cumberland Church, su.<- tained, 143; Cumberland Presby- INDKX !»L'l terian Church, formed, 191 ; powers, 192; Scotch Church, powers considered, 230; Free Church of Scothmd, 2o2; Presby- terian Church, board of erection fund, 41(); Presbyterian Church described, 482, 4S9; Presbyterian Church, action on Dechiration and 'i'estiniony, 480; Prosit jterian Church, division at outbreak of Civil War, 489; Presbyterian Church, declarations concerning slav<*ry, 510. General Conference, Methodist Church of Canada, 331; Method- ist Episcopal Church, oi-i}!;inal, 334; 1844, power to divide church, 343, 345; Methodist I':i)iscopal Church, South, 361; Methodist Protestant Church, authority over extinct churches, 370; ^\'esle3•an Methodist, 875; Evangelical Asso- ciation, 241, 246; United Bretluen in Christ, 855, 857. General Council, Lutheran, note on, 289. General Convention, Protestant Episcopal Church, membership, 552; Universalist Church, New York corporation, 865. General Synod, Cierman Reformed Church, 273. George I, ICngland, established church in reign of, 592. Georgia, trusts enforced without statute of I'ilizabeth, 73; powers of trustees, 817. Georgia Conference, M e t h o d i s t Episcoi)al Churcii, South, rela- tion to Andnnv chapel, 367. (Jerman Bai)tists. See Dunkcrs. German Evangelical L u t li e r a n Cluirch, diversion of i)ropertv, 269. German EvangehcaLs, history noted, 297. German Evangelical Synod of North America, property, sep- aration, injunction, 271. German Reformed Ciiurch. descrip- tion, 273; dis.s( living relatiim to classis, eifect, 273; joint title, division, effect, 274; judicatories, 274. German Society, Washington, 1). C., 270. Girard College case, notes on, 59;?. Girard, Stephen, will establishing college, 593. Glebe Land, note on, 551. Godly Widows, dehned, 85. Gordon, Patrick, Governor of Penn- sylvania, informs council of erec- tion of Roman Catholic Church in Pliiladelphia, 076. Gospel, defined, 277. Greek Church, comparison with other Catholic churches, 278; diversion of property, 278; priest, appointment and removal, 279. Griffin, Marguerite E., author's reader and stenographer, acknowl- edgments to, V. Ciri.swold College, note on, 552. Guardian, removal on change of religious faith, 2S0; ward's reli- gious education, 281, 590; holds office of trust, (•)23. Guild, building subject to control of vestrj-, 553. H Hardwicke, Lord Chancellor, de- cision on Quaker's right of affirmation, 205. Harmony Society, organization and l)lun of govermnenl, 108, 109, 170. Ilanisl)urg, Church of God at, note on, 124. Ileiilelberg CatechLsni, noted, 273; described, 546. Ileiilelberg Confession (See Heidel- berg Catechism), note on, 575. Henry II, England, confirms early canons prohibiting judicial pro- ceedings on the Sabbat li, 7.59. Heresy, l;nv knows no. 151, (HS 047; minister adopting, forfeits rights, 3S.S. H(>wlev, Ladv, charitv for di.-v-cnt- ers, k"). Hicks, Klias, Iriends, prominent part in dividing .•society, 2.56. High on Injunctions, cited, ecclesi- astical (|i;estion, 285. liilUl)orougli Seliool, trust for, void for uncertainly, 87. liiimian, .\Ian.son. at Oregon mis- sion, 3.54. History of Latin Chri.Ktianity, Mil- man, (juoted, 6S2. 922 INDKX Hoffman's Ecclesiafltical Law, cited, 322. Iloypitiility, not, a charitable use, 73. lioylo Meeting, FriendH, note on, 262. Hus, Jolin, relation to Protestant reformation, 545. Iceland, Luthcriiiis, doctrines and cu-stoniis derived from, 302. Iliad, use in schools, 45. Illinois, trustees must sue or de- fend for society, IS; statute of Ehzabeth in force in, 74; bequest for charitable use valid. Si; rule as to property held by local society, 529; status of orpanizerl religious societies, G;i7; rule as to actions by corporation, S()(). Illinois Industrial School for (lirls, status, 710. lUinois Orphans' Hom(>, note on, 491. IlUnois, Preachers' Aid Society, be- quest for, 345. Incorporated Society, beciur'st for charitable uses, 74. Independents, in Englanrl same as Congregationalists, 179; defini- tion, 282. Indianapolis, Indiana, Evangelical Association, (leneral Conference, meeting, 1S91, 242, 240. Indians, bequest for benefit of sustained, 71; missions, bequest for, 74; missions among, 351; re- lation to California missions, 600. Injunction, when eaimot be granted in action to nvstrain use of in- strumental music, 18; pastor excluded from office, restrained from fiu'ther oflicial acts, 32; restraining ringing of church bells, 39, 40; restraining striking of clock, 40; not proper remedy to determine title to property, 56; restraining expulsion of m(>ni- ber of Christian Sci(Micc Society, 103; pastor deposed, restrained from occupying church property. 155; trial of member, restraining tribunal not legally constituted. 229; granted to restrain transfer of property from Free Baptist to Regular Baptifit Church, 250; re- straining transfer of jjrojK'rty of Free Church of Scotland, 253; restraining majority from divert- ing pro[ierly, 272; granted to prevent transfer of |)?o|)erty tr> Orthodox Creek Catholic Hu.ssi.an Church, 278; Alaska, Lutheran property, granted restraining erection of building by unauthor- ized claimants, 299; baptism, u.se of stream f(jr, 283; cemetery, obstructing acce.«s to lot, 283; cemetery, removal of l)odies, 284; diversion of property, 284; ecclesi- astical bodies, 285; expulsion of members, 285; lease, 286; mem- bers, interfering with trustee.'*, 286; minister, dis.solving relations, 287; members, interfering with property, 286; minister's f)ccu- pancy of church, 287; minister, restraining call, 290; pews, re- arranging, 290; priest, restraining exercise of functions, 291; re- moval of building, 291; restrain- ing increase of salary, 291; sale of property, 291 ; use of building, 292; denied in action relating to confession of .sins, 300; denied restraining trustees from regulat- ing services in Luthc ran churches, 302; denied to reinstate pastor excluded by majority, 303; not gianted to restrain church from employing another pastor, 382; granted to restrain trustees from jM-eventing use of chui-ch by pas- tor, 383; gi-anted to minority to restrain improper use of church by majority, 387; denied restrain- ing change of pews, 447; denied restraining repairs to building, 462; gi-anted restraining collec- tion of debt against pastor, 5(X); lestraining exclusive use of church edifice b}' society primarily en- titled thereto, 531; restraining minority from occupying projv erty, 532; denied restraining transfer of projierty, 558: denied restraining vestry from removing rector, 5(>4; gianted restraining minister who has deviated in doctrine from occupying pulpit, 584; bi.shoi) restrained from pro- INDEX !»ii:; (•(•(•diii;j; uKaiiisf :i priest pending an appeal, (iOO; grantod restrain- ing burial of suicide in Catholic cemetery, 668; granted restrain- ing the closing of a church, 670; granted restraining interfer(>nce with y)laintiffs' title after seces- sion, 699; granted restraining in- terference with chunii property, 700; granted to restrain trustees from diverting ))roperty, 810; granted to restrain use of church by minister who has changed his religious of)inions, 811; granted restraining interference with trus- tees in their possession of {ht)])- ertj', 822; denied restraining irregular trustees from control of property, 823. Inspiration, liible, notes on, 41. Institution, of clergymen, defined. o(W. Iowa, Bible readiim in schools, note, 7V.i. Iowa Diocese, note on, 'I'l'.l. li'cliiiid, chapel in, masses, bcqncsi for sustained, 7:1. Irving, Edward, church I'oumled bw 88. Ii'ving S()ci(M\'. chaiiiv for sus- tained, 87. Isabella, (^uc-en of ."^ijain, head of (^'atholic (^hurch in .\mcrican possessions, 687. Jehovah I're.sbytery of Zion, Prepa- ration, Iowa, noted, 170; founded bv ('harles B. I'hompson, 411; sketch of, 411. Jerome, relation lo I'rolcsl.arU rcf- onuation, 04"). .I(!suil Order, .see Loyola and society of .Jesus, 672. Jews, cemetery, right of disinter- ment, question for court, ")9; members of CJerman society, 27(>; becjuest sustained, 29;i; consolida- tion ;i(l of I'.iiMilish church, '112. Kinp;, SainiK-l, one of the found- ers of Cuinhcrland I'resbytcrian Church, l'.)(). Knox, John, relation to Protestant reformation, 54.">. Koran, use in schools, 45; Moh.ain- inedans may be sworn on, 900. Kramer, Elsie, author's reader and .stenograi>her, acknowledgements to, vi. L Ladies' Mite Society, unincorpcjr- ated, bequest invalid, 8'.)3. Law, William, Mormon Councilor, note on, 414. Lease, by church officers, when in- junction again.st refused, 28(5. Lecture Room, place of worshij), 113; .social featherings, ll.'.. Lee, Daniel, Rev., establishes In- dian missions in Oregon, 3o2. Lee, Jason, Rev., establi.shes Indian missions in Oregon, 352. Legislature, may restrict interments and authorize removal of remains, 60, 64; may authorize sale of cemetery, and reinvestment of proceed-*, 64; jurisdiction of eccle- siastical (questions, 227: entertains charges against rector, 228; power of cannot he exercised by church judicatory, 229; scope of author- ity on religious matters, 595; power to enact Sunday regula- tions, 765, 766; cannot modify trust, 834; when legacv may be validated, 885. 88(). \ Libel, when minister liable for, 115; excommunication, 295; priv- ileged communications, church discipline, 295. Lien, when judgment against trus- tees not a lien on projierty, 17. Limitations of .\ctions. See Stat- ute of Limitations. Lincoln, .\braliam, rresid(>nt. Proc- lamation of Kmancipalion. com- mended by Presbyterian CSeneral .■Assembly. 510. Lindenwood Female College, elec- tion of trustees, 131. l.,(jng Island Dioce.se, I'rotestant K])iscopaI Church, property e.\- etnpt from ta.xation, 553. London ^'early Meeting, Friend-, organization and jjowerH, 255, 259. Lord's IVayer, reciting in school does not constitute public wor- ship, 713. Louisiana, church questions for ecclesiastical tribunals only, 111; rule £us to pews, 457; religious freedom guaranteed, 621 ; Church of St. Louis, note on, 662; church l)ro])ertv, wardens legal owners of, 673." Loui.sville, Ky., convention organ- izes Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 360, 361. Loyola, Ignatius, founder of So- ciety of Jesus, 672. Luther, Martin, .some writings ac- cepted others rejected. 297; rela- tion to reformation, 545. Lutheran Church, member, when not disqualified as a juror, 6; church tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction of questions relating to worshi{) and doctrine, 166; joint occupancy of property with German Reformed, effect, 274; division of 1867, 289; raini.ster, how chosen, 389 Lutherans, history, 297; organiza- tion, 298; Alaska, property, effect of cession from RiLssia to United States, 298; A.ssociations, 299; close commimion, 300; confession of sins, should it be public or private, 300; dissolving connec- tion with s^Tiod, efTect, 301; CJer- man language in service. 301 ; Icelandic Church. 302; Indej)end- ent Congi-egation, status, 303; minister, how emploved, 303; New York City, 304; Russian toleration, 306; secession, 306; s\-nod, 307; large number in Russia, 30(i; members of flernian Society. \\ ashington, U. C, 276; lnd(^penden*. injimction denii^d restraining use of church by pas- tor, 289; acceptance of certain doctrines declared by I>uther, 297; division of societv, effect, 700. INDEX !>25 M Maine, statute of Elizabeth in force in, 76; missionary society, be- quest for, 349; towns, parochial powers, 801; powers of trustees, 817. Maine Bapjtist Missionary' Conven- tion, bequest sustained, 3(t. Maine, Preaehei-s' Aid Society, be- quest sustained, 34t). Majority, may compromise suit against society, 3; may be sued by corporation, 4; may maintain action for forcible entry and de- tainer, 6; may establisli and alter articles of faith, 31; Baptist Church, power of, 33; may con- trol property, 34, 37; Campbell- ites, control of property, 52; power of, 114, 110, 142; when may take property into another church, 117; expulsion of minority sustained, 14S, 154; when may not control projierty, 271; power at society elections, 238; when may control use? of j)ro]')erty, 287; power at cor])orate meetinc, 314; when may be restrained by mi- nority, 387; may not divert prop- erty from use intended, .52o; notes on rifiht of, 532; notes antl i)ower of, 541; when acts binding on minority, 008; seceding, when cannot take i)roperty, 030; gen- eral powers, 039; secession, when cannot control property, 042; may control on questions relating to music, 053; general powers, 701, 834, 802. Mandamus, cemetery, burial, 308; expulsion of member, 308; joint use of property, 308; member, restoration, 309; ministcu", rein- statement, 310; special election, 311; trustees, title, 312; vestry, 312; vestry, duty to altenrl me<^t- ing, 312; not i)roper remedy to j)revent reading Hii)lc in schools, 45; not granted to coinpcl l)urial of Freemason in Hoiuaii Catholic cemetery, t)4; wheTi not available, 228; rector may be reqiiiicd to give notice of election, 235; can- not be issued to induct intt) nflirc IKTSon not regularly eleeliMJ, 23t>; granted requiring rector to join in notice of special election, 237; not proper remedy to deternjine validity of election, 239; rector recjuired to recognize result of (^lection, 240; not granttn] to com- f)el church to receive pastor, 3S1, 383; contrary rule, 3.S4, 385, 38tj; when not granted to reinstate minister, 397; not proper remefl\- to recover possession of pew, 457, 400; not proper remed\' to test question of expulsion, (J09; not granted to compel city ofiicers to enforce Sunrlay Li(|Uor Law, 7S1. Mansfield, Lord, sketch of early Christian custom as to court.s on the Sabbath, 759. Mansion House of Cod, Lord Coke's definition of church, 113. Mairiage, Mormon, note on. 411; mav be performed on Sundav, 708. Maryland, Chm-ch of England established church, 122; termi- nated, 122. Massachusetts, status of ])ublic teacher in, 11; .statute prohibit- ing blasphemy not repugnant io constitution, 49; English doc- trine of charitable uses in force in, 70; establishment of Chri.s- tianify in, 99; cori)orate character of churches in, 110; Friends, pre- parative meetings, granted cor- l)orate powers, 2.58; jjurish, note on, 435; rule as to parsonag«>s, 441; rule as to pew, 457; i)arish, rule a.s to title to propt-rty, 534; bill of right.s, religious fri*«'doni, 022; status of religious corj mira- tion, 039; religious soci(>ly, cler- ical organization only, status, ()40; appt)rtiunment of money r.aisixl for jmblic woi-ship, 055; Hible reading and jirayer at oiMMiing of school .session, when sustained, 713; Shakers, religious freedom, 722; towns, p.irochial powei-s, SOI. Ma.<.ses, d.fiiied, .U:;; des.ribed. 313; not a superslil ious use, ;U3; valid in Ireland, 477; wiien iH-tpH-sl liabh' to transfer lax, 795; celebra- tion of, when not a charitable object, 7(». .McAdow, Samuel, one of ili<- foun suit against society, 3; individual may not recover damages for distm-b- ing him while attending religious servic(>s, 4; juror, when not di — iiualified, 6; not individually lial)lc for pastor's salary, 13; when in- ilividually liable for cliurdi (|uitable right against prop<'rty, 14; when may not sue Cither memlwrs, IH; when m.ay sue trustees, 19; of unin- corpf)rated .society, when fwrson- ally liabl*', 20; expulsion, when court will not consider regularity of, 34, 150; authority of church over, 108; churcli, <;xpulsioti, 112; governed by rules and regula- tions, 116; court will not decide who ought to be, 150; status, when courts may determine, 154; need not be inhabitants of parish, 181; trial, relation to tribunal, 229; injunction against illegal tribunal, 229; expulsion, effect, Evangelical Association, 246; ex- pulsion, injimction re-straining, 285; expulsion, when injunction denied, 286; intei-fering with property, injunction granted, 286; interfering with tru.stees, injunc- tion granted, 286; expulsion, mandamus to test right of, 308; expulsion, restoration, mandamus not profx^r remedy, 309; contra, 310; expulsion without notice, invalid, 319; exTiulsion for polit- ical rea.sons. 321; relation to corporation and society, 327; re- nunciation of membership, what constitutes, 328; termination of membership, effect on property, 533; expulsion, effect on property rights, 534; exclusive right of suffrage, 591 ; when not liable for debts of .society. (303; ownership of jn-operty, effect of dissolution of corporation, 605; expulsion, corporation no power of, 609; when not liable on corjiorate debt, 609; when minors included, 610; when individually liable for .society debts, 641; when court may determine rights of, 65S; expulsion, Roman Catholic Church, effect, ()70; Roman Cath- olic Church, when excomnumi- cated by civil marriage, (i7S; expidsion. Shakers, exjK'lle(l mem- ber, no action for damages. 721; when exempt from taxation in ^Massachusetts. 795; Pri'sbyterian iMn:x cannot bo taxed for Congrega- tional minister, 795; withdrawinji, when not liable to as-sessinent , 795; exconinuniieation. when no- tice required, S20; ofiicially and individually interested in trust for society. Sit); unincori)orat(>d society, extent of liability, 845; when cannot vote at meeting of another denomination, 8(59; or- fianization, 329; majority may control property, .329. Mercer Hom<>, Presbyterian Church note on, 493. Merger, of religious societies, effect, 115. Messenger, to Baptist association, function, 31. Methodist Book Concern, noted, 339. Methodist Church of Canada, min- ister, status, Conference ha.s ex- clusive jurisdiction, 155; historical sketch, 331; form of government, fixing status of juinister, 3)51; separation from Methodist Epis- copal Church, 331, 345. Methodist Episcopal Chtn-ch, organ- ization, 333; anti-slavery control, 335; Baltimore Conference, 335; Baltimore Conference, separation of 1844, 33S; Bible .society dis- continued, 3;5S; bishop's authority to consolidate churches, 339; Book Concern, 340; Church Ex- tension Society, 341; church in- vestigations, 341; consolidation, 342; corporators, cannot evict trustees, 342; division, 342; di- vision of 1844, 343; Drew Theo logical Seminaiy, 344; Foreign Missionary Society, bequest, 344; General Confer(>nce, jjower to divide church, 344; Illinois, Preachers' Aid Society, 345; John Street (Church, New ^"ork, 345; Maine, Preadiers' .\id Soci(>tv, 340; Methodist Preachers' .\id Society, lialtimore, Md., 340; ministers, how appoiii!e(l, 347; minister's salary, 'MS; missionary society, 349; missionary l)e(iuest, 349; mi.ssions, 349; New York, 9th Ward, becjuest for purch.'is*- of coal, 350; Ohio cori)orati(in. 3;50; Oregon missicjn, :551 ; i>r<>)i- erty to be held in trust, 355; .separation. Church South. |)lan final, 355; separation, Clii!rch South, Molston (^inference, 35<) se])aiation, title to local property, 35(1; se]iarati(jn, 1844, liome rul»> as to future relation, 357; separa- tion, when pro|)eity camujt b" transferr(>d to Church South, 357; 'I'ennessee Annual (Jonference, 357; when minister caimot Ix? excluded from church edific'. 384; minister, no contract relation with society, 394; deacon, local j)reacher, when exempt from tax- aticjn, 399; minister occupying l)ar.sonage, relation to society, 442; preacher s(>nt by bishop must be accepted, 537; general, before incorporation could not receive legacy, 884; minister, no contract relation as to .salary. 10; niini.>*- ter's salary, h(nv deficiency col- lected, ](); loc;d society, wlu-n liable to .action for deficiency in minister's s.-dary, 10; (Quarterly Conference fixes minister's sal.ary. 10; Discipline not superior to Stale law, 110; con.solidation of churches by Bishop Walden sus- tained, 142; equal lay repn'.senta- tion ado])ti'd, 334; division, elTect on title to i)roi)erty, 5:i3. Methodi.st Episcopal ( hurch. Soul h, arbitration unL'S iM)i;.\ .S70; property, socossion, rITcct, 370; property, title in trustoc'H, cfTecl, ;371. Moxiro, Roman C'atholic; Chiirrh, title to property, t>74. Michigan, const it ut ion, when Bihle rcadinjis do not vif)late, 44; selec- tion of trustees doe.s iKJt iimke a corporulion, 010. Milman, Dean, history of Latin Christianity, (juoted, ()82. M i n i s t ens, occuin'inK pansonage, ejectment ajiainsl, 5; action for salary, 8; when previous immor- ality no defense, 9; action for salary, cannot be maintained un- der call not accepted, 9; when not entitled to emoluments of office, 9; society must use due dilip;ence to collect subscriptions, 10; Methodist Episcopal Church, no contract relation as to salary, 10; Massachusetts, constitutional limitation on action for salary, 10; Methodist Kjiiscopal Church, sal- arj', how deficiency collected, 10; when may enforce mechanic's lien, 11; right to compensation a property right, 11; when can- not maintain action to recover moneys assessed for public wor- ship, 11; town, when hable for salary, 12; not an emijloyee of church, 12; dismission, when does not prevent action for salary, 12; salary fixed by the parish com- mittee, when conclusive, 12; not entitled to salary during suspen- .sion, 12; if there is no contract for salary he is entitled to a just compensation, \'S; salary, mem- bers not individually liable for, 18; statute of limitations ai>plies to claim for ministerial service, 13; settled, when may maintain action of trespass, 17; manager of society, does not prevent so- ciety receiving bequest, 70; Con- gregational, bequest of income for, 72; trust for supi)ort of, sus- tained, .S6; liability for libel ,^ ll.'iL when conducting religious service, congregation implied, 110; Church of England, cannot refuse to bury child of a dissenter, 120; Church of Cod at llarrisburg, status, 124; change of religious belief, when court may consider, 147; title U) office, when court may not c;on- sider question, lo.'i; Meth«Hlist Church of (Janada, status, ("on- fcrence may determine, 1.")."); em- ployment and i)ayrn('nt, civil courts no jurisdiction, I'jti; ("on- grr'gational Church, nu'thotl of selecting, 181; Congregationid Church, how settled, 184; when not entitled to recover income of parish fund, 184; change of reli- gious tenets, 219; illegal suspen- sion, 22;i; subject to jurisdiction of ecclesia-stical courts, 224; Bajn tist, when not deemed elder under election law, 236; Evangelical Association, when appf)intment invalid, 247; dissolving relation, when injunction granted, 287; when restrained from occupying church, 287, 289; adopting hereti- cal views, injunctif)n against use of church, 288; Independent L>i- theran Society, injun(-tion denied restraining pastor from using church, 289; Baptist, when re- strained from using churcii, 289; vestry may call without first having salary fixed. 2?>0; Lu- theran, how called, 304; dismissal, restoration, when mandamus not proper remedy, 311: cannot arbi- trarily dismiss member, 318; M e t h o d i st Episcopal Church, traveling preachers, sovereign power of, 345; Methodist Epis- copal Chiu-ch, how appointed, 346; Methodist Episcopal Church, no contract relation with societv, 348. .398; first settled, defincni, 374, .387; Emeritus, when status declared, 380; settled, defined, exemption from jury duty, .387; settled, note on, 389; includes ordained deacon, 391; ordination, resulting .status, 392; Methodist Episcopal Church, appointed by bishop must be accepted, .537; deviating in doctrine, restrained from occupying pulpit, 584; peo- ple taxed for support of, 591; may pre.serve order at public worship, 654; when comment on conduct of constitutes slandii, INDEX U-^'J 727; subscription for support of, T5o; einploviricnt on Sunday valid, 751; doc.-; not hold public office, exempt from taxation, 70(i; salary, when trust funds cannot be used for, S()3; ap|)ointment of church trustees, 807; call, 373, 494; call, inelT(>ctive, voluntary contributions, how disposed of, 373; Calvinistic Baptist societies, 374; changing religious belief, 374; contract, 374; contract, dissolu- tion, 375; (covenant, what consti- tutes breach, 375; delined, 37(i; defined, ('ongregational, 370; de- fined, Massat^huset Is, 377; de- posed, cannot occupy church, 377; deposed, status, 37.S; dismissal, 378; dissolving relation, 379; ecclesitLstical council, 3iSU; educa- tion, 380; examination and li- cense, 380; exclusion fi-om chuich edifice, 381; exconununicatcd, when society may not employ, 386; ex(;onmiunication, exiniLsion, 387; excommunication, 387; ex- emption from jury dutj', 387; fii'st settled, 387; general rights, 387; heresy, 388; intruding into church, 388; huid granted fin- support, 389; Lutheran, how chosen, 389; marriage ceremony, right to perform, 390; member of association, 392; obligations ;i93; office, not public, 393; office not a vested property right, 393; ordinance, 1^94; parish, 394; par- ish, incumlx'iit's title to prop- erty, 394; pastoriil relation, 395; pa.stor defined, 395; pa.stor's ojjin- ions, 395: Presbj-terian rule, 395; priest s profession his jh-oj)- erty, 39(>; public duly, 39(1 ; regularity of api)ointment, 39(); relation to church, 397; rehi- tion to society, 397; reinstate- ment, mandamus not projjer remedy, 397; removal, 398; right to occupy house of worship, 39S; salary, act ions for, 398; salarj', de- vise for, 398; settlement, 398; statedly odiciates, mcming, 398; support, duty of church, 399; taxation, exemption, .'599; tenure, 401; terminating relation, 402; selection, rresbvterian rule 395; Prf)testant dcfini-d, 39(>: Xnrwe- gian K V a n g e 1 i c a 1 I.ulheran Church, how called, 427; new town, status, 438; Nlaiiie pari.^h system, note on, 438; occupancy of parsonage, relation to societv. 441 ; land devis( d for. status, 4r)S; support, legacy for, sustained, 4(38; Presbyterian Church, char- acter of office, how called, 493; excluded from Clirard College, 593; ministerial fund exempt, 79ti; bequest for poor, sustained, 837. Minister of the (Jospcl. defined, 85. Minority, caimctt maintain action for partition, 13; when may con- trol property, 35, 3(), 25;i, 271, ()3(j; may lie restrained from u.«e of building, 115; when may con- trol election, 238; uhen entitled to proj)erty, 370, 583; when en- titled to injunction against ma- jority, 38(); when not entitled to property, 427; when may resist diversion by majority, 524; when cannot control jntiperty, 5.34; when bound by acts of majority, 608; Umitation of right of, 675; .secession, when an abandonment, 695; Congr(>gational Church, can- not expel majority, t>96; when mav hokl projx'rtv afti-r division, ()97", 703; general lights of, 703. Missionary House of Hest, Prt^by- terian Church, note on, 496. MLssionar\' Society, Methodist Kpi.s- coy)al Chinch, becpH'st f(tr, 344. 349, 3.")0; devise rejected, .society unincorporated, ;;t9: liable for transfer tax, 319; mission to \\ !uscoi)um Indian.-", .351; receives comjK'nsation for ( )regon |)roiv erly, 355. Missions, A s s o c i a t e Hefonne9; !»;;(» iM»i;.\ riDlcstiml I'lpiscopal ('liiircli, Icf^iicy su.st:iin('(i, ,SS4. Missdiiri, ("hiis(i:in Science cli.irler refuscfl, 104. MLstako, ih deed, action If) cor- rect, 15. Mob, i)roperfy destroyed by, value may be recoveretl, rVM. Mobile, .\labania, Roman C^atholic Clmrcli, Si)anish Kinp; buys proj)- erty for, H86. Moderator, synod, Associate Re- formed (^hurch, powers and func- tions, 20. Monument, when may be removed l)y otluT tlian owner, 63; see 'i'ombstone; bequest for keeping in repair, sustained, 71. Moore's Digest of International Law, quoted, 669. Moralitv, mav be taught in schools, 44. Mormons, church, disincorporation, effect, 406; creed, judicial notice, 406; incorporation, 407; Indi^- pendcnce, Missouri; Church of Latter Day Saints, 409; Jehovah Presbytery of Zion; Preparation, Iowa, 411; marriage, divorce, 411; marriage, 412; name and succes- sion, 413. Mortgage, condition broken, right to foreclose, 416; court order, 416; leave of com-t, 416; priority as be- tween inortgage and mechanic's lien, 417; validity; archbishop having no title to the land, 417; validity, executing without author- ity, 417; validity, extent of trus- tees' authoritv, 41S; validitv, le- gitimate debt", 418, 539; validity, meeting of trustees; purchase money, 418; validity, trustees afterward ousted from office, 418; validity, trustees no power to mortgage property, 419; Re- formed Dutch Church, validitj- sustained, 583. Mortmain, defined, 420; Delaware. 420; (^irenada, 420; Pennsvlvania, 420; South Carolina, 420." Municipal Corporation, ordinance prohibiting religious assemblies, sustained, 21. Municipal Ordinances, how affects camp meeting within corporate limits, 54; maj' n-giilate inter- ments, 63; parades, 421; preach- ing on lioston Common, 421; di.scriminalion as to Sabbath ob- servance, 619, M9; South Carf>- lina, ;ls to Sabbath observance, sustained, 7f)8. .Music, instrumental, action to re- strain u.se of, 18; Cam|)bcte(l, 181; funil, when minister not entitled to recover, 184; rf- ligious .society in, status, ;12S: minister, general status, 394; town as. New l-'ngland rule, StXI; business, how transacte Parsonage, 796, 585. Particular Baptist Church, Particu- lar Baptists, 444. ParticuUu" Bapti.sts, ijoted, 30. Partition, minority carmot maintain action for, 13; denied in suit against Separatists, 175; joint church ownership, 445; of projv erty of Shakers not permitted, 724. Partridge, Edward, bought land for Mormons, 409. Pastor, dissolving relation, 8, 9, 12; Evangelical Lutheran must be member of synod, 9; when maj* enforce mechanics' lien, 10; note given by, when no action lies against building committee, 14; I'emoved, restrained from fur- ther official acts, 32; in Baptist Church, how settled, 37; changing reUgious doctrine, effect, 269; when trustees not restrained from emploj'ing another, 289; not en- titled to injunction to reinstate after exclusion by majority of congregation, 303; call, right to contribution.s, 374; authority to regulate worship, 379; trustfM^'s rest raiiii'd from prevent iiig u.'-e of church, 3Si3; relation describe48. Poor, bequest for relief of sustained, 71, 75, 469; when bequest for void, 78: charily for, 84, 87; Lady Ilewley's charity for, 85. Poor and Codly Preachers, defined, 85. Poiic, Roman Catholics admit au- thority of, 97; Protestants deny authority of, 98; acknowleilge, 477; superstitious u.se, 477; time limit, be(|uest, 478; transfer tax, 479. Predestination, note on, 215. Presbyterian Church, fonn of gov- ernment, 25; Associate Reformetl Church, mergeiembly, 115; bound by national and state constitu- tion's, IKi; Cieneral .\ss«-nib!y. |)olitical deliveranct-s, 131; dechi- r.atioii :iiid lesiimonv. nol.-d, l.'U : WM iM)i:x uuiiiii \si(li ( 'iiiiil)('il;m(I Prcfiby- tcriuii ("Imrcli susliiiiicd, HIi; union will) ('iiiiihcrland l'r«'Mhy- lirian ("liiircli, 191, li>4; mission til Indians, IJol ; rule ius to rail of minister, liT'.i] Dunkirk case, Ii77; rule as to solcrtioii of jiastor, 'A\)'i\ board of fivction fund, -Uti; Now Oilcans, legacy for poor, sustained, 4()0; historieal sketeh, 481; description, 482; (rovern- mont, form of, 482; a,ssocialion with Conpn-gational churches, 483; Center ('ollege, Danville, Kentucky, 483; confirejiation, au- thority, 484; consolidation, 48"); division of society, apy)ortion- ment of ])roporty, 484; division, liowors of presbytery, 485; excom- munication by General Asseni- bl}^ 486; Free Portuguese Church, 487; Foreign Missionary Society, 488; General Assembly, S(juthei'n, 488; General Assembly, described. Old School, 489; General Assem- bly, division, effect on legacj', 489; General Assembly, organized, 490; General Assembly, status, 490; General Assembly, when decisions binding on church, 490; Illinois Orphans' Home, 491; Independ- ent Church not possible, 491; joint ownership, 492; local so- ciety, status, 492; Mercer Home for Disabled Clergj-men of the Presbj'terian faith, 493; minister, character of office. 493; minister, how called, 494; minister, Pres- bytery's j)ow(>r of ap])ointment, 495; missionary house of rest, 496; missions, 496; Old and New School; division of 1838, 497; Old School Assemblv, claims bequest, 498; Old School, General Assem- bly, jiolitical deliverances, 498; or- ganization. 499; organization and form of government, 499; pastor, terminating relation, 500; Penn- sylvania, English congregation. 500; jiolitical deliverances, no effect on local property, 501 ; Presbytery, membership, 502; Presbyter J" of New York, powers, 502; Presbytery, relation to sy- nod. 503; ]M-opert\'. how h(>ld and managefl, 503; ])ublication com- initte<-, 'A)\; rulinu elders, elec- tion, synod's p(nver limited, .501; Scotch Presbyterian Church, .501; Scotland, .50.5; secession of 1838, .505; secession, effect on |)a,strjral relation, .507; .session, .508; .s«-s- sion, powers, .509; slavery agita- tion, 510; sovereignty, not in menibershin, 511; synod of sc;rmoved without notic<>, (580; no action against bishop for removal, G81 ; when not liable f(jr slander, (585; when archbishop's utterances con- cerning constitute slander, 727; genei-ally (-hurch treasurer, 736. Primitive Bajjtist Church, de- scribed, 515. Primitive Methodist Church, organ- ization and form of government, 51(5; adherence to fundamental principles, 517; division of prop- ertv, limited. 517; note on, 633. I'rofa'nity, defined, 519. Promissor}' Note, given by jjastor, when no action lies against build- ing committee, 14; bj' trustees, when valid, 14, 818; ratified by vestry is valid, 14; given by jjresiilent and secretary of tru.s- tees without authority, invalid, 14; by deacons, when void, 183; when unincorporated .society not liable on, 194; by vestry, wh(>n society liable, 570; when makers not personally liable, (503; when society not liable on, (507; when eorjjoration not liable on note given by oflicer, (511; made by oflicers of Roman Cat h o 1 i c Church, when not binding on corporation, (57(5; made by trus- tees of Shakers, .society liable, action on, 73(5, 739. Property, liable for l)uilding claims, etc., 5; trust in, tiMistees may not impair, 7; minister's right to compen.sation a ])roi)erty right, 11; when no riglit agamst the church, 12; control in Bapti.st ihurch, '47; priest's profe.s.sion hi.s, 145; rights, three cla.«ses, 157; rights, when civil courts have exclusive juri.sdiction, 157; tide, when religious opinions may be subject of in(iuiry, 1(51; inherent right to ac(iuire and liold, 173; division, etTect, Evangelical A.sso- ciation, 245; division, effect, 249; transfer from Free Bajjtisl to Regular Baptist Cliureh invalid, 250; adherents of particular doc- trines may not lake pntperty over tetween adherents of old and new .school, 484; tlivision of and distribution between factions, 487; corporation, right to hold, 611; Roman Catholic Ciuirch, held Ity bishop, (581 ; schism, effect on, (593; how divided after sej)- aration. (597; separation, which party entitled to hold, (597, (59S; Shakers, how held, 725; (^xemj)- tion. New llami)shire rul(>, 79(5; church, used for other purpo.^es, when not taxable, 799; trusle<'s cannot distribute among mem- Ihms, 819; how held by unincor- porat(>(l .society, S4t5; corjxtration, limitation of .•imomit, how : ab.-indoning doctrines, effect, ■521; adverse po.s,s(>ssion, 521; Ahuska, effect of transfer fn»m l{ussia to I'nitiMl 936 iM)i;\' States, 522; dedication, divorKion, r)22; dodifation, 523; dedication lo rclip;ioiis uses, 52)3; denoiiiina- lional use, 52)3; diversion, 524; division of society, 527; execu- tion, 52H; gospel and schoijl lots, 529; Illinois rule, 520; joint >ise, 529; lay control, Pennsylvania rule, 5IU ; limitation of amount, rifiht to excess, 531; majority's right, 532; member's right, ')',','.'>; member unlaw fullv expelled, right lo be heard, 533; Methodist Episcopal Church, se])aration, ef- fect on title, 533; minority's right, 534; mob, flestruction by, action for damages, 534; object and use, 534; parish, Massachusetts rule, 534; pastor's salary, land may be sold to pay, 534; priest's occu- pancy, 535; puli)it, cannot be seized on execution, 535; removal of church edifice, 535; reversion, 535; reversion and discontinuance of specified use, 536; sale, 537; sale for debts, 538; sale or mort- gage, 539; sale, i-ein vesting pro- ceeds, 539; sale, when court order not necessarj', 540; sewing circle, funds, 541; special trust, effect, 541; Svmday school building, 542; suspending power of alienation, 542; surplus on sale, 542; taxa- tion, 543; title, how held, 543; title, when not affected by exclu- sion of society, 543; trust, lim- itation by testator, 543; trust2; rec- tor, exclusion, when unla^\"ful, 562; rector, how called, 563; rector, legacy for support sus- tained, 563; rector, right to occupy property, 563; rector, tenure of office, 564; sale, legis- lative power, 564; sale of church property, 565; Trinity Church, iNi)i;x 'j:jT charter, 5fi5; Trinity Church, chiirtpr superior, 'ido; Trinity C'hurcli, St. Jolm's ('Impel, .")CiO; trust, ronvcxiincf to l)isliop, .'jliH; trustees, cannot ;icl for two societies, fjlUi; unincorporated s; estalilished church in lOngland, 592; vestry, constitute corporation, 615; mem- bers cannot vote at congrega- tional meeting, 869. Protestant Episcopal Education So- ciety, Vu-ginia, bequest sustained, 571. Providence Hospital, incorporaleil, property how held, ()8:^. Psalm, 23d. Sw Twenty-third Psalm. Publication Committee, Presby- terian Church, note on, 504. Public Teacher, statas in Massa- chusetts, 11. l^iblic Worship, taxation for, when minister caimot recover tax, 11; reading Bible makes school a place of, 45; place of includes chapel, 67; becjuest for chapel sustained, 7'.i; gift for jH-omotion of, 79; place of, Christian Science charter refu.sed, 105; a function of the church, 107; cliui-cli a jjlace of, 113; lecture and Sunday school roon), a jilace of, 113; church proper i)lace of, 116; not subject to judicial iiKiuiry, 166; right of congi-egat ion to contrt)!, injunc- tion against interfering witli right, 287; wlien corporators may not regulate, 342; when pa.slor may regulate, 379; P r e s b y I e r i a n Church, session iuxs exclusive juiisdiclion of questions relating to, 423; Presbyterian Church, ses-sion to regulate, 509; dLslurl)- ers may be removed, .")ti9; rector may renulale, 573; originally sup- jxHted by towns, 591; town required to i)rovide place of, 591; jieople n'<|uired tf) attend, 591; society may regulate, 643; not comi)uLsorv, 647, 649, ()52; min- ister to regulate and preside at, 654; jirie.st , may maintain order at, 679; place of, u.>e of sch«><>lliou.-l, not a, 694; when reading Bible in school do«'s not constitute, 713; prayer, when does not make schoolhou.se a place of worshij), 715; comijulsoiy payment of admi.-sion fee on Sunday unlawful, 750; Boston, inhabitants not taxable for, 799; suj)port bv towns in Connecticut, 8(X). Publi.shing Hou.se, MethodLst Epi.s- copal Church, South, property exempt from taxation, 'MV.). Pulpit, when cannot Ix' .seized on execution, 535. Pvnitans, described, 282. Q Quakers, not bound to accept office of church warden, 123; ovei"seers title to office, how determined, 158; aided Se|)ara- tLst.s. 173. Quarterly Conference, Methodi.st Epi.sco|nd Church Hxes minister's salary, 10; Evangelical .\.s.s(icia- tion, 241; Methodist E|)i.scopal Church, of whom compo.sed, 347; I'nited Brethren in Christ, 855, 857. (Quieting title, when action for may be maintained, 15. Quorum, dctined. powers, 'MiS, Ml; vestrv meeting, 5()9; rule a.>; to vestry, 819. Quo Warranto, trustees, 574; ves- trymen, 574; to determine valid- ity of incorporation, 6(N): i>n>i>cr remedy to determine title to ofhce of trustee, S20; to del«Tmine right of parties claiming j>os.s«>s- sion of pro|H'rty. iVi; remedy to determine election of truht^vt*, *X\H INhllX 428; to iiKiuirc into election «»f trustees of I'lcshylcriim (!ener;il Assembly of lS:iS, 507. R Railroiwl (Jompuny liahl(> in d.ini- ap;cs for disturhiiiK reiifiious serv- iees, 4. Rapp, George, leader (jf Harmony Society, 1G8. Reader, Protestant Episcopal Church, status, 556. Rector, dei)osition, when no action for damages, 15; status, when civil courts will not determin<', 155; charges against, procedure, 222; Virginia, Legislature enter- tains charges against, 228; may be required to give notice of elec- tion, 235; authority lus presiding officer at elections, 237; may be required to join in notice of special election, 237, 312; may be requu'cd to recognize election of churchwarden, 240; strildng names from parish register, in- junction denied, 285; a member of the corporation, 381; cannot be excluded from possession and use of church edifice, 381, 386; Protestant Episcopal Church, au- thority at elections, 551; call, dissohang relation, 556; cannot be excluded from property, 557, 562, 564; casting vote, 558; charges against, trial, 558, 567; defined, 559; dissolving relation, 560, 564; when may not resign, 561; how called, 563; tenure of office, 564; New York rule, 568; may regulate worship, 573; Ro- man Catholic Church, ratifying act, 683. Referee, may be appointed to con- duct special election, 6, 237, 312. Reformation, noted. 111. Reformed Church, description, 575: diversion of property, 576; divi- sion of society, effect, 576; legacy, limitation, 576; succession to Calvinist Society, 576; successor to Reformed Dutch Church, 576; trust, intention of testatrix, 577. Reformed Dutch Church, origin in America, 578; history, 579; classis of 1822, 5S0; conHolidalion, when vr)i(l, 580; congregation, right to withdraw, 581; <()ii.-i.';tory, gen- eral power, 581; division of so- ciety, adverse pos.s<\-s8ion, 581 ; division of societj-, effect, 581; judicatories, 583; minister, devi- ation in doctrine, no riglit to u.se I)ulpit, .")84; property, transfer to another denomin.'ition prohibiff'd, 584; society, how formed, 585; taxatifmof j)arsonage, .")85; Theo- logical Seminary, legacy sustained, 585; tiTist, when deviation in doctrine not objectionable, .585; trust, when vahd, 586. Reformed Dutch Church of Amer- ica, name changed to Reformed Church of America, 577. Reformed Presbyterian Church, di- vision of .society, majority's right, 587. Reformed Presbyterians, union with Associate Presbyterians to estab- lish Associate Reformed Church, 25. Rehgion, articles of, see articles of religion, 24; Christian, bequest for support of, 72; bequest for promotion of, 78. 79; religion and pohtics should go hand in hand, 101; advancement of, bequest sustained, 886, 887; defined. 589; children, education, 590; church and state, 590; Constitution of the United States, 591; duty of state, 592; English toleration acts, 592; freedom, 592; Girard Col- lege case, 593; government not to teach, 595; importance to society, 595; legislative regulation, 595; Ohio, 595; rational piety, 596; restraining interference, 596. Religions of all Nations, Robbins, quoted, 97. Religious, defined. 77. Religious Belief, no excuse for neglecting parental duty, 597; basis of sect or denomination, tj35; cannot be restrained, 647; lim- itation on exercise of right, 648; when defense to parents for failure to provide medical attend- ance for children, 104; Christian Science charter refused in Mis- souri, 104; basis of church fellow- iMn:.\ !•:;;» ship, 108; not to be restrained. G20; when indieated hv apparel, ()2(j. llehgious Body, dcfinetl, 109. Religious Corporations, when eon- soUdation may be set aside, 29;{; majority, power at corporate meeting, 314; when cannot arbi- trarily <'xpel member, 321; three Methodist ICpiscopal churches consohdated, 142, 339, 342; rela- tion to si)iritual church, 502; New York, order f(jr sale of jiroperty, rule not appUcable to foreign cor[)oration, o40; New ^'ork, Shaker Society, not in- cluded in, 722; amending charter, 599; assignment for creditors, 599; banking, 599; l)usiness block, 599; capacity to take property, how determined, GOO; changing form of government, 000; charter, (MX); consolidation, 600; constitution and by laws make ctmtract, 601; contract, excursion, 602; corpor- ate acts, 602; corporator's right, how ac(]uired or lost, 602; debts, members not personally liable, 603; debt ratification, 603; debt, treasurer's loan, 603; debts reim- bursement, 1)04; de facto, prop- erty rights, 604; de facto, 604; denominational character, 604; dissohition, effect, 605; dissolu- tion, state law superior to church law, 605; diversion of trust, 605; government, ()05; in- corporation, 606; incorporation, collateral inquiry, 60t}; incorpora- tion, validitv, how questioned. 60(); liability for debt, 607; Ua- bility for injuries caused l)v negligence of employee, 607; lia- bility for injuries to employee, (iOS; majority, when action bind- ing on minority, 60S; majority's right, 60S; membei's, 60S; mem- l)er, expelled, no claim for dam- ages, 609; member's <'xpulsion, 609; member's liability, 609; members, when mav not be ex- cluded, 609; Miciiigan rule, 610; minors as members, 610; new organization, effect, 610; New York rul<>, 610; ()bj<"cl and pur- pose, 610; organization, notice. 610; pew owners, 611; presump- lion. 611; promissory note, (ill: pi-operty, limitation, 611; reli- gii)Us connection, ()12; removal to new house. «>12; Roman Catholic, charter, 612; status, 613; st.itus, as compared with English parson, 613; taxation, 613; three elements, (J13; triL'^t(H', 614; trusttn's, pow- ers, 614; trustees, majority must meet and act, 615; unauthorized sale of property, 615; who con- stitute, 615; Young Men's Chris- tian Association, 616; Young \Vomen's Christian Association, 616. Religious Establishment, ilefinectarian controversies. 624; United States, 624; \irgiiiia. 625; voluntary basis. ()25; con- tinuing subscription for r-hurch j)Ui'j)ose not aflfected by suc- ce.s.sor's change of religious o])in- ions, 741; not affected by nninici- pal ordinances regulating S.ib- bath ob.'U'rvance, 76S. Religious (iarb. New York, ()26; I'enn.sylvania, 62(), 715. Religious Principles, defined, 627; limits of iiKjuiry, 627. Religious Seminary, reading liible makes school a, 45. l^eligious Services, bequest for. 77; in (lerman language, bequest for sustained, 7S; becjuest for ser- mons. HO. Religious Societies, Illinois, how ac- tion brought, IS; New York, triistft's nuist sue in corporate name. IS; ;iction li\- trustii-s !)■(() iMn:x judgment ni;iy he for roriioni- lion, lit; Tii.ay chiiiip;!' f>|)ini()ns, :>1 ; uiiiy exercise jiii'isdictioii nvei" ccniolories, <)(), (i;!; ameiulinn charter and alteriiiK terin.s of chiirity, 84; status in eivil courls, 141; people liavo rijiht. to organ- ize, lol; when may not he consolidated, 2i)3; eciuality of members, 318; when eannot Ix' consolidated with society in an- other denomination, .Wo; build- ing (committee, ()29; by laws, 629; change of denominational rela- tions, 630; change of doctrine, effect, 630; chapd-^, 630; commit- tee, defense in legal proceedings, 631; congregation a corporation, distinction, 631 ; congregational, 632; congi-egational, division, ef- fect, 632; connect ional relatioas, 633; consolidation, 633; constitu- tion, 634; contract, 634; convey- ance, presumption, 634; debts, 634; debts, when subscribers not liable for, 634;(lefined, 635, 718; devise, diversion, 63o; devise. New York rule, 635; dissolution, 636; diversion of property, 636; division, elTcct on i)roperty, 636; division, minority's right, 636; doctrine and worship, control, 637; freedom of organization, 637; Illinois rule, 637; incorporation, 637; incorporation, certificate seal 637; incorporation, how proved, 637; incorporation, not necessary, 638; independent, diversion of trust, 638; individual rights, 038; joint incorporation, 638; liability, 638; liability of members, 638; majority, powers, 039; Massachu- setts rule, 639; meetings, 639; meeting, how called, 639; name, 639; New York act of 1813, 640; organization, powers, 640; jirop- eiiy, conveyance to members, effect, 640; property, how to be used, 641; quorum, 641; reincor- poration, identity, 641; rules of order, 641 ; school moneys, sharing in, 641; secession, 642; self- government, 642; separation, ef- fect, 642; separation or inde- pendence, when impossible, 642; services, socictj' may regulate admis.sionH ami conduct, 642; hu1>- scriber's right 1o jjrevent diver- sion, 043; threefold .-uspect, (■)4;>; two societies, one tiiiiiister, (V13; unincorporated, htalus, M4; union with another drriomination, 645; war claim, <>45; who constitute, 015; withdrawal from synod, effect, ()45. Religi(jus Toleration, granted by Russia, 31K); vital principle of Protestantism, 547; llnglish act, effect on trusts, 592; Connecticut, 647; described, 647; Mormons, 648; nmnicipal ordinance, 048; parental duty, (>49; Pennsylvania. 649; Protestantism, 6.50; denied in INIexico, 674; asserted in Texas, 674. Religious Worsliip, decorum re- quired, 202; removing disturber, 212; officers maj' preser\-e order, 212; basis of public recognition, 651; camp meeting, 651; defined, 652; duty of person attending, 652; majority may regulate, 65.3; musical instruction; singing, 653; orphan asylum, 053; place of, when exempt from taxation, 653; preserving order, 653; meetings, 654; regidations, when illegal, 654; removing dLsturbers, 654; right of choice, 6.55; Sunday school, when not excluded, 65.5; taxes, apportiomnent, 655; usage of congregation, 6.55; beating drum, when not an act of, tV21, 091; Nebraska, what constitutes, 714; when miscellaneous exercLses constitute, 740, 778; trustees can- not control services, 820; when bequest for religious ser\'ices in- vaUd, 838. Replevin, to recover seal, 15. Reversion, notes on, .535, .530. Rhode Island Y(nu-ly Meeting, Friends, oldest in ^^juerica, 256. Rigdon, Sidne}', Mormon Councilor, note on, 414. Riot, distm-bing religious meeting, 213. Robbins, "Religions of all Na- tions," 97. Roberts, Rev. William, superin- tendent of Methodist mission in Oregon, 352. INDEX *Ml Robinson, John, foundfr of Indr- pendentH, 282. Roman Catholic Church, bishop, office not a corporation, 47; cem- etery, rcf^ulutinK interments, 64: archbishop taking title to burial pjound. 59; chay)cl in Ireland, Massachusetts bequest for, sus- tained, 78; archbishoj) may direct use of bequest, SO; canons, when subordinate to state law, 110; civil rights and powers, court will not take judicial notice of, 152; tariff prescribed by bishop cannot be enforced, 102; exer- cising coordinate spiritual and temporal i)ower, efTect, 229; se- cret investigations, 230; elect ioas, qualifications of voters in special case, 238; comparison with United Greek Churcli, 278; bishop's con- trol of priest, 291; mission to Indians, 351; excommunicated priest cannot be continued in office, 380; excommunication of priest, civil courts no jurisdiction over, 387; duty to support priests, 399; parish, 440; rule as to pews, 463; priest's right to rent jx-ws, 464; deposed, not entitled to occupy property, 535; Roman Catholic Church, charter, note on, 612; relation to Illinois In- dustrial School for Girls, 710; lease of basement of church for pubhc school, sustained, 712; sub- scription, when it becom(>s proji- erty of congregation, instead of bishop, 737, 740; trusts for book teaching doctrines of the church, invahd, 790; trustees, how chosen, 822; archbishop, may appoint directors of corporation, 658; archbishop, title to property, 659; archbishop, title to jiroperty, pews, (559; bishoj) and pi'icst, relations, 659; bishoi), authority, 660; bishoji's control over priest, 660; bishop, liability on contracts, 661; bishop, no contract n-lation with local church, 661; bislioi) not liable for priest's salary, tiOl ; bishop's powers, 661 ; bishop, nla- tion to corporation, Louisiana Church of St. Ixniis, (361 ; bishop's supervision, t)()2; bishop's title to lajid — cemetery, 663; bishop's title to pronerty, t)(>3; bishop, when not Uable in damages, 666; burial ground, 6(i(); California missions, 666; Catholic Knights of Wisconsin, (i67; Catholic, rela- tion how determined, (M)7; cem- etery, exclusion of non-Cat hoUcs, 667; cemeterv, suicide not on- thled to burial, 668; congregation, relation to general church, (j69; corporate rights, 669; English tolcratioUj (j(j9; fraternal Ix-nefi- ciar>- society, 670; independent corporation, powers, 670; indi^ pendent society, St. Antliony Church, 672; Jesuit Grder, ()72; Ladies' Club. 672; Ixjuisiana cor- poral ion, |M)wers of local officers, 673; Mexico, 674; Mexico an»i Texas, (j74; minority's riglit, 675; Nebra-^ka, status of church, (i75; New York, incorjjoration, effect, 675; orphan iu-^ylum, not a com- mon school, ()76; parish register, 676; PeniL-iylvania, <'arly tolera- tion, 67(); Philil)i)ine Islands, 677; pope's position under Interna- tional Law, (i77; I'orto Hico, (i7N; priest, 67S; priest, action against for slander, (578; priest's author- ity, 679; priest, nishop's j)ower of removal, ()79; priest, exjiulsion, ()79; priest, maintaining order at meetings, (i79; i)nest, power to preserve ordcT in church .'Services, (380; pri(>st, not bisho|)'s agent, (380; priest, obligation, 6.S0; j)ri(»st, removal without notice, (>S0; priest's right of action jigainst oi.shop, (3S1; priest, salary, (381; property, how held, ()S1 ; projHTty right, (582; Providence Hospital. (383; rector, ratifying acts, (IS.'J; St. .Anne's (^atholic .\ post olic and Roman Church, Detroit, Mi; Spanish sovereignty, (3,S7; Spanish supremacy m coloni«'s, (1S7; students, voting n*sidenee, (ISS; Tex:us, 688; unincorix>rat»«S8; !M2 iM)i:x Woodstock ('ollc>;(', iMuryhiiKi, 689; accepts uulhority of pope, 97; members of (ierman society, 270; inmates of charital)l(> institu- tions, entitled to ministrations of clergymen of same faitli, 619; status, how (Ictcniiincd, 667; wit- ness, oath on Holy KvanKclists, method, 904; Archbishop of Cashel not a corporation, 47. Ruling Elders, when cannot main- tain action, 18; Presbyterian Church, how chosen, 2r); powers, 499; additional, when election in- vahd, 504. Russia, Oreek churches in, 278; Synod of, how composed, 278; religious toleration, 306; property of Lutherans, how affected by cession to United States, 298; Alaska, toleration of Lutherans in, 306. Ryan, P. J., Archbishop, bequest, moral trust, sustained, 825. Sacrament, Church of England, who may take, 123. St. Anne's Catholic and Roman Church, Detroit, Michigan, note on, 684. St. Benedict, founder of Order of St. Benedict, 172. St. Benedict, Order of, see Order of St. Benedict. St. John's Chapel (Trinity Church), closed, action of vestry sustained, 141, 566. St. Mary's Boys' Orphan Asylum, Rochester, status under New York constitution and statutes, 708. St. Matthew's Church, New York, formed in part from Trinity Church, 305. Salary, minister, action for, 8; min- ister, when previous immorality no defense, 9; minister, action for. call must have been accepted, 9; subscriptions, society must use due diligence to collect, 10; Methodist Episcopal Church, minister, no contract relation as to salary, 10; minister, Massa- chusetts, constitutional limitation on action for, 10; minister, Meth- odist Ei)i!Sco|)al ("hiirch, how de- ficiency collected, 10; of minister, when town liable for, 12; of minister, when only voluntarj' contribution, 12; of minister, ex parte dismission no bar to a<;tion for salary, 12; fixed by parish committee, when conclusive, 12; minister suspended not entitlwJ to, 12; mini.ster, if no contract, entitled to a just compensation, 13" members not individually liable for, 13. Sale, church property, notes on, 537. Salem, Oregon, Indian mission at, 351. Salvation Army, disturbing meeting of, 213; described, 690; devise sustained, 690; municipal ordi- nance, Kansas, 691; municipal ordinance, Michigan, 691; mu- nicipal ordinance. New York, 691 ; municipal ordinance, Pennsyl- vania, 691. Sanhedrin, custom as to courts on the Sabbath, 758. Schism, effect on property rights, 145; when not subject of judicial inquiry, 162; in ^lennonite so- cieties, 329; controversy over election of trustees does not constitute, 428; Presbyterian Chiu-ch, Old School and New School formed, 497; effect on property rights, 642, 700; de- fined, 693; effect on property rights, 693; in Unitarian societv, effect, 847. Schoolhouse, other use, 694; leasing basement of church for, sus- tained, 712; when religious exer- cises do not make it a house of worship, 713; prayer in, when does not make house a place of worsliip, 716; lease of parochial school building for, sustained, 716. Schools, foundation and purpose, 44; morality may be taught in, 44. Science and Health, Christian Sci- ence text book, quoted, 105. Scotch Presbyterians, originated Associate Reformed Church. 25; General Assembly status of, 230, INDKX :ti;: inslrurncntal iiiusif prohibited, 505. Scotland, propagating Church of England, doctrines in, 88; Kirk established chunh of, 229; note on Presbj'terian ("hurch, 505. Scriptures. See Hible. Not to be interpreted by government, 59;i. Seabury, Samuel, first Protestant Episcopal bishop in America. 47, 549. Seal, treasurer, custodian of, 15; when replevin not maintainable Secession, eflfect on i)roperty rights, 245; when adhering minoritj- may control property, 253; ejectment against scceders, 307; when se- ceders forfeit right of property, 365, 366, 427 ; Presbyterian Church, in local societv, effect, 508; notes on, 540; effect, 576, 582; abandonment, when demand effective, 694; changing denom- inational relations, 694; Congre- gational, 694; consent, when necessary, 696; diversion, 696; divi-sion of propertj', 696; effect, 697; effect on property rights, 697; forfeiting church property, 699; forfeiting property rights, 7(K); injunction, 700; Lutherans, 700; majority's right, 701; minor- ity's right, 702; political differ- ences, 704; Presbyterian Church, 705; proof necessar\', 705; right of, 705; Roman Catholic, 706; (emnorary withdrawal, 70(); trust fund, 706; trustees, seceding, 706; United Brethren, 706. Sect, defined, 197, 714; based on religious behef, 635. Sectarian Institution, general note, 70S. Sectarian Instruction, Hible not a sectarian book, 42, 45; govern- ment not to teach religion, 595; Illinois Industrial School for Cirls, 710; Illinois. 712; Iowa, 713; Kansas. 71:5; Ma.ersonal services, 719; competency !i.s wit- nesses, 720; c(jvenant, 720; dea- cons, actions by, 721; expulsion, effect, 721; M:us,sachusetts, 722; New York, 722; |)artition or withdrawal of i)roi)erly, not j)er- mitted, 724; property, how held, 725; trast(H>s, promi.ssory note, 726. Shaw's Reports of Cjtses in the Court of Sessions, cited. 199. Simi)S()n, Matthew, Bishop, arbi- trator in John Stn-et Church matter, 346. Singing. See Music. Singing School, not jM^miitl^Hl in Campbellile Church, 52. Sinsinawa Mound College, note on, 664. Sisters of St. Francis, note on, 6S4. Slander, statement by prij-st, when. 675); when priest not liable, (VS.'); archbi.shop's criticism of priest, 727; minister, 727; privilegeil .statements, ciiurch trial, 727. Sl.'ivf'ry. agitation concerning. elTect •Ml i\i»i:\ on Mrlhodist llpiscopal Cliiircli, ;{o9; l'r<'sl)yl(Tiiiii ('hiirtli, a>iit;i- uicl in siii)i)rcssiiiK sustained, SSS. Smith, Joseph, 1st, founder and head of Alornion Chur(;h, 409; death of, 413. Smith, Jos«'ph, 2d, anointed head of Mormon ("hurch, 414. Society, must use flue diligenee to collect subserij)tions for minis- ter's sahu'v, 10; may maintain action to reform deed and correct mistake, 15; church, distinct from corporation, 107, 112. Society for the l'ropa}j;ation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, Ver- mont, grant of society's property void, 70. Society of Jesus, described, 672. South Carolina, Statute of EUza- beth, not adopted in, 81. South New Market Methodist Sem- inary, entitled to legacy, - cation, 737; Roman Catholic Church, special purpose, 737; si)ecial agreement, 738; subscrib- er's death, effect, 738; sub- scriber's intention :us to object, 738; subscription note, vahdity, 739; Sunday, 739; Sunday schot)l, 739; title to fund, 740; unincor- jif)rated society, 740; withdrawal from society, effect, 741. Suffrage, Right of, limited to church members, 591. Suicide, not entitled to burial in Catholic cemetery, 668. Summarj- Conviction, disturbing re- ligious meeting, 214. Summary Proceefling. to recover property occui)ietl by deposed priest, 535. Sunday, worldly business, compul- sorj- admission fee to camp meet- ing, 55; observance, when mu- nicipal ordinance invalid, t)20; chiu-ch subscription on, when vahd, 739; agent's appointment, 745; agent's unlawful acceptance, 745; amusements, 745; arbitra- tion, award, 746; assignment for creditors, 746; attachment, 746; attorney's clerk, extra compensa- tion, 747; banker, 747; bank paper, 747; balloon ascension, 747; barber, 747; baseball, 749; bill, acceptance, 749; bill of ex- change; indorsement void. 750; INDEX I»45 bill of sale, 750; bond, 7")(); business, 750; butcher, 750; camp meeting, charge for admission, 750; canal lock keeper, 751; char- itable institution, resolution, 751; chattel mortgage, 751; church, resolution to employ minister, 751; cigars, 752; commercial paper, 752; common carrier, 753; contract, 753; conversion, driving horse beyond contract limit, 758; courts, 758; courts. Ancient He- brew custom, 758; courts, charg- ing jmy, 758; courts, early ( hris- tian custom, 759; courts. New York ('ity magistrates, 759; deed, 759; defined, 760; demurrage, 7G0; disorderly conduct, 760; em- ployer and employee, 761 ; execu- tion, 761; food, 761; foreclosure sale, 761; games, 7(>2; gaming, dice, 762; habejus corpus, 762; ice cream, 762; innnoderate djiv- ing, 762; injuries, action for damages, 762; insurance, 762; in- toxicating liquor, liV.i; Jews, 763; justices extra compensation, 764; laborer, hiring, 764; lease, 764; legal proceedings, 764; legislative l)owers, 7()5; levy, 768; loan, 76S; mail carrier, 768; marriagf^, 768; meat market, 768; moving pic- tures, 7(')8; munir'ii)al orrlinance, 768; necessity, 7()9; newspapers, 771; object, 772; onmibus, 772; on(> ofTense only, 772; oixlinary calling, 773; paj^ment on debt, 773; physician s prescrijjtion, 773; plaintiff's violation of law, when no defense, 773; preserving prof)- erty, 773; pi'ocess, 771; promis- .sory note, 774; redemption from sheriff's sale, 777; riligious serv- ices, 778; rescission of contract, 778; sale, 778; sal(\sman, services on Sumlay, 780; saloon, 781 ; s.aloon closing, niand;unus, 781 ; si'arch-warraiit, 781; sea-weed, 781; se(unity for good behavior, 781; seventh day observance, 781 ; slot machine, 781; social club, treiiMurer receiving money, 782; Hoda water. 7S2; stage coach, 782; statute, const it 111 ion.'ii, 782; stat- ute of limitations, 783; statute, unconstitiilioiial, 783; st.Mlnte, when retrosi)ec»ive, 7S3; sub- scriptions on Sunday, 783; sunset, 784; surety contract, 7s4; tel- ephone, 784; lipi»ling house, 78-1; tort, 784; traveling, 7Sl; trespass, adjusting damages, 7S7; trust, declaration. 7S7; vaudeville, 787; violation, remedy for, ~H7; wju- rant, 787; warrant of attornev, 788; will, 788. Sunday School, bequest sustained, 71; library, bequest for, 79; b(>- (|U(>st in aid of, 81 ; befpiest f(tr, siistained, 89; C'hri.stian (luinh, flourishing condition of. 94; Chris- tian Seicnce, liability of treasurer, 1(H; room a place of worship, 113; Christmas festival, not a meeting for religious worship, 201 ; dis- turbing meeting of, 214; certain books prescribed by Lutherans for use in, 29S; building, fund for belongs to ehuicli, 542, 739; not a place of religious wor.ship, 6.55; when schoolhou.se cannot be use- ciely, 789; building, when exempt from taxation, 79S; when fimd rai.sed for belongs to church, S03; gift of fund for Christmas pres- ents, invalid, 827; gift of fund for library, invalid, 828; bequest sustained, 888. Superstitious U.se, ma.«s«, not a, 313; gift for masses sustained, 473; wlK>n bcfiuest for ma.'^ses invalid, 177; existence noted, 790; origin, 790; Roman Catholic jjublica- tions, 790; Sh.akers. 791. Susp(>nsion of Tower of .Mienalion, note on. 512. Swedenborgians, be(|Ue«.l. rr'je«'te(l, 792; l>e(|uest sustained, 792. Synod, .\.rtiiig Congre- gational minister, S()(>. Tax Law, u.se ; n<»t permit t(Hl to imptiir trust in church property, 7; may giv<' note for materials. 14; President and Secretary cannot give valid note without authority, 14; de facto may maintain action for tn>si):Lss, 10; action for digging ami remov- ing coal, 17; title descrilx'd, 17; when liable on contract, 17; managing temporalities, exclusive right to bring action, 18; when no action against to restrain iLse of instrumental nuisic, 18; de facto, what coast it utes, 18; Illinois, must sue or defend for society, 18; New York, must sue in cor- porate name, 18; restraining un- lawful act, 18; when liable to suit by membei-s, 19; action by, judgment may be for con)ora- tion, 19; wlien act inn m.ay be in name of, 20; must show title to ofhce, 20; unincori)orate*t account, 90; Christian Church, part of corporation, 95; deacons, (•x-oHicio, Bantist Church, 190; election, burden of |)roof, 2I{4; election, when justice may call iiHM'ting for, 235; election must be regular, 238, 2.39; no action aft«'r expiration of term, 240; members interfering with, injunc- tion granted, 28(), 287; lailhenin, relati(»n to church, 2.89; Lu- theran, when may luit Ix- re- strained from regulating public worship, 302; .Maryland, title, mandamus iirojMT remetly to t«*st, .312; cannot l)e evict<»«l by cor- |)orators, 342; cannot on own motion institute [)r(M'e«"^ille in ollice laiuxit be deliniun<-s Academy Divinity School, S37; Poor .Jewish families, 837; poor ministers. S37; Princeton Theological Seminary. S3S; re- ligious services, 838; sectarian INDEX :»4:» purpose, 839; Sunday school, 840; suspending power of alienation, 840; title, 840; unineorporated society, 840; Universalist Church, 842; worship, usage, how deter- mined, 842. Twenty-third Psalm, reciting in school does not constitute public worship, 713. U Unincorporat(Hl Society, when tras- tees of cannot maintain eject- ment, 6; when not a necessary party to an action on a building contract, 17; when cannot sue nor be sued, 20; when members are personally liable, 20; trustees, de facto may maintain action, 20; cannot take bequests, 22; devise to vestry for use of sus- tained, 81; .such bequests valid in IllinoLs, 81; when grant of land to, valid — subsequent incor- j)oration, SI; bequest to, when void, 90; Christian Church, may take and hold property, 9(i; title to property, o44, o(i7; status, rights of property, 044; Roman Catholic Church, trust sustained, 088; Spiritualists, bequest invalid, 730; when subscription for valid, 740; trustees de facto, may main- tain tresi)ass, K(M3; trust for, when valid, 841; bequest to, void, 844; church asse.'^sments, 844; con- veyance to, valid. f, .512; organ- ization, SO-1; minority's right, St'A. Uniteil States, religioiLs fres, 904. Ursuline Cotnnumitv, btniucjit su.— tained. ,S93. Utah, Mormon Church charters, 407. Vann, Irving 1., .ludge, (]Uote4l, (J03. Vault, in chiiniiyani. use of. .59; title of purclia.ser from society. t>5; bc(]uesl for repair, void, 71; grant for repair not a charitable use, 82. \'«'rmonl, grant of proiwrly of Society for Pro|)ag:iting CohimI in I'oreign Parts, void, 70; Ix-- quesl for charil.'ible u.ses, invalid, SI; has no religions e.vtablivli- inenl, 2;{1. Vestry, when not liabU- on builduig :»:.() IXDKX contract, 5j inu.st act tus a body, 5; may ratify note Kivcn by war- iis, 11; may receive devise for unincorporated society, 81; 'i'rin- ity Church, (;losinn St. John's Chapel, action sustained, 141; when civil courts maj' not inter- fere with, l.W; may remove dis- turber of meetinfj;, 212; when restrained from dismissing minis- ter, 287; may call minister, when injunction ai^;ainst denied, 289; when special election may bo ordeied, 311; mandamus to com- jx'l attendance at meeting, 312; cannot exclude rector from pos- session and control of (;hurch (>difice, 381, 386, 5G2; when may not make mortgage without bish- op's consent, 418; may take proceeding for sale without vote of corporators, 539; room for use of, 544; control of guild building, 553; cannot remove rector, 557; presiding officer, casting vote, 558; cannot act without meeting, 567; meeting, quorum, 569; as- signment of pews, 569; disturber may be removcni, 570; promissory notes by, when society liable, 570; status, 572; quo warranto projjer remedy to test title to office, 574; constitute corporation, 615. \'icar, when not entitled to adjourn parish meeting, 234. \'irginia, church cannot be incor- porated, 117; Legislature enter- tains charges against rector, 228; early established church, 570; re- ligious freedom, 625. ^'oters (see also Elections, and Meetings), qualifications, by-laws regulating, 234; qualifications in special case, 238; illegal, when recejjtion d()(>s not vitiate elec- tion, 238; right cannot be recon- sidered aft CI' result of election declared, 240; a.sses.sment, 868; contribution, 868; Episcopalians at congregational meeting, S(>9; qualifications, how tletermined, 869; qualifications, how fixed, 870; (qualifications in general, 870; stated attendants, 872; with- drawal, effect, 872; women, meet- ing for incorporation, 872. W Waco I'emale Collegr-, 'IVxim, elee- tion, debt, action n'lating to, 3(>4. W'alden, John .M., Hishoj), consol- idation of Methodist Epi.scopal Churches sustained. 142, 339, 342. Waller, Alvin 1"., Rev., Oregon, Methodist Mi.s.sion at Wjuscopum, 352. Ward, religious education, 281, 590; guardian holds oflice of trust, 623. Warfield College, i'roteslant Epis- copal Church, bequest sustained, 571. Wascopum Indians, Methodist mis- sion to, 351, 352. Washington, D. C, German Society constituent elements of, 276. W ayland, Francis, Rev., descrip- tion of New England Baptist chiu-chcs, 37. \\'ebster's International Dictionary, quoted, mass, 313. Welch Circulating Charity Schools, bequest sustained, devise invalid, 887. Wesleyan Methodist, bequest su.s- tained, 874; Conference, powei-s relating to the trial and susi)en- sion of minister, 874; histf)r>'. 874; member, when right of action lost, 875. ^^esleyan Methodist Convention of America, organizations, 874. Weslev, John, founder of Method- ism,' 334. Western New York Diocese, trust for, invalid, 572. Westminster College, Presbyterian Church, note on, 514. Westmiaster Confession of I'aith, Cmnberland ftcsbyterian Chun'h dissents from, 1!K); tenet (if l'r(>c (liurch of Scotland. 253. West \'irginia, will, when foreign corporation may take mui(T, 8(). Weyth, establishes mi.«;sion to In- dians on Wallamet River, 351. Whitman, Dr., takes charge of Oregon mission, 352, 353. \N hitman, Perrin P., ha.s charge of On^gon niLssion, 353. Wickliffe. John, relation to Prot- estant R(>fonnation, 545. Widows' and Orj)hans Fund. Prol- INDEX !».jI ppfant Episcopal Church, bequest sustained, 572. Will, bequest, domicile of legatee gov- erns validity, 22; unincorporated society, cannot take becjUf'st, sub- sequent incoqjoration d(X's not cure defect, 22; 9th ward, New York, bequest for coal to inhabitants, 350; testator's intention, 404; Aubiu-n Theological Seminary, 876; bishop to be ai)iiointc(l, S77; capacity to take, .S77; coiHlitional bequest, 877; constitutional lim- itation, 877; oonveyance, includes will, 878; corporation, bequest by non-resident, 878; dissolution of society, effect, 879; foreign bene- ficiary, 879; foreign society, 880; identifying beneficiary, 880; in- definiteness, 881; intention, 884; legacy forfeited by cluinge of doctrine, 885; legislative sanction, 885; misdescription, 886; parol evidence, 886; periietuity, 886; (Quakers, j'early meeting, void devise, 886; religion, advance- ment, 88(5; reward of merit, 887; Sailors' Home, Boston, Ma-^sa- chusetts, 887; slavery and in- temperance, 888; Sunday school, 888; testator's religious opinions, 888; time liinit, 888; trustee, will acknowledging trust, 892; undue influence, 892; unincori)orated so- ciety, 892; I'nitarians, 893; Ur- suline Community, 893; ^'oung Men's C'hristian Association, 893. William the Conqueror, confirms early canons j)rohibitiiig judicial proceedings on the Sabbath, 759. Wilmington Annual Conference*, provision for education of min- isters for, 344. Window, ornamental, be(|Uest for sustained, 71. ^\ inebrennerians, see Church of Cod at Harrisburg, 121. Winebrenner. .John, founder of Church of God at Harrisburg, 124. Wirth, Augustin, member of Order of St. Benedict, 172; action against Order, 173. Wi.'-consin, cfjiistitulion, reading Bi- ble in school a vi(jlation of, 45; will sustained requiring Ic^gatc*- to attend church, 619; swtarian in- struction in schools prcjhibited, 718. Witness, Protestant KpLseopal bi.sliop competent to define pari.'^h and rector, 4s ; Shakci-s, com- petency as witne.-^ses, 720; atheist, 895; child, 895; comjx'tency, K97; immunity from exjimination, •.KM); oath, 9- tained, ti89. \\'orship. See Public ^\ <)r.shi|), and Religious Worship. \N'orship, Place of. See Place of AN'orshij). \\ylie. Rev. 'riuwlore \\ . J., minister, Reformed I*re.sbylerian Cluu-ch, 587. ^ oung, Brigham, Mormon leader, 413. ^ oung Men's Christian A.sscM-iation, not exempt from Iran.'-fer tax, 616; when properly subject to taxation, 799; betpiest for organ- ization sustained, 893; auxiliary, 905: [jrojierty, limitation, 905; taxation, 906." "\'oung Women's Christian .\.ss(K'ia- tion, descrilx-d, cxemj)! from in- heritance tax, 616; auxiliary to Young Men's Christian Associa- tion, 905. Z Zion Church, New York, formed from Trinity Church, 305. Zuiiiglius, reliitioii to Protestant Reformation, 545. UNIVERSITY' Ol CAI.IIORMA, LOS ANGF.I.F.S Tin; UNIVKRSITY LIBRARY This book is DUF on the last date stamped below OCT 2 4 l-ii*PJ OlsdffMliE MAR 1 € 1981 HECD ItMJRD At»K 1 9 1!82 Form L-I) £.-,m-:. •13(.-;...-.) TJ>;iVERSITY of CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES T T-r>r» A v>\r BV 762 Lincoln - L63c The civil law and the churdi DEMCO 2MN ncT ^ 4 ^^^^ 3 1158 00654 2418 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACtLmr AA 001 285 336 2