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 subniitto<l,
1 experienced sonie difficulty in discovering!: judicial decisions
in which the question had been considered. One result of
my researches was the conviction that there ought to be a
book in which might be collected the princii)al judicial de-
cisions affecting church problems. I thought that in such
a book the reader should be able to find under a convenient
arrangement most of the cases which present judicial decla-
rations on religious questions, without being obliged to ex-
amine legal digests and reports covering general topics.
This book is the product of my consideration of that subject.
I have here sought to gather in one volume the principal ju-
dicial decisions rendered by the courts of Great Britain,
Canada, and the United States, including Federal and State
Courts, in which have been considered questions relating to
distinctively religious matters, and also questions affecting
local religious societies. The book embodies the result of a
study of the decisions which are now scattered through a
, large luunber of reports of cases and digests, and which are
^ here i)laced in a form convenient for immediate reference.
^ It is not a text-book in the ordinary sense, but is instead a
' digest or cyclopedia. Many delicate and important ques-
-^ tions have been considered by the courts, and I assume that
' the reader would prefer the language of the court rather
than a statement of the decision from my own point of view.
The reader would probably prefer to know what the court
said, rather than what I think the court said; so the work
is not an attemjtted interpretation of judicial decisions, but
a statement of the decisions as actuallv rendered.
430506
iv I'KIll'ACK
'I'lic lu|iics iii'c ;irraii}^<'<l in cvclopcdic foi-in, witli n sul)-
ordiiiiilc alpliabotical cliissiticalion. This arrangement has
been can-icd as far as scciiumI piacticable in a book of this
kind, but in addition lo this ( lassilication I have jn'cpared
an index in which I iiave sought to jiresent in detail nnnier-
«»ns items wliicli «<»nid not readily be classified in the cyclo-
jtedic arrangement. So far as I am aware, no attemj>t 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 <tf the libi-ary where books might be ex-
amined, and read ahuid to me withctut disturbing other
persons using the library. Here I compiled a large number
of notes bearing on my ])lan. In this ])i-ep;ualion I was
assisted by my reader and stenograpliei-, Miss Marguei-ite
Elizabeth (Jrillin, of Albany, New York, who had rendered
vi IMnOFACK
siniihir service dnriii;^ the idcccUin;; nine years. I take thiH
opportunity to express my apijrecijition of her enitiency, not
only in this service but also in tlic jncitai-alion of ftrevions
]inl)licat ions.
In the spring of 1010 I changed my residence from Albany
lo Knlfalo, an<l afterward with some interru[)tions, 1 con-
tinued my study in the Law Library of the lOighth Judicial
District, at Buffalo, New York. The librarian, Mr. (Jeorge
I). Ci'ofts, extend(Ml to me numerous courtesies while I was
using the library. The assistant librarian, Miss Katherine
L. Cuthbert, rendered valuable service by her aid in search-
ing for judicial decisions. I take this occasion to express my
acknowledgments to Mr. Crofts and to Miss Cuthbert for
their assistance in the performance of my task.
Beginning in 1J)1;^>, 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 \V<H-<I " ". 17 Miuss. fA 798
Ainish (>l 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, <K)6
Auch's Succiession 39 La. Ann. 1043 469
Auracher v Yerger 90 Iowa 558 135, 243
Austin V Thomas 14 Mass. 338 433, 439
Avery v Baker 27 Neb. 388 643
Avery v Stewart 2 Conn. 69 776
Avery v Tyringham 3 Mass. Re. 182 219, 401
Aylward v O'Brien 160 Mass. 118 463, 659
Ayres v 'IVustees Meth. Episcopal
Chu. N. Y 3 Sandf. Sup. Ct. (N. Y.) 351 . . . .636
Ayres v Wc^ed 16 Conn. 291 885
Backes, Matter of 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 504 473
Bailey v Lewis 3 Day (Conn.) 450 635
Bailey v Methodist Epis. Church,
FreeF)ort 71 Me. 472 817
Bailey v Trustees, Power Street
Meth. Epis. Chiu-ch 6 R. I. 491 465
Bailey v Wells 82 la. 131 KM)
Baker v Commonwealth 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 10 752
Baker v Ducker 79 Cal. 365 576, 69(5
Baker v Fales 16 Mass. 488 108, 377, 703, 704
Bak«>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 Fv<l. nM 605
xxii TAHIJ-: OF CASIOS
(^onklin v Davin ft'i Conn. 377 612
Conner, Matter of 44 Hun (N. Y.) 424, 1 St. llep.
(N. Y.) 144 890
Connolly v Boston 117 Ma.s8. 64 786
Connitt v Ref. Prot. Dutch Church 54 N. Y. 551
133, 134, 224, 379, 380, 381, 584
Consi.storv of the Reformed Dutch
Ch. of rrattsville v lirandow. . . 52 Barb. (N. Y'.) 228 581
Coastant v 8t . Alban.s Ch 4 Daly (N. Y.) 305 815
Conway v Carpenter 80 Hun (N. Y'.) 429 389, 816
Cook V Forker 193 Pa. St. 461 754
Cook V Hutchins 46 la. 706 797
Cook County v Industrial School
for C.irls 125 III. 540 708, 712
Coombs V Rose 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 155 295
Cooper V McKenna 124 Mass. 284 679
Cooper V Presby. Ch.of Sandy Hill. 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 222 450, 456, 639
Copeland v Hewett 96 Me. 525 3
Corporation of Elizabeth City v
Kenedy Bush (N. C. Law) 89 396
Cory Universalist Society v
Beatty 28 N. J. Eq. 570 842, 867
CottreU V Parkes 25 T. L. R. (Eng.) 523 882
Cowan's Estate 4 Pa. Dist. Rep. 435 888
Cox V State 136 Ala. 94 206
Craig V First Presby. Ch 88 Pa. St. 42 113, 315, 789
Craigdallie v Aikman 2 Bligh (Scotland) 529 699
Cranfill v Hayden 97 Texas 544 38
Cranson v Goss 107 Mass. 439 775
Craven v State 109 Ga. 266 777
Crepps V Durden 2 Cow. (Eng.) 640 773
Crerar v Williams 145 111. 625 84
Crocker v Old South Society 106 Mass. 489 455
Crombie v Overholtzer 11 Up. Can. 55 775
CroxaU's Estate 162 Pa. St. 579 87
Cruse V Jones 3 Lea (Tenn.) 66 3
Cubbison v M'Creary 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 262 898
Cunningham v Mahan 112 Mass. 58 765
Curd V Wallace 7 Dana (Kv.) 190 832
Curran v White 22 Pa. Co. Ct. Re. 201 : . 45
Currier v Trinity Society, M. E.
(^hurch, Charlestown . ! ... 109 Mass. 165 816
Currv V First Presbyterian Con-
gi-egation ." 2 Pittsburg (Pa.) 40 465, 808
Ciutis V First Congregational So-
ciety, Quincy 108 Mass. 147 464
Curtis V Strong 4 Day (Conn.) 51 898
Cushman v Church of the Good
Shepherd 162 Pa. St. 280, 188 Pa. St. 438. . .
154,531,569,622
Dahl V Palache 68 Cal. 248 236, 562
Dale V Knepp 98 Pa. 389 739
Dall V Kimball 6 Me. 171 440
Dalles Citv v Missionary Society
M. E. Church ". 6 Fed. 356 355
Daniel y Wood 1 Pick (Mass.) 102 452
TABLE OF CASES xxiii
Dascomb v Marston 80 Me. 223 88
Dashiell v Attorney Gen 6 Har. & J. (Md.) 1 87
Davidson v State 39 Tex. 129 896
Davie v Heal 86 A. D. (N. Y.) 517, afT'd 180
(N. Y.) 545 291
Davis V Beason 133 U. S. 333 589, 592, 624
Davis V Bradford 58 N. H. 476 725
Davis V Cong. Beth. Tephila Israel. 40 A. D. (N. Y.) 424 293, 318, 601
Davis V Owen 107 Va. 283 15
Davis V Proprietors Second Uni-
versalist Meeting House 8 Mete. (Mass.) 321 866
DavLs v State 16 So. (Miss.) 377 209
Davis v Witts Forr. (Eng.) 14 460
Dawson v State 7 Tex. Ct. of App. 59 204
Day, den ex dem v Bolton 12 N. J. L. 206. .328, 579, 580, 583, 585
Dayton v Carter 206 Pa. St. 491 234, 483, 504
Deaderick v Lampson 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 523. . . .227, 500, 705
De Camp v Dobbins 29 N. J. Eq. 36 577 (2), 611
Dedric v Hopson 62 la. 562 900
Dees V Moss Point Bapt. Ch 17 So. Rep. (Miss.) 1 150, 320
Delarnater v Miller 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 75 757
Dernpsey v North Michigan Con-
ference, Wesleyan Meth. Con-
nection of America 98 Mich. 444 311, 398, 874
Denni.son v Austin 15 Wis. 334 607, 819
De Ruyter v St. Peters Ch 3 N. Y. 238 599
De Sanchez v Grace Meth. Epis.
Church 114 Cal. 295 845
De Themmines v De Bonneval. . . 7 L. J. Ch. (Eng.) 35 790
Deut.sch V Stone 11 Ohio Dec. 436 461
Devoss V Gray 22 Ohio 159 3, 846
De Wolf V Lawson 61 Wis. 469 886
Dexter v Gardner 7 Allen (Mass.) 243 258
De Zeng v Beckman 2 Hill (N. Y.) 489 809
Dickenson's Estate, Re 56 Misc. (N. Y.) 232 886
Dickerson v Kirk 105 Md. 638 521
Dickson v Montgomery 1 Swan (Tenn.) 348 29, 832
Dic'ffcndorf v Reformed Calvinists
C^hurch 20 Johns (N. Y.) 12 736
Dillon V Reilly 10 Ir. Eq. Re. 152 474, 475
Dismukes v State 58 So. (Ala.) 195 112, 153
District of Columbia v Robin.son. 30 App. D. C. 283 99, 767
Dochkus V Lithuanian Benefit So-
ciety, St. Anthony 206 Pa. St. 25 669, 672, 681
Doe Baker v Clark 7 U. C. Q. B. (Can.) 44 878
Doe v Copestake 6 East. (Eng.) 328 74
Doe V Pitcher 6 Taunt. R. (Eng.) 363 82
Doe V Read 3 U. C. Q. B. (Can.) 244 874
Domestic and Foreign Missionary
Society's Appeal 30 Pa. St. 425 75, 403, 420, 553, 884
Domestic and Foreign Missionary
Society, Protestant Episcopal
Church V Gaither 62 Fed. Rep. 422 551
Domestic and Foreign Missionary
Societv, Prot. Epis. Church v
Reynolds 9 Md. 341 554
XX iv TAIilJ; (IK CASIIS
Dotialioc V F^ich.'inls ;!S Mc '.iH\ 45
Ddiiticllv V St. Joliii's I'rotivstaiil
i'-liis. Cli 'JC, L;i. Anil, 7;JS 14
Doiioviin V McCart.y 1.',") Miuss. 543 770
Domnus v Hutch Rof. Church. . . 3 N. .J. Kq. 332 583
Dorn V State 4 Tex. App. 67 208
DoriKT V School District No. 5. . 137 Wis. 147 717
]:)orlon V Ilcarn 67 Mo. 301 694
DounhcTty's Estate 12 Phila. (Pa.) 70 470
Doup;hi.ss's Estate, lie 143 N. W. (Neb.) 299 107
Dow V Town of Hinesburgh, and
Weed 2 Aikens (Vt.) 18 389
Doyle V Lynn and Boston Rail-
road Company 118 Mjuss. 195 78.5
Draper v Draper 68 111. 17 896
Dressen el al v Brameier, et al . . 56 la. 756 301
Drew V Ilogan . 26 App. D. C. 55 37
Drunihell(>r 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. <fe K. (Eng.) 684 478
West V State 28 Tenn. 66 201
We.stminster Pres. Ch. v J'indley . . 44 Mis. (N. Y.) 173 18, 141
Westminster Church v Presbytery
of New York 211 N. Y. 214 112, 503
Weston V Hunt 2 Mass. 500 441
Wheaton v Cates 18 N. Y. 395 537, 819
Wheelock v American Triu^t So-
ciety 109 Mich. 141 834
Wheelock v First Pres. Ch 119 Cal. 477 486
White and Martin (Mich. S W. Ill) Fort. (Eng.) 375. .765
White V Attorney (ien 44 .\m. Dec. 92 90
White V Miller. ! 71 N. Y. 118 724
Whitecar v Michenor 37 N. J. Eq. 6 385
White Lick Quart. Mw^t., etc.,
V White Lick Quart. Meet., etc. 89 Ind. 136 114, 139, 257, 260, 326
White Plains Presbyterian Ch.,
Matter of ." 112 App. Div. (N. Y.) 130 794
Whiteman v Lex 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 93 70
Whitmore v Fourth Congrega-
tional Society 2 Gray (Mass.) 306 9
Whitney v First Eccles. Societv,
Brooklyn ^ 5 Conn. 405 395, 401
Whitsitt V Trustees Preemption
Presbyterian Church 110 111. 125 735, 741, 807
Wiggin V First Freewill Baptist
Church, LoweU 8 Mete. (Mass.) 301 315
Wilke-s-Barre v Garabed 11 Pa. Sup. Ct. 355 692
Wilkins v Wardens, etc. St.
Mark's Protestant Epis. Ch. . . . 52 Ga. 351 644, 846
Wilkinson v Moss 2 Lee (Eng.) 117 450
Willard v Trustees, Meth. Epis.
Ch. of Rockville Center 66 III. 55 741
Williams, Re 57 Misc. (N. Y.) 327 240, 432, 869
Williams v Paul 4 M. & P. (Eng.) 532 754
Williams v State 83 Ala. 68 209
Williams v Western Star Lodge. . . 38 La. Ann. 620 468
Williams v Williams 8 N. Y. 525 77
Wilson V Livingston 99 Mich. 594 864
Wilson V Perry 29 W. Va. 169 504
Wilson V Presbyterian Ch.. John's
Island 2 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 192
107, 152.492,495,498
Wilson V Tabernacle Bapt. Church 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 2i5S. ..... . .603, 804
Windham v lUmcr 59 So. (Miss.) 810 32, 132
Windley v McCliney 77 S. E. 226 33
Windt V German Ref. Church .... 4 Sandf. Ch. Re. (N. Y.) 502. .59, 62, 65
Winebrenner v Colder 7 Wright (Pa.) 244 113, 125
Winnei)esaukee v Gordon 67 N. IL 98 54
Winslow V Cummings 3 Cush. (Mass.) 358 835
Woodall V State 4 Ga. App. 783 211
^\■()()(lw()rth V Payne 74 N. Y. 196 370
Worrell v First Presby. Ch 23 N. J. Eq. 9(). .316, 484, 495, 500, 643
Wright V Dressel 140 Mass. 147 781
Wyatt V Benson 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 327 345, 346
lii TABLE OF f'ASIOS
W yllic V Molt 1 HaKK. Erflos. (Erin) 19 460
Vouiig.s V HiiiiHom ;il Harh. (\. \ .) 4i)
ir)2, 388,557,563, 564
Zimmerman, Re 22 Misc. (N. V.) 411 472
Zuccaro, Ex parte 162 S. W. (T(!X.) 844 768
ACTIONS
Agent, when liable, 1.
Architect, for plans, 2.
Building Committee, 2.
Compromise, when effectual, 3.
Corporation against majority of members, 4.
Corporation, recovering property, 4.
Corporation, against trustees, 4.
Damages against Railroad Company for disturbing religious services, 4.
Debts, 5.
Ejectment, 5.
Elections, 6.
Forcible entry and detainer, 6.
Juror, 6.
Mechanic's lien, 7.
Minister's salary, 8.
Minister, statute of Umitations, 13.
Partition, 13.
Personal judgment, when not proper, 14.
Promissory note, 14.
Quieting title, 15.
Rector, deposition, when no action for damages, 15.
Reforming deed, 15.
Replevin for seal, 16.
Shakers, 16.
Specific performance, 16.
Title, action to compel conveyance, 16.
Trespass, 16.
Trustees, 17.
Trustees, de facto, 18.
Trustees, Illinois rule, 18.
Trustees, New York rule, 18.
Trustees, restraining unauthorized acts, 18.
Trustees, right to sue, 19.
Trustees' title to office, 20.
Unincorporated associations, 20.
Unincorporated society, 20.
Agent, When Liable. A person as.snming to act as the
agent of this society (First Freewill Society, Lowell I, bor-
1
2 Tin; ('i\ iL \..\\\ AM) Tin: cm K( ii
fowcd money, jfiviii^ :i iioh; j>ui|K)i-liig lo he llie iiole of llic
society, bill wiiicli i( li;i«l no powci* to exeenti;. It was liel<l
tiint the agont was Jinble foi- money had aud received. Jeftn
V Vovk, 12 Cnsli. I Mass. ) IIM).
Architect, for Plans. An action l)y an architect to recover
conipeusation lor |»l;ins |ti"ej)ai('<l lor the erection of a dnirch
edifice, witlionl any foi-mal resolution by tlie vesli-y adopting
such plans, was sustained on the <;round that the mendjers
of the vestry had informally authorized the rector to provide
plans, aiul the architect had accordingly made an agreement
with him therefor, Cann v Kector, Etc., Church of the
Holy Redeemer, St. Louis, 121 Mo. App. 201.
Building Committee. Stantou v ranij). 4 Barb. ( N, Y. ) 274,
involved the validity of a contract for the erection of a
church edifice made by a building committee of the society
in the name of the society (Presbyterian, Packetts Harbor i.
It was held that an action could not be maintained against
the members of the committee personally.
A firm made a written proposition to the building com-
mittee of this society (Baptist, Simmons Creek), to erect a
house of worship at a price stated. The names of the
building committee did not appear in the proposition. The
proposition was accepted by two members of the building
committee. The contractors proceeded with the work and
received from the pastor money to apply on the contract. It
was held that the contract was with the building committee
as such, and not with the members as individuals, and there-
fore a personal action could not be sustained against the
members of the building committee who accepted the propo-
sition to build the church. The committee were the agents of
the church. Johnson v Welsh, 42 W. Va. 18.
An action was brought against the members of a church
building committee as individuals to recover a balance due
on a contract for repairs and additions to the church edifice.
The contract was signed by the committee, with the addition
of the words "Building Committee of the M. E. Church at
Thomaston." Tt was held that the contract was peinsonal
ACTIONS 3
and could be enforced against the members of the committee.
Copeland v Hewett, 96 Me. 525.
In Chambers v Calhoun, 18 Pa. St. 13, an action on a
subscription to aid in the erection of a church edifice was
sustained. The subscriber was a member of the building
committee to whom the subscripton was made payable, and
the action was brought by the other members of the com-
mittee, who were held entitled to maintain the action, even
though the church edifice had been erected, and the com-
mittee was out of office.
A member of a building committee who receives and uses
materials in the erection of a church building, will be per-
sonally liable therefor, if he agreed to pay the debt as one
of the committee, without limiting the extent of his obliga-
tion. Cruse V Jones, 3 Lea (Tenn.) Gfi.
In an action against the deacons and trustees of the
society (Old School Presbyterian Church) on a contract
made by a building committee for work and labor in the
erection of a church, it appeared that the contract bound the
building committee, but that there was no evidence that the
deacons and trustees had appointed the committee, or had
assumed an}' jtersonal liability on the contract. It was not
sufficient to establish the liability of the deacons and trustees
to show that they were the agents of the society. Devoss
V Cray, 22 Ohio 15!).
A question having arisen as to the action of a building
committee, the court held that it was competent for the
sjrx-iety by vote to ratify and approve the action of the com-
mittee. Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Bethlehem Con-
gregation V T"'nited States Fidelity and Cnaran+y Coiii]»any,
SI Minn. 32.
Compromise, When Effectual. Wlien a church and society
are an existing oi-gauized association, acting in a collective
quasi corporate cliaracter, an agreement of compromise of
a suit by a majority of the members is binding upon the
minority. Hoiton v Bai)tist Cliurch and Society of Chester,
::4 Vt. 309.
4 TUV: ('I\IL LAW AM) Till: ("IIIIM"!!
Corporation Against Majority of Members. Wliile it is an
apparent anomaly for a c'OTi)oralion in its artificial rapacity
to sno a majority of the individuals composing? it in their
natural capacity, it was held in Maryland that Kuch a state
of things may i)roperly occur with regard to a particular
religious corporation, and perhaps as to many others, espe-
cially where the action was begun by direction of a majority
of a quorum fixed by the charter, though such majority was
not a majority of all the trustees. For an interesting case
involving this question see African Methodist Bethel Church,
Baltimore v Carmack, 2 Md. Ch. 14.3.
Corporation, Recovering Property. The trustees were held
entitled to maintain an action to recover property, even as
against a majority of members of the society. First Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, Attica v Filkins, 3 T. & C. (N. Y.)
279.
Corporation, Against Trustees. In African Methodist
Bethel Church, Baltimore v Carmack, 2 Md. Ch. 143, it was
held that the trustees and not the congregation constituted
the corporation ; also that an action could be maintained
in the name of the church against a majority of the trustees
in their individual capacity.
Damages Against Railroad Company for Disturbing Religious
Services. In First Baptist Church in Schenectady v Troy cS:
Schenectady R. R. Co., 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 70, the church cor-
poration was held entitled to recover damages for the dis-
turbance of its religious services on the Sabbath by ringing
of bells, blowing off steam, and other noises of the railroad.
The damages were assessed at six cents. See First Baptist
Church in Schenectady v The Utica & Schenectady Railroad
Company, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 313, for a similar action by the
same society against another railroad company for a sim-
ilar disturbance of divine worship. In the latter case it
was held that damages could not be recovered for an alleged
depreciation in the church property for the reason that
such damages were too remote ; and it was also held that
an individual member of the congregation could not main-
ACTIONS 5
tain a private action for damages lor disturbing him while
attending religious service.
Debts. The property of the society was held liable lor the
payment of debts contracted b}' it in the erection of build-
ings or otherwise, and creditors might take proceedings for
the sale of the property, and the application of the proceeds
for the ])aynieut of such debts. Linn v Carson, 32 Graft.
(Va.) 170.
In Beckwith v McBride & Co., 70 Ga. (U2, it was held that
a person supplying materials for certain repairs in the
church edifice which had been ordered by individual mem-
bers of the vestr}', could not maintain an action against the
trustee of the property. He was not a party to the contract,
and it was also held that the vestry as such was not liable
for the reason that it had not acted in the matter as a body,
although individual members had assumed to make the
contract.
Ejectment. The society made a contract of settlement
with a pastor, by which he was to receive a stated salary
and the use of tlie parsonage. Tliree years later, on account
of differences arising in the cliurcli, the pastor and a part
of the congregation withdrew, and worshiped first in a hall
and then in a meetinghouse, becoming a flourishing church
without any connection with the old society. The remaining
members employed a new pastor, and continued to occupy
the original chuirh i)roperty. The old society brought an
action of ejectment against the former pastor, to recover
})Ossession of the parsonage. The court held that the facts
did not show conclusiveh' that there had been a secession
from the original society, but that all the facts should be
submitted to tlie jury. First Baptist Cliurch and Congrega-
tion v Rouse, 21 Conn. 100.
A conveyance to the trustees was held to be a conveyance
to the society', and suflicient to give the corporation the right
to maintain ejectment. Van Deuzen v Presby. Cong. 3
Keyes (N. Y.) 550.
Trustees of an unincorporated icligious society cannot
6 'riii; (IN iL LAW ANh Tin: ("iiri:cii
iiKiiiiliiiii cjccl iiicii I lo i-ccuvcr |t<)ss('ssi()ii (»!' cliiircli projicfly
coiivcvrtl ((> cci'ljiiii }^i";int<M's ;is Inislccs of :iii tiiiiiicoipor-
;ilc<I so(i('(.v. niiiidy v liinlsiill. L'!) Bnvh. (X. V.) .'51.
Elections. In I't'ople ex rcl I"'l('iiiiii<;- v II;n-t, !.'> 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. S<ei)lien's IM-olestant I-lpiscoital Clinrch of New
Yoi-k, a pari of wlioni liad been ouste<i from office, and a
si»ecial idection was ordered to fill tlie va<anci<'s caused by
such ouster, and a referee was appointed to snj»ervise such
election.
Forcible Entry and Detainer. On a division in the clinrch
i-esnlliiij; in the withdrawal of a i)ortion of the members
and the pastor, a majority placed the building in charge of
tlie jH'titioner, wlio i)nt new locks on the doors and retained
the keys. On the following Sunday a large party of the
dissentient members removed the locks and maintained
devotional exercises. Tlie petitioner brought an action for
forcible entry and detainer. It was held under the New
York Code of Civil Procedure that he was the agent of the
majority who were entitled to the possession of the church,
and could maintain the action. Central Park Baptist
Church V Patterson, 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 452.
Trustees of the society sought to maintain a proceeding
for forcible entry and detainer in their individual names,
but it was held that the title of the real property being in
the cor])oration, the proceeding must be in its name and
not in the name of the trustees. People ex rel Fulton v
Fulton, UN. Y. 94.
IVojde V IJunkle, 9 John. (N. Y'.) 147, sustained the right
of the trustees to nuiiutain a proceeding for forcible entry
and detainer against a minister and several members of the
church who had broken open the building for the purpose of
holding religions services therein
Juror. A member of the Lutheran Chur( h was held not
discpialitied as a juror in an action in which another Lu-
theran church was a jiarty. Barton v Erickson, 14 Neb. 104.
ACTIONS 7
Mechanic's Lien. Property was convoyed under special
trust that it should be always secure to the Eastern Meth-
odist Society in Lynn, "and such ministers ol" the Methodist
Kj)iscopal Church as inay from time to time be stationed
among tliem to preach and expound the word of Cod, to
administer tlie or<linances and disci])liiie of the clinrch, and
to hold their private relij;ions nieetiii«;s nniiioU'sled accord-
ing to the rnk^s and regulations wliidi are or may hereafter
be adopted by the Ceneral Conference of the Methodist Epis-
coi)a] Clinrch in the Cnited States of America." The orig-
inal trustees were held to be the legal owners of the estate,
holding it for the church. All improvements on the property
attached to the freehold, and became the property of the
original surviving trustee. The clnirch edifice having been
destroyed by fire was rebuilt. A mechanic's lien was tiled
against the property nuiking the church society the respond-
ent, but without joining the original surviving trustee. The
proceedings were deemed defective, and the lien could not
be enforced. I'eabody v Eastern Methodist Society, Lynn,
5 Allen (Mass.) 540.
Land was conveyed to trustees of a religious society on
condition that said lot was never to be sold or to be used in
any other way only for the use of a church. Trustees erected
a building on the property' w'hich was used as a school and
aLso as a house of worship. A mechanic's lien was filed on
the property, and proceedings w^ere instituted for the fore-
closure of the lien and the sale of the i)roi)erty. Judgment
was obtained, and the i)roperty sold by the sheritl' to the
judgment creditor. The grantor in the deed brought an
action to set aside the sale on the mechanic's lien on the
ground that such a lien could not be obtained on property
held in perpetuity for the purpose indicated in the deed, and
that the action of the church trustees in permitting such lien
and sale of the ])roperty was a violation of tiie trust, and
that the purchaser obtained no title as again.st the original
grantor. It was held that the sah' of the ])roi>erty 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, an<l
continued to serve tlie chui-ih until October 1."), 1889, wiien
the congregation voted that his relation to the chnrcli sliould
be terminated. The doors of the church were locked against
him, and jtayment of his salary was refuse<l. An action
was br(night to recover salary claimed to be due for a ])art
of the year, the pastor alleging that his employment was
for life, and not for any definite time. Tender the law of the
church the pastor must have been a member (»f the recognized
Evangelical Lntheian Synod in the United States. The
])astor claimed that iiis discharge was illegal. Tlu^ defend-
ants asserted that the pastor was not (lualilied, for the
reason that he was not a niend»cr of a recogiii/.ed Evangel-
ical Luthei-an Svnod of the couulrv, and th:it his continu-
10 Tur: ('i\ II. LA\\' AM) 'iiii; cm kcii
nncc ;is pMstor w;is in vioialioii ol' the law ol" tin; cIiuitIi.
Ik' liad a jn-ovisory relation to the synod a((|uiie<l in 1SS(),
but in ISSl) his relations to the syno«l were terniinale*!. His
application for membership was reje(te<l. He thereujion
ceased to be a mendier of the sj'nod, and at the same time
ceased to have the needed qualifications to entitle him to
api)ointment as i)astor. Tlie i>astor 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, an<l he per-
formed the service for six years. He then brought an action
to recover the balance due. It was held that the society
was bound to use due diligence in collecting the subscrip-
tions, and that the pastor was entitled to recover the balance
due, after deducting all amounts received by him. Myers
v Baptist Society of Jamaica, 38 Vt. 614.
In Landers v Frank Street Church, Rochester. !)7 X. Y.
119, also 114 N. Y. 620, it was held that the minister could
not maintain an action against the society for a deticiency
in his salary, it appearing that by the rules of the Methodist
Episcopal Church the minister's salary is fixed by the Quar-
terly Conference, and that no contract relation exists be-
tween the minister and the corporation as to his salary, See
also Baldwin v P"'irst M. E. Church, 79 Wash. 578.
The constitution of Massachusetts has not authorized any
teacher to recover by action at law any money assessed i)ur-
suant to the third article of the Declaration of Hights but
a public Protestant teacher of some legally incorporated
society. Therefore, a pnblic teacher chosen by a voluntary
association of Universalists was held not to be within the
purview of this constitutional provision. Barnes v First
Parish, Falmouth, 6 Mass. 401.
The pastor brought an action against the trustees of the
society to recover his salary for four years. It was held that
he was entitled to recover and that he was not prevented by
ACTIONS 11
the provision iu the Methodist Discipline providing that
effective men who have not been able to obtain their allow-
ance from the ])eople among whom tliey liave labored nmy
present a claim to the Conference to be paid out of the money
at the disposal of the Conference, and such claims may be
paid, or any i)art thereof, as tlie Conference may determine.
In no case, however, shall the church or Conference be holden
accountable for any deficiency, as in case of debt. The court
said the etfect of the provision in the Discipline was to
permit a minister to present a claim for deficiency to the
Conference, and to receive it as a favor, but not as a right.
Sudi a deficiency did not constitute a debt against the
church at large, but it might be used as the basis of an
action against the local society.
The minister who bronglit this action was also a mechanic,
and the court held that he was entitled to enforce a lien
against the church for services in that capacity. Jones v
Trustees of Mt. Zi(m Cliurch, IW La. Ann. 711.
Even if, as in some churches (in this case the Evangelical
Association), no contract was made for the payment of the
l)astor's salary, but he is de])endent on voluntary contribu-
tions for his compensation, this right to compensation is a
I)ropert3' right in the office of pastor which a court of equity
will recognize and protect. Schwciker v Husser, 140 111.
399.
A public teacher of religion not oi-daiiied ovci- a ])articular
parish or jdace, but only indefinitely over a lai-ge district of
country, including, or which may include, a nundter of par-
ishes or places, cannot maintain an action to recover moneys
assessed for the su])port of ])ublic worshii). Washburn v
Parish, West Springfield, 1 Mass. 32.
Where money for the minister's salary had been raised by
subsci-ijjtious, and was availal>le 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 <letermination of the
question as to the regnlai-i(y of Ihe action of the presbytery.
In such a case the fact tliat the action of the presbytery was
thereafter decreed to be illegal docs not aft'ect the status
of the parties during the period of litigation, and if the min-
ister seeks and secures other employment during such
period, and never offers to resume the pastoral relation, he
cannot maintain an action against the congregation for his
salary during the period from the dissolutiou of the pastoral
relation to the date of the decree declaring such dissolution
invalid. Wallace v Snodgrass, 'M l*a. Super. Ct. 551.
The I'resbytery of Oklahoma appointed the minister or
stated su])i)ly, and he was accei)ted by the church. It was
held that in the absence of any legal contract the church
became obligated to pay him a fair and just com])ensation
lor his services. If it could ol)tain aid from the Home
.Mission Board, this was its right, and after applying the
amount i»aid by such board, if there was still a balance
due to make a fair and just c()mi)ensation, it was bound
and obligated to pay such balance. In this case it was held
that there was no ex])ress contract between the nunister and
the local society. Myeis v First Presbyterian Church, Perry,
1 1 Okla. 544.
In Kilfe v Proctor, !)!> 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 <ii-onn<l ;in(l :i clinrcli site wiili hiiiiii-
inj;s jlicrcon. While tlu*y n'iiy li;iv(^ (•<M't;iin |»rop('rly rights
ill the cliurch holdings, they are not considcrefl such ones
in indivision iis give them a stainlinjf in conit to procure
against the will of the nuijority a jtartilion of that wliich,
by coninioii uiKlerstaiuling, is inlendcd to i-eiiiain intact for
the purpose of religious w'orslii]>.
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 conveye<l to a thir<l pei'son by the
original grantor. In an action by tlie church to (piiet the
title, it was hehl that the society could not hold the lands
by adverse possession, ]>artly 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 a<lvei'se ]»oss('ssion. Davis v Owen, 107 \'a. 2S:;.
Rector, Deposition, When No Action for Damages. The
society having become reduced in numbers, a minister was
sent to it as a missionary. Alter about a year's service he
resigned this ]»()sition and was elcctcfl rector by the vestry.
The rector was charged bel'oi-e a church tribunal an<l con-
victed of conduct unbecoming a chMgyman, and was
degraded ami debarred from tlie ministi-y and the l)isli(»p
imposed sentence accordingly. '^Phe rector brought an action
against a mend)er of his congregation and the bishop for
danuiges. At the trial it was held that there was no evidence
to sustain the rector's claim that the defendants liad con-
spii-ed to injnre his character as a Christian minister.
Irvine v Elliott, 20(; Pa. St. ir>2.
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 dee<l, and
correct the mistake. Trustees of Methodist Ejtiscopal I'ro-
testant Church v Adams, 4 Ore. 70.
Replevin for Seal. The rector, church wardens, etc., of
au iucorjiorated church cannot nuiintain replevin for the
corporate seal against the treasurer of the church, where a
rule of the church declares that the treasurer shall safely
keep the corporation seal. Rector, etc., v Blackhurst, 11
N. Y. Supp. (;()9.
Shakers. An action may be maintained by <leacons of a
Shaker Society for trespass on property. Anderson v Brock,
;{ Me. 243.
Specific Performance. The court decreed the specific per-
formance of a contract for the sale of the church property,
which contract had been submitted to the supreme court
and approved, with an order authorizing the sale and direct-
ing the disposition of the proceeds by the corporation.
Bowen v Irish I*resbyterian Congregation, Xew York, G
Bosw. (N. Y.) 245.
Title, Action To Compel Conveyance. A subscriber to a fund
for the erection of a church edifice donated two lots in pay-
ment of his subscription, and the society erected its meeting
house on the land. No deed was made, but the society can-
celed the subscription, and the subscriber indicated the dona-
tion on the map of a tract including these lots and others.
The society was held entitled to maintain action to compel
the conveyance of the land. Enos v Chestnut, 88 111. 500.
Trespass. Trustees de facto may maintain an action for
trespass on i)r()i)erty. Green v Cady. !» Wend. ( N. Y. I 414.
ACTIONS 17
After thirty years ol' uiiiuterrui)ted possession ol' property
(Cherokee Chapel, Fort Smith, Ark.) the society was pre-
sumed to have obtained the title thereto. It was further
held that the trustees mij^ht brinj; an action for tres-
pass on the pro])erty, for di*ij>ing 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<l as to them. The trustees merely
hold the legal title to the real estate conveyed, devised, or
dedicated for the use and benefit of the religious congrega-
tion, at whose instance they have been ai»pointe<l, and they
have no i)()wer of their own volition, ami in their capacity
as trustees, either to alien or encumber such real estate.
Globe Furniture Company v Trustees, Jerusalem Bajttist
Cliurch, 10;{ Va. ry^yU.
A building contract was signed by the jtresidenl of the
society, which was not incorporate<l. It was held that llie
society was not a necessary or ])roi)er party in an action
against the trustees on the contract. Such a contract, e.\e-
cuted by the authority of the trustees, will be treated as
their contract ami mav be enforcc'd in an action .igainst
Is Till-: CI NIL LAW AM» '11 1 1! r|H K'(||
llu'iii. Lmisloid ^; Williiow < 'uiiip;iiiy \ W'icii. <;| W . \";i.
458.
If the Icnijioriilil ics jii'c iiiiiiiiij;('(l l»y Inistccs chMlcd uiMl«*r
tlu* statute, tlic niliii<i; elders and ineiidM-rs of the session
have no staiidiiij; to maintain an a«i ion in tlieii- own name or
the name of the coriioralion aj^ainst li-nstees allej^ecl to have
been suspended by the session as (•ommunicants, and tliere-
fore not ('iilille(l lo ;irt as trustees. Westminster Pres.
(Miuirh V Findley, 44 Misc. (N. V.) 17:!.
Several mend)ers of the societj' bi-oujj^ht an action a<;ainst
other nienibers described as trustees for an ac<-ountinji of
certain funds belon<;in;^ to the society, and for an injunction
restraining- the trustees from continuinji; the use of instru-
mental music (an organ), which was alleged to have been
introduced by them contrary to the custom of the church.
It was held that the plaintitfs had uo standing to nmintain
an action and that the action was not properly brought
against the defendants describing them as trustees but that
the action should have been brought against the corporation.
Tartar v Gibbs, 24 Md. 323.
Trustees, De Facto. The trustees of a religious corporation
and officers appointed by them whose elections and appoint-
ments were in conformity with the formalities prescribe<l
by the statute, and who have in fact acted and are acting
as such, are at least officers de facto, upon whom alone a
valid service of process can be made. Berrian v Methodist
Society, New York, 4 Abb. Pr. ( N. Y.) 424.
Trustees, Illinois Rule. In Illinois actions by or against
religious societies must be in the name of the trustees
instead of the society as such. Ada St. Methodist Episcopal
Church V Gavusey, (it; 111. 132.
Trustees, New York Rule. Trustees of religious societies
cannot sue as such excei)t by tlieir corporate name or title.
Bundy v Birdsall, 20 Barb. ( N. Y.» 31.
Trustees, Restraining Unauthorized Acts. This society was
incorporated in 17S8 by special act. The charter was
amended in 1837 by providing that the church belonging to
ACTIONS 19
llie (jeniiaii Kelijiioiis Society of Roniaii Catholics, called
the Holy Trinity Cliurch, in the city of Thiladelphia, shall
be continued as a German Roman Catholic church, and con-
ducted according to the provisions of the act incorporating
the said church, so long as the same should be required, by
at least twenty regular contributing members, qualified to
vote at the elections held under the said act of incov])ora-
tion.
The board of trustees was regularly elected in due course
according to the charter in 1850, and on the 2yth of Novem-
ber, 1850, executed a deed of all the corporate i)roperty
owned by the societj^ to the three pastors of the church, in
trust for various purposes, including renting of pews and
interments in the burial ground. All receipts and income
to be ajiplied to the support of the pastors of the church,
and to the expenses of the church and to the liquidation of
the existing debt. A school maintained by the society, as
authorized by the original charter, was to be free by the
|»rovisiou of this deed.
Several nunnbers of the church objected to this transfer
of the title from the corporation to the pastors, and applied
for an injunction restraining its consummation and any
liirther exercise of authority by the trustees or pastors, and
also the appointment of a trustee by the court to take charge
of the i)roi)erty. The plaintiffs alleged n»ismanagement by
the board of trustees. The court held that tlie deed from
the board of trustees to the pastors was in excess of the
authority vested in the board by the charter, and the deed
was, therefore, invalid. The coui-t also held that the jdain-
tiffs, as members of the chui-di. could maintain an adiun to
set asi<le the conveyance by the trustees, and restrain rurtlicr
operations by the pastors ]»en(Iiiig the determination of the
issues. Langolf v Seiberlitch, '2 I'arsons l^cjuily Cases,
(Pa.) (54.
Trustees, Right to Sue. In an action brought l»y trustees
in their own names, for the use of the corporation of which
they are oHIcers, the couit may reiidei- jndgiiient lor llie cor-
I'O Tin: ri\ IL LAW AM) Till: CIHIiCII
|)(H-iili(»ii. Lcllwi^ iiiid Ji;ii'loii, lor llu; Mctli. \1[k (.'li. v
Tiioniloii, IS la. r>(\.
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 subse<iuently ratify it, become per-
sonally liable. Burton v Grand Kapids School Furniture
Comi)any. 10 Tex. (Mv. Rep. 270.
Unincorporated Society. The trustees de tacto of an unin-
corporated society may maintain an action for trespass on
the society's i^roperty. Green v Cady, Wend. (N. Y.) 414.
AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL
CHURCH
Organization, 21.
Amending charter, 21.
Dismissing pastor, 21.
Municipal ordinance against meetings, 21.
Organization. lu 181(1 the Atrioaii Methodist Episcopal
Church separated from the white Methodists and promul-
gated their Book of Doctrine and Discipline. The doctrine
and discipline of this church is fashioned in a great measure
after that of the white Methodist Episcopal Church in Eng-
land and America ; in which the election and ordaining of
the priesthood by the General or Annual Conferences, the
ordiniilion of them by laying on of hands by a bishop and
elders, and the fixing of their appointments by the bishop,
ai'e cardinal points, the last of them a distinctive one. It
is (he rock on which the church is founded, and on which it
has ]>ros])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 reforme<l
church, with great care, in convocation, as containing the
fundamental truths deducihle, in tlieir jmlgment, from
Scripture, and the Legislature has adopted and established
them as the doctrines of our church, down to the present
time." The purpose for which these articles were designed
is stated to be, the avoiding the diversities of oi)inions, and
the establishing of consent touching true religion. The
defendant was deemed to have violated the articles by
preaching doctrines contrary thereto, and a sentence of
deprivation was pronounced against him.
24
ASSOCIATE REFORMED CHURCH
History and form of government, 25.
Described, 26.
Synod, power, 27.
Union of Associate and Associate Reformed Churches, 27.
llnion with Presbyterian Church, 2S.
Missions, bequests sustained, 29.
History and Form of Government. The Associate Reformed
Church ill this loimliy ori^'iiiatcd in the union of two bodies
of Scotch Presbyterians, known as the Associate and the
Kcform Presbyterian Churclies. This union was accom-
plished in 1782.
In 1850 negotiations were entered into for a union of the
Associate and the Associate Kefornied Churches. These
negotiations were coiuluctcd by the general synods of the
churches, and at length in 1858, resulted in a union of these
two bodies, and the formation of a general assembly embrac-
ing the particuhii' synods and in'csbyteries of the Associate
and Associate Reformed Churches. This union was an act
of the general synods of the two bodies exclusively.
This is a Presbyterian Church adhering to a government
by presbyters or ministers of equal grade, and ruling elders
chosen by the congregations. This government is adminis-
tered through church sessions or congregational judica-
tories, through presbyteries consisting of the ministers of a
certain district, together with a ruling elder from each con-
gregation, and through jiarticular and general synods which
are constituted from the jiresbyteries.
The Synod of New York has occui»ied the position and
relations of a particular synod in the Associate Reformed
Church, at least since 1855, in whicji year it united with
other ])aTticuhn' synods of the same coninumion, known as
I'd Till': ('i\ii, LAW AM) 'riii; ciiinrii
llic Synods ol' llic W'csl, and a Itody was consl i hih-d oul ol"
I lie union slylcd iIh* General Synod of tin- AssociaU; Ke-
loi-nicd Clmrcli.
The orjjjaiiization ol' these pai'licnlar syiw^ds, incliidin;; thii
Synod of New York, consists of a moderator, or jiresidinj^
(►nicer, and a clerlv. Tlie moderator is chosen by each annual
synod to preside dnrinj; tliat synod, and it is also his duty
to open tlie session of the next ensuing synod, and to con-
duct its i)roceedin<'s until it has itself become organized by
the choice of its own moderator. The book of discipline and
church government of the Associate Reformed Church
expressly required that every stated meeting of a syno<l
shall be opened with a sermon and i)rayer b}' the moderator
of the last assembly', and that he shall preside until another
moderator shall be chosen. This is the only and recognized
mode of ])rocedure in these assemblies; unless the last mod-
erator is absent, when the oldest minister present is to take
his place. Peoide v Farrington, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 204.
Described. In lSo7 there were in New Y'ork nineteen
societies, or congregations, duly incorporated under the law
of that State and professing the same articles of faith, the
came church discipline, and governed by one and the same
.synod, or church judicatory, called "the Associate Reformed
Synod of New York," and forming a distinct body of Chris-
tians, under the general denomination of the Associate
Reformed Church. And their established form of govern-
ment is Presbyterian, having sessions, presbyteries, and
synods. In the jeiw ISOl they had thirty congregations,
with settled ministers, divided into seven presbyteries,
namely: The Presbytery of Washington and of New York,
in the State of New York; the first and second of Pennsyl-
vania ; the first and second of Carolinas and Georgia, an<l
one of Kentucky; and those presbyteries met and formed a
synod, called "The As.sociate Reformed Synod.'' In 1S02.
this Associate Reformed Synod was divided into four par-
ticular synods, and a General Synod was at the same time
formed, to hold its first meeting at Greencastle. on the last
ASSOCIATE KHFOKMIOI) CilLKCU '21
Wednesday of May, 1804. This General Synod met annu-
ally, and the chuicli continued under this organization until
1822. In that year the General Synod formed a union with
the general as.sembly of the Presbyterian Church. The Asso-
ciate Reformed Church has existed in this country for many
years, as a sei)arate or distinct brancli of the Christian
Church. In tlie year 1T1)() it was composed of several presby-
teries, and one synod called "the Associate Reformed
Synod," which consisted of those presbyteries met together
for mutual assistance, and for managing the atlairs of the
church under its care. This form of government by presby-
teries and one synod, continued until 1802, during all which
time this associate synod was the supreme head of the
church, as to its government and order. In 1802 the synod,
by the assent of the i)resbyteries, I'csolved to divide itself
into four particular synods, and to form a general synod,
which held its first meeting at Greencastle, in Pennsylvania,
on the last AVednesday of Jsh\}\ 1804. This general synod
was com])osed of delegates from the several presbyteries,
with powers expressly defined in their constitution. In 1822
b\^ the articles of union between the Associate Reformed
Church and the Presbyterian Church, the Associate Re-
formed Church was merged in the Presbyterian Church.
This attempted union was invalid. Ti'ustees Associate Re-
formed Church V Trustees Theological Seminary, 4 N. J.
Eq. 77.
Synod, Power. In Trustees Associate Reformed Church v
Trustees Theological Seminary, 4 X. J. Ia{. 77, it was held
that the General Syu«Ml of the Associate Reformed ('hurch
had, by the constitiition of the s;iid church, no authority to
do any act, or make any regulation which iulerfei-es with
the established order of the <Iiui-(li ; therefore that the art
of union between the General t^ynod of the Associate Re-
formed Church, and the General Assembly of the Presby-
terian Church, adoi)ted on the 21st day of May, 1S22, is
invalid.
Union of Associate and Associate Reformed Churches. The
L'S TIIK ('l\ll. LAW AM) Till: (III ItCII
subject ol" union hctwfi'n the Associate and Associate IJe-
foi'ined Churclies Iiad been agitated, contemplated, and dis-
cussed l)v tile inembei-s, sessions. |»resl»3'tei-ies, and synods *)f
the resi)ective churches for a period of more than tifteen
years; the subject having engaged no small share of the
attention of Associate SvuckIs since 1S41, when a committee
on the subject was first a])])ointed by the synod. In
1S5G, by the action of the Associate Synod, the basis of union
was sent down in overtui-e to the ])resbyteries and sessions
to report thereon at the next meeting of the synod. In l!S57
the l*resbytery of Iowa, through whi(h the sessions within
its jurisdiction made their returns or reports to the synod,
reported nuauimously in favor of the adoi)tion of the basis
of union without proposing any amendment. McBride v
J'orter, 17 la. 204. See I/nited Presbyterian (linrcii.
Union with Presbyterian Church. The Associate Keformed
Church of Newbnrgh, New York, was incorporated under
the New York religious c()ri)orati()iis act of 1813. At the
time of the decision in this case there were seventeen other
Associate Reformed Churches in the State of New York,
incorporated under the same act, associated with the com-
plainants, professing the same articles of faith, the same
church discipline, and governed by one and the same synod,
or church judicatory, called the Associate Reformed Synod
of New York, forming a distinct body of Christians, under
the general denomination of the Associate Reformed Church.
Their established form of government was ])resl)vterial. hav-
ing sessions, presbyteries, and synods. The denomination
had congregations and presbyteries in different parts of the
country, which presbyteries met and formed a synod called
the Associate Reformed Synod. A theological school was
established in New York in 1802. The same year the Asso-
ciate Reformed Synod was divided into four jKirticular
synods, and a General S^nod was at the same time formed.
This General Synod met first in 1804, and the church con-
tinued under this organization until 1S22. During all this
time the librarv of the theological seminarv and the church
ASSOCIATE REFORMED CHURCU L'O
fimds were in the custody of thi.s General Synod, who by the
consent of the church exercises general superintendence over
their property and funds. In 1822 the General Synod
formed a union with the General Assembly of the Presby-
terian Church under articles of agreement which permitted
the presbyteries of the Associate Ciiurch, at their election,
to continue a separate organization, or amalgamate with the
General Assend^ly of the I'resbyterian Churdi, and which
l)rovi(led for tlie consolidation of the theological seminary in
New York and the theological seminary at Trinceton, New
Jersey. Following this consolidation, tlie library and funds
of <he theological seminary in New York wei-e transferred
(o the seminary at I'rincelon. Several congregations of the
Associate Reformed Church declined to amalgamate with
the Presbylei-ian Asseml)ly, and conlinue*! tlieir independent
existence undci- (he name of the Associate Reformed Synod
of New York. In this case it was held, among other things,
that ''the General Synod liad no authority to do any act, or
make any regulation which should interfere with the estab-
lislied order of the church." It was the obvious inteuticm of
those who formed the union, that the Associate Reformed
Church should be merged in the l^resbyterian Church to all
intents and purjioses. It was held that the union was
invalid, and that ihe Associate Reformed Church still had
tlie same rights and interests in the books and funds that
they had before the adoption of the articles of union. Asso-
(iate Reformed Churcli v Trustees, Theological Seminary,
Princeton, 4 N. J. Eq. 77.
Missions, Bequests Sustained. In Dickson v Montgomery,
1 Swan (Tenn.) 348, be(piests were sustained for home and
foreign missions and for the education of ministers under
the direction of the Associate Reformed Synod of the South.
BAPTIST CHURCH
Articles of faith may be altered, 30.
Bajitist Assofiation, 31.
ConproKation, powers, 32.
Creed, 32.
English toleration, 32.
Government, 33.
Majority may control property, 34.
Minority, right to control property, 35.
Missions, 3G.
Officers, 36.
Pastor, how settled, 37.
Property, control of, 37.
Texas General Convention, 37.
Articles of Faith May Be Altered. The First rinirch of
Dayton, Ohio, was established in 1824, under a form of faith
professed by those who called themselves I'articular Bap-
tists. In July, 1827, the articles of faith were abrogated.
In November of the same year trustees, who had been elected
in September, took title to land as trustees of tlie society,
lender the statute, the trustees became a corporation, and
the title to the laud became vested in the trustees as a cor-
l)oration. A house of worship was erected with contribu-
tions from members of tlie society and others. In March,
1829, Mr. Keyser, one of the trustees, was excluded from the
society on charges, and another trustee was elected in his
place.
On llie ."list of the same montli, all former creeds and
symbols were abolished by the society, and a new covenant
introduced by which the New Testament was declared the
only rule of faith and practice. Keyser and another trustee
brought an action alleging that by the change of the articles
of faith the society ha«l ceased to be the First Baptist
30
BAPTIST CHI RCn SI
Churcli, and that all the rij>hts, 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 min<n-ity (lecided that the majoi'ity faction
had departed from the faith of the church. Ti>e 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 receive<l, and
its nM'ss('nj;(M' scatc*!. Tlic letter fi-oni tlie niajoi'ity was
refnsed, and its niessenjuers were not admitted, on the
ground that I lie majority had departed from the articles of
faitli. The court lield tliat while tlie aetion of the councils
and associalion was only advisory, the decision of the asso-
cialion based on letters from each faction was entitled to
••reat weij^ht, and mi«;lit safely be followe<l by llie c(niit.
Smith et al v re<ligo et al, U5 Ind. :j(il.
Windham v Ulmer, 51) So. (Miss.) 810.
Congregation, Powers, The con«;regation, by a large
majority, adojiled a resolution requesting tlie pastor to
resign, and notice was given to the pastor accordingly,
who 1 hereafter entei-ed the church on several occasions, with
force ami violence, and continued to exercise, or attemi»ted
to exercise, the functions of pastor of the church in viola-
tion of the resolution. The congregation is the sole legisla-
tive and judicial body of the Baptist Church. Those who
connect themselves with it voluntarily assume the risk of
the pro])riety and justice of congregational action, just as
those who become I'resbyterians or Episcopalians subject
themselves in church affairs to the authority of synods and
councils. The court sustained the resolution excluding
the jjastor from oitice, and enjoined him from further use of
the church in an official capacity. Morris Street Baptist
Church V Dart, (17 S. C. 3nS.
Creed. The faith of the Baptist denomination is Calviu-
istic, and it is briefly stated as follows : ''the belief in orig-
inal sin or total depravity, predestination, particular
redemi)tion, eflectual calling and perseverance of the saints."
l»ark v Chaplin. 1)0 la. 55.
English Toleration. "The Bai)tists are persons the Legis-
lature have thought i)roper so far to countenance as a de-
nomination of Christians as to extend the toleration to
them, standing on the same footing as Quakers, another
si)ecies of dissenters.'' A charity for the beuelit of a Baptist
BAPTIST CHURCH 33
minister was sustained in Attorney-General v Cock, 2 Ves.
Sen. (Eng.) 273.
Government. The government of Baptist churches is
purely congregational, wherein the majority vote of the
church controls. It has its associations and conventions,
voluntiirily formed for certain purposes, but these are not
impowered, and did not assume to exercise authority over
the actions of the churches. Councils are constituted for
purposes ]>urely 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<M y (if liiiiil rcxisdi-y power, in l>;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 <lislri<t aiul State, exist, llicy jxjsst'ss
neither ai)i)ellate jurisdiction nor revisory jjower, Init may
advise the ehnrches, withont in any way Idndinj^ Ihc latter to
accept such advice. In the ]>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 a<lvancement of which the church was
organized, and that a court of ecpiity would interfere to i»ro-
tect the minority in having the trust property applied in
accord with the original intent. The decision of tlie council
was binding on tlie majority. Mt. Zion Baptist Churdi v
Whitmore, 8;{ la. 1:58.
A faction in tliis society re])u<liate(l the name ''I>a]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|ilc<I iiislcijd llic iijiiiic '•'I'alier-
iKide of Christ," (Iius clianfiiiijj; Ilic (Icsignatioii of Ilic cliurch
from Mt. ]I('lin lijiptist Clmrcli lo tlie *'(.'lnii-( li of (io«l,
Tabcriiaclo of Clirisf." Tlicy (•xi)r(\ssly T-cpiwlialcil wll «'rce<l«
and <len()iiiiiiati()iis as iiian-niade devices. This faction
elected new trustees, and directed them to j)i'ocure i)os-
session of the clnirch i)roperty. It was hehl that tliis fac-
tion, though constituting a majority of the society, iiad no
right to the ])roperty, and that the minority wliich retained
the name and faith of the original society, was entitle<l to
the possession and control of such property. ^Mt. Ilelm
Baptist Church v Jones, 70 Miss. 488.
Missions. I'roperty owned by the Maine Baptist Mission-
ary Convention, a corporation organized for the promulga-
tion and diJfusion of Christian knowledge and intelligence
through their agency as an institution of domestic missions,
was held exempt from taxation. Maine Baptist Missionary-
Convention V Portland, Or) Me. 02.
Testatrix bequeathed the residue of her estate to the Evan-
gelical Baptist Benevolent and Missionary Society for the
benefit of poor churches of the city of Boston ami vicinity.
The society was chartered in 1857 for the purpose of secur-
ing the constant maintenance in Boj^ton of evangelical
preaching for the young and destitute, with free seats; for
the employment of colporteurs and missionary laborers in
Boston and elsewhere; for the purpose of providing suitable
central apartments to other and kindred benevolent and mis-
sionar}' societies, and for the general purj)ose of ministering
to the spiritual wants of the needy and destitute. The be-
quest was held to be a public charity and was valid. Mc-
Alister v Burgess, 1(>1 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 boar<l
of missions was established. About 18J)4 a controversy
arose concerning the work and ollicers of the board. The
controversy relating to the administration of the affairs of
the convention was carried into that body at its meeting
in 1807. The plaintiff', who was the cditoi- of the leading
430506
;:s T\\\: cix ii. law and tiii; ("IIiijcii
JJ;i|)(isl jx'riod'ual in Texas, had made sctiiic ( ril icisins on
the a«liiiiiiistration. At the meetinj; in ls!>7 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]ie<l by
one of the defendants. It was held that tln^ publication of
<'harji;es of dishonorable conduct and moral unfitness was
libelous per se. Cranfill v Hayden, 1)7 Texas 544.
BELLS
Chime, bequest sustained, 39.
l-'ixturc, 39.
Injunction against ringing, 39.
Nuisance, 40.
Chime, Bequest Sustained. Testator bequeathed to the
wardens and vestrymen of this society money to be used lor
the i^urcliase of a chime of bells for the benelit of the church.
The society was incorporated. The corporation was held
entitled to take by will, and the bequest was sustained.
Eastman's Estate, GO Cal. 308.
Fixture. A bell had been used in the belfry of an old
church building of a religious society. A new building was
erected and the old one sold, the bell being reserved. A
tower was erected on the new building for the bell, and a
tem])orary framework was also erected on the lot, upon
wliich the bell was placed and used for church purposes,
with the intention on the part of the authorities of the
society to i)lace it permanentlj' in the tower. It remained
in the temporary frame for nearly a year, and was then
removed to the place designed for it. It was held that it
never ceased to be a fixture, and tliat it was not subject to a
kn^y of an execution as ])ers()nal property. Congregational
Society, Dubuque v Fleming, 11 la. 5.'>8.
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 evi<lence showed that bells were rung live limes
each day, five days in the week, six times on Satnrday, and
39
Ill 'I'm; riN'ii. i,.\w AM) 'I'lii: ciii kcii
otlc'iicr on Siimhiy, ;il lirsl Ix-Liimiiiiy; Jis curly ;is livr A. M.
and Ix'iiij; riiiij; lioiii fiNc lo Icii minutes each time.
Wlu'ro it is cjciu- llml llic striking of a clock, and the
ringinj; of a chime of hells from a church tower interferes
with tlie y)hysical comfort of ordinary persons livinj; adja-
cent thereto, an injunction will lie to restrain the striking
of the clock during the night and the ringing of the chimes
exce])t as a summons to religious worshij). Leete v Pilgrim
Congregational Society, 14 Mo. Aj*]). 51)0.
It ai)i)eared that the hells of a church were hung at such
a level in their i»ro\imity to surrounding buildings as to
cause such an annoyance as amonnt(-d to a serious injury to
the ]jersons residing in the neighhorhood. An injunction
was granted restraining the ringing of the bells. Harrison
V St. Mark's Church, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 259.
Nuisance. A person living near a church in which a bell
was rung for ordinary church services and purposes was by
the ringing of the bell thrown into convulsions while suffer-
ing from sunstroke, and his recovery was thereby retarded.
It was held that the custodian of the church, whose duty
was to ring the bell, was not liable as for maintaining a
nuisance. Kogers v Elliott, 14G Mass. 349.
BIBLE
inspii-ation, 41.
New Testament, 41.
Not a sectarian book, 41.
Old Testament, 42.
Protestant translations, 42.
Schools, use in, 43.
Versions, King James and Douay compared, 46.
Inspiration. See Gudiuiindson v Tliiiigvalla Lutlierau
Cliui'ch, 150 N. ^V. (N. I).) 750, for an interesting discnssion
of the doctrine of tlie inspiration of the Bible, especially
as applied by Lutherans.
New Testament. Used in administering oaths. Rex v
liosworth, 2 Str. (Eng.) IIUJ.
Not a Sectarian Book. In Hackett v Brooksville Graded
School Disli-ict, 27 Ky. L. 1021, considering- the quest i<»ii
whether the King -lames version of the Bible, or any version,
could be considered a sectarian book, the court said :
"There is ])erha])s no book that is so widely used and so
highly res]>ected 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 <u"
three centuries before the beginning of Ihe (Miiislian era.
And since the discovery of the art of jtrinting and Ihe manu-
facture of paper in the sixteenth century a great many
<'ditions of it have been ])rinted.
"The result has been Ihiit while many editions of the
sevei-al trjinslntions luive bi'cn iiuide. those b;ised upon Ihe
41
42 'iMir: ('i\ II. LAW AM) Till: ("iniccn
revision coiiipilctl iimlci- llic rcij^ii of Kiiij;' .lames I, 1(»()7-
KJll, iiiKJ \(M-_v ;^<'iier;illy used l»y ri'olestaiils. and tli(; one
compiled at Doiiay some lime |»re\i()ns, and wliicli was later
adopted by the Konian Calliolic Clnii-cli, as tlio only
authentic version, are the most commonly used in this
country.
"That the Bible, or any particular edition, has l)een
adopted by one or more denominations as authentic, or by
them asserted to be inspired, cannot make it a sectarian
book. The book itself, to be sectarian, must show that it
teaches the peculiar dogmas of a sect as such, and not alone
that it is so comprehensive as to include them by the ])artial
interpretation of its adherents. It is not the authorship,
nor mechanical composition of the book, nor the use of it,
but its contents that give it its character. The history of
a religion including its teachings and claim of authority, as,
for example, the writings of Confucius or Mohammed, might
be profitably studied. Why may not also the wisdom of
Solomon and the life of Christ? If the same things were in
any other book than the Bible, it would not be doubted that
it was within the discretion of the school boards and teach-
ers whether it was expedient to include them in the com-
mon school course of study without violating the impar-
tiality of the law concerning religious beliefs."
Old Testament. Used in administering oaths to Jews. Rex
V Bosworth, 2 Str. (Eng.) 1113.
Protestant Translations. For more than three centuries it
has been the boast and exultation of the Protestants, and a
complaint and grievance of the Ronuin Catholics that the
various translations of the Bible, es]tecially of the Xew
Testament, into the vernacular of ditlereut peoples, have
been the chief controversial weapon of the former, and the
principal cause of the undoing of the latter. For the making
of such translations, Wyclitfe, Luther, Tyndale, and others
have been commended and glorilied by one party, and de-
nounced and anathematized by the other. Books containing
such translations have been committed to the flames as
BIBLE 4:1
heretical, and their translators, printers, jniblishers, and dis-
tribntors i)ersecnted, inii)risoned, tortnred, and i)nt to death
for participating? in their production and distribution.
State V i^clieve, 05 Xeb. 853.
Schools, Use in. The directors of the public scliool per-
mitted the rea<ling- of the I'rotestant, or King James, version
of the Bible in the school, and also the singing of I'rotestant
hymns. The jdaintiffs, Koman Catholics, protested against
the King James version, insisting that the only correct ver-
sion was that known as the Douay version. The reading of
the Bible in the school was without note or comment, and
was not intended for the purpose of imi)arting religious
instruction. It appeared that a convenient room was set
apart for the use of Roman Catholic children during tlie
opening exercises, and that they were not compelled to
attend such opening exercises where the Bible was read, and
the hymns being snng.
One objection made by plaintiffs to the use of the Bible in
the schools under defendants' control is that they use the
Protestant, or King James version, which idaintilfs believe
to be sectarian in character, and which has been so declared
by the highest ecclesiastical court of the church to which the
plaintiffs belong; and by the same tribunal has been declared
an incorrect translation of the original writings through
which the Deity has made himself known to men; also that
the said I'rotestant Bible is incomplete, many portions of
the true Bible liaving been omitted or excluded therefrom;
and that the Douay version is the only correct one. The
school directors maintained that the King James version
was more nearly correct than the Douay version. The conrt
said : "We have not been able to find authority or prefer-
ence given by our law to any particular version of the
Scriptures of truth, and must therefore conclude tliat all
versions stand equal before the law. If the school directors
have power to authorize the use of one version in the public
schools, they had power to authorize the use of the other."
The Bible is not sectarian iii a legal sense.
44 Tin: ('l\ IL LAW AMI Till: ("III IJCH
'i'iic [•riii(i|ilc on wliirli scIkmOs wcic <'sliibli.slu;(l was not
a iT^Mi'd lor Hh- cliildicii ;is iiuli\ idiia Is, Iml as a part of an
or^ianizcd coinnuinit y. 1'Im* schools are a means adoptc*! by
llu' stale to woi'k out a liiyliei- rivilizalion and Ji-ecdoni.
They have not been lonndcd Tor inivalc bcnclit. I»nt lor the
l»nhli(' weal. They are the ontjjji'owlh of stale policy for the
encouragement of virtue and the i)revention of vice and
innnorality, and are based upon i)nblic conviction of what is
necessary for jnddic safely.
Education comprehends all that .series of insti'iwtion and
discipline whicl) is intended to enlip;hten the understanding,
correct the temper, and form manners and habits of jouth,
and fit them for usefulness in their future stations.
The morality which the state deems it important to culti-
vate must be tlie morality which is rejiarded necessary for
the support of the laws and institutions of the state; this
must be the morality on which they are based, and this is
the morality of the Bible. It would seem to follow, there-
fore, that the source of that morality is not excluded, but
that the Bible may be used for moral culture of the pupils
in the public schools. Hart v Sclnxd District, Throopsville,
2 Lancaster Law Ke. (Pa.) :U7.
The use in the public schools for fifteen minutes at the
close of each day's session, as a supplemental textbook, or
reading, of a book entitled "Readings from the Bible." which
is largely made up of extracts from the Bible, emphasizing
the moral ])recei)ts of the Ten Conunandments. where the
teacher is forbidden to make any comment upon the matter
therein contained, and is required to excuse from that part
of the session any pui>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: <I\'IL LAW AM) Till: (lirKCH
(•|;issi(s (»r <»iir iilciM t iiic it shimis picciiiiiicnl. The iMct
that the Kin«^ James translation may be used to inculcate
sectarian doctrines atloi-ds ua pn'suin[)tion that it will he
so used. The law does not forbid the use of the Bible in
either version in tlie public schools; it is not proscribed
either by the constitution or the statutes, and the courts
have no right to declare its use to be unlawful because it is
l>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<licial question ; it belongs to the schocd authorities,
not to the courts. State v Scheve, (55 Neb. 85:>.
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 suggeste<l
seems to have grown as the church nuMubershij) increased,
and in 1880 there was a wide «litl'erence of view between
the several congregations, an<l between the members of the
same congregation, rchitive to nniny ]>ractices 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<ler that relating to religious societies, is not exempt from
taxation under the statute (revised statutes, cha]>. 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 an<l use it for the benetit of the Methodist Church of
Warren Connty, one party claiming under an appointment
by a Quarterly Conference of the church, and the other
under a grant from the superior court, it was held that the
matter could not be determined on the application for an
injunction, but that the })arties would be left to their i-emedy
by <pio warranto. Harris v Founds, ()4 (ia. 121.
Traffic, Limitation. Sec. 5J) of the Illinois Criminal Code,
nuiking it a ])enal offense for any one. without ]»erinission of
those in charge of a camj) meeting, to establish any tent,
booth, or ])lace for vending provisions or refreshments
within one nnle of such meeting, with a proviso that any one
who has his regular place of business within such limits
shall not be required to suspend his business, is not invalid,
as being in restraint of trade, or creating a monopoly, or
making discrimination.s, but is a valid law tending to
prevent disturbance and disorderly conduct. The act is
a mere police regulation, and one within the legislative
I)ower.
The proviso in the act that whoever has his regular place
of business within such limits is not hereby required to
suspend his business, was not intended to be limited to those
who might have a busitiess within the prescribed limits at
the tiuje the act was jiassed but applies equally to all wlu)
may, in good faith, establish a place of business therein at
CAMI» MEKTINCJS 57
any time when no camp meeting is in piogiess or being car-
ried on.
The court does not hold that a person on the eve of a
meeting to be held will have the right to establish a booth for
the sale of provisions for a short period, or during a ses-
sion of a meeting, and claim protection under the proviso.
To avail of the law he must have established a regular per-
manent business. When that has been done he will not be
required to suspend during the time a meeting is held. The
act does not confer i)ower on those in charge of camp meet-
ings to license the sale of provisions and refreshments. The
fact that it confers on such authorities the right to consent
or refuse consent cannot be held to authorize them to
license. Meyers v Baker, 120 Til. 507.
The rennsjlvania act of 1822 prohibited the sale of ar-
ticles of traffic, s])irituous liquors, wine, porter, beer, cider,
or any other fermented, mixed or strong drinks within three
miles of a camp meeting. It was held that the prohibition
was not directed against all articles of traffic, but only
against liquors described in the statute, and therefore that
a seizure and the sale of other articles of traffic kept by a
huckster within the prohibited distance of a camp meeting
was illegal. Kramer v Marks, (U l*a. St. 151.
In Commonwealth v Bearse, 182 Mass. 542, the court sus-
tained as constitutional the Massachusetts act of 18G7, chap.
50, which prohibited establishing and maintaining a build-
ing for vending provisions and refreshments within one
mile of the i)lace of holding a camp meeting for religious
jturposes during the time the meeting was held, without the
consent of the authorities or persons in charge of such
meeting.
See the article on spiritualists for a special case under a
Massachusetts statute.
cemetp:ry
Access to lot, 5S.
Advorse possession, .58.
Churchyard, 59.
Disinterment, State control, 59.
Ec(;lesiastical jurisdiction, 00.
l''ree burial ground, 00.
Legislatiu-e, i)o\ver to direct sale, GO.
Lot owner's right, 01.
Mechanic's lien, 03.
Municipal ordinance, 03.
Park, taking for, 04.
Roman Catholic, reUgious test, 04.
Sale, appUcation of proceeds, reinterment, 04.
Suicide, 05.
Title, lease or fee, 05.
Title of grantee of lot, 05.
Tomb, English rule, 05.
Tomb owner's right, 05.
Tombstone, title, 00.
Access to Lot. The purchaser of a lot in a church cemetery
acquires thereby a right of access to the lot, and the chnrcli
authorities cannot obstruct an ayeniie as laid down on the
cemetery map, wiiich leads to the lot or is conyenient for
the purpose of access thereto. Sudi an ayenue becomes a
servitude, which cannot be disturbed. Burke v Wall, 2!l
La. Ann. ^8.
Adverse Possession. In is:!:i land was conveyed to the
trustees of this society intended for a burial ground, but the
]>ur])ose was not stated in the deed. "NVliile the deed was
<lefective in not containinj;- a statement of its pnrj>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
ma<le in the dcfenchmt's cemetery at Cypress Hills, friends
of the decease<l proposed to disinter the remains for burial in
another cenieter3\ The application was refused by the
society ujton tlie ground that such disinterment was forbid-
den by the dewish law. The ([ueslion of disintcii-ing remains
in the Jewish cemetery must, in the altseuce oT a itositixc
rule of the societv, be detcrniincd Ii\- ihc cdiiri. In iliis (-.•isc
m TiiK cniL LAW AM) TJii: cmiicii
.1 jn(l<;nioiit w;is rondcrcd directing tin; i-(Mim)v;i1 of llu; nv
iiKiins. ColuMi V (^mgrcgntion Sliearith Israel, 111 A\)]). Div.
( N. Y. ) 11 7.
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. The interment of the (lead is
a mailer which, wilhin limits, may be with entire jiropriety
brought within ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Such ecclesias-
tical jurisdiction cannot restrict the ])olice j)ower of the
State, but it may jirescribe rules for the government of a
cemetery, where those in interest place the cemetery under
its authority. In exei-cising jurisdiction over burial places
the ecclesiastical authorities do not, unless they transcend
their jurisdiction, usurp police powers, nor determine ques-
tions alTecting ]»roi»erty rights. A religious organization in
assuming control of a cemetery does not assmne jurisdiction
of secular matters, and, therefore, does not wander outside
of its domain into the domain of the civil law. It does not
exceed its jurisdiction in assuming to establish rules for the
interment of the dead, unless those rules contravene some
rule or principle of jurisprudence. A religious denomina-
tion may, when solicited by the parties in interest, assume
jurisdiction over cemeteries and prescribe rules for their
government, but cannot establish any rules that contravene
any principle of law. After such rules are established the
persons acquiring the use of burial lots or the right of burial
therein take the same, subject to such rules. Dwenger v
Geary, 11.3 Tnd. 106.
Free Burial Ground. A religious society purchased land
and dedicated it for the purposes of a free burial ground
for the uses of the church under its discipline. There was
no formal as.signment of burial lots, but it seems to have
been a custom for families to appropriate certain lots for
their own use for burial purposes. The trustees had no
pow^er to restrict or control the burials in particular parts
of the cemetery. Tt was in every sense a free burial ground.
Antrim v Malsbury, 43 N. J. Eq. 2SS.
Legislature, Power to Direct Sale. The owners of a lot in
a cemetery, whatever the form of the deed, acquire only a
CEMETERY 61
right of Inu'iiil, ami the Lej^i slat lire has power to prohibit
further iiiteriiieiits and authorize the sale of tlie cemetery,
provision being made for the removal of rejnains, and com-
pensation to lot owners. Went v Metliodist Protestant
Church, SO Hun (N. Y.) 200.
Lot Owner's Right. A religious society purchased land for
a cemetery and issued to lot-holders certificates authoi'izing
the use of the lots for burial purposes. These certilicatcs
did not vest any title in the lot-holders, but amounted only
to a license to make interments so long as the i)roperty was
used for burial puri)oses. On a sale of the j)roi)erty by the
society under legal authority the lot-holders had a right to
remove the remains of persons interred in tlieir lots, and
also to remove any monuments and other fixtures. J 'art-
ridge V First Independent Church, 39 Md. o:57.
In the Reformed Presbyterian Church of the City of New
York, 7 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 470, it was held that a deed of a
burial lot in a cemetery owned by the corporation conveyed
only the right of burial, and could not prevent a sale of the
property, i)rovision being made for the removal of remains
disinterred.
Richards v Northwest I'rotestant Dutch Church, 32 Barb.
(N. Y.) 43, involved the right of burial in a churcliyard used
in connection with a church edifice. It was held that a
lot-owner acquired merely the right of interment, which
could not prevent the sale of the pro})erty by the cori)oration,
and removing the remains to another cemetery, under such
conditions as the court might direct.
When a cemetery association or churcli sells particular
lots in a cemetery the purchaser becomes the owner of the
soil, and manifestly his riglit to its possession i»rotects
interments made b}' him from disturbance. It is also true,
as a general proposition, that where ground has been dedi-
cated to the public for use as a cemetery, tl»e owner cannot
afterward resume possession, or remove the bodies interred
therein, although he has received no consideration Cor its
use, and the interments were made merely by his consent.
fi2 TFIK CrVIL LAW AND Till: (III IJCII
Ex Tiirte McC^'all, Little v rrcshylcriMii Cluircli, I'lorciicp,
08 S. C. 48!).
One who buys a privilege of hnrviii;; liis (lend kinsincii or
friends in a cemetery a(«iuires no general right of jtroperty.
He acquires only the right to bury the dead, for he may not
use the ground for any other puri)Ose than such as is con-
nected with the right of se])ulture. Beyond this his title
does not extend. He does not acipiire, in the strict sense,
an ownership of the ground; all that he does acquire is a
right to use the ground as a burial place. Dwenger v
Geary, 1 13 Ind. 100.
Where the title to the land used by a religious corpora-
tion for cemetery purposes remains in the corjKU'ation, and
no deed is made of any lot for the purpose of interments, the
sepulture of friends or relatives in such burning ground
confers no title or right ui)on the survivors. If the survivors
have any interest in the cemetery, or control over its use
and dis])osal, it can only be as corporators in the society
owning the ground. The only protection afforded to the
remains of the dead interred in a cemetery of this descrip-
tion is by the public laws prohibiting their removal, except
on ])rescribed terms, and in a still stronger public opinion.
Where vaults or burying lots have been conveyed by reli-
gious corporations rights of property are conferred upon the
purchasers. The payment of fees and charges to the cor-
poration or its oflHcers, upon interments, gives no title to the
land occui)ied by the body interred. It confers the privilege
of sepulture for such body in the mode used and permitted
by the corporation ; and the right to have the same remain
undisturbed so long as the cemetery shall continue to be
used as such, and so long also, if its use continues, as may
be required for the entire decomposition of remains; and
also the right, in case the cemetery shall be sold for secular
purposes, to have such remains removed and proi>erly 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 sai<l lots for the
use aud ]>uri)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 <food and decent repair is held by
the same usufructuary lij^lit and subject to the same lia-
bility to removal. Sohier v Trinity Church, \i)U Mass. 1.
Tombstone, Title. A tondtstone in a churchyard belonj^s
to the person who erected it or to the heirs of the deceased,
in whose memory it is set up. and trespass may be main-
tained for removing or injuring it, although the title of the
land is iu the parson. Spooner v Brewster, 10 Moores Rep.
(Eug.) iU.
CHAPEL
Defined, 67.
Defined. Webster and Worcester define a chapel to be a
place of worship connected with a church or with some
establislinieut, public or private, or attached to a churcli,
or subservient to it; or, second, a place of worshij) not con-
nected with a church. Bouvier, in his Law Dictionary, says:
"Chapels are places of worship. They may be either private
chapels, such as are built and maintained by a private per-
son for his own use and at his own ex])ense; or free chapels,
exempt from all or<linary jurisdiction; or chajx'Is of ease,
which are built by the mother church for the ease and con-
venience of the ])arishioners, and remain under its juris-
diction and control. There is no question that a chajtel is a
place of worship." Vanzant's Instate, (; Pa. Co. Ct. (JlT).
67
CHARITABLE USE
Defined, 68.
Described, 69.
History, 69.
Benevolent institutions, 69.
Bread and education, 70.
British corporation, how affected by American Revolution, 70.
Chapel, 71.
Churchyard, repair of vault, 71.
Common law, 71.
Diversion, 72.
Donor's opinions, 72.
Foreign country, 73.
Georgia, 73.
Hospitality not a charitable use, 73.
Illinois, 74.
Incorporated society, 74.
Indefinite, 74.
Limitation, cy pres, 75.
Maine, 76.
Massachusetts, 76.
Masses, 76.
New York, 77.
Orphan asylum, 77.
Religious reading, 77.
Religious services, 77.
Religious trust, 78.
Roman Catholic clergyman, 80.
Sermons and music, 80.
Shakers, 80.
South Carolina, SI.
Sunday school, diversion, 81.
Unincorporated society, 81.
Unitarian, 82.
Vault and tomb, repairs, 82.
Defined. A publii' or charitable trust is for the benefit of
an uncertain class of persons, wlio are described in gen-
68
CHAKITABLK USE 69
eral language, and partake of a quasi public character, as,
for example, the poor of a certain district in trust of a
benevolent nature, or the children of a certain town in trust
for educational purposes. It is also a distinctive feature of
a charitable trust that it may be unlimited in its duration,
and is not subject to nor controlled by the statutes which
])rohibit perpetuities. A becpiest was sustained, the semi-
nary being sim])ly an instrumentalit}' for carrying out the
far-reaching aim of the testator, nameh% the promotion of
religion by spreading abroad a knowledge of the truths of
Christianity. Field v Drew Theological Seminary, 41 Fed.
371, (Ct. C. D. Del.)
Charitable uses, like all other uses, comprise a trust as
well as a use. To constitute a valid use, there must be in
all cases, first, a trustee legally competent to take and hold
])roperty ; and, secondly, the use for some purpose clearly
defined. Grimes Executors v Harmon and others, 35 Ind.
IDS.
Described. In law, religious and charitable uses mean
legal acts done for the promotion of piety among men, or for
the purpose of relieving their sufferings, enlightening their
ignorance, and bettering their condition ; such acts courts
of equity ui)li()bl and ellectuate accoi-ding to the intention of
the donor. Miller v Porter, 53 Pa. St. 292.
History. See Jackson v Phillips, 14 Allen (Mass.) 539, for
a histor}' and exposition of the statute of 43 Elizabeth c. 4
showing also the growth and expansion of the system in
modern times.
Benevolent Institutions. Testator devised the residue of
his estate "to the different institutions of charity and benefi-
cence, constituted and established at Philadelphia for the
relief of the unfortunate and of those wlio live under the
infliction of infirmities, and of every sort of privations, with-
out any distinction of sect or religion," and excepted from
these different institutions of charity and beneficence all
those which are directed, conducted, and administered by
ecclesiastics, whatever may be llie sect to wliich they belong.
70 TlllO ('l\ II. LAW AM) 'I'lii: (111 liCll
Oniiltiii}^ rcrcrcnccs to ii()ii)'('li;;;i(>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 reli<i;ion what it inij^ht. Tlu; nier»!
fact that a clergyman is on(; of the managers of a society
does not exclude such society from the benefits of the will.
He Bleuon's Estate, tiri-htly X. l\ ( Ta.) :;:5S.
Bread and Education. Testator gave to two churches
|1,000, the interest to he used for ten years in sui)i>lying
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<l by (he colony (»r State
of Pennsylvania, the principles of the conunon law relative
to snch uses, which were restored in England by thai statute,
were adopted as well as the ]»rincii»les of ecinity in (he admin-
istration of suih trusts. The following were held (o be good
charitable uses: an annnal subscription to (he slock of a
religious society' which is ajiplied lo (lie piindng and dis-
71' 'rill-: ('(NIL LAW AM> '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()vin<j its meeting lionse; a gift to a town for a fire
engine and liose; and a devise or bequest to a society with
whose constitution and purposes the testator is familiar, for
the ])urj)oses of such society, sudi pur])oses being proper
objects of diaritable uses. Magill v Brown, Fed. Cas. No.
8,052, U. S. Cir. Ct. I'a. (Brightly N. I\ 347).
Diversion. Courts of equity will exert their powers to pre-
vent a misuse or an abuse of charitable trusts, and especially
trusts of a religious nature, by trustees or by a majority
of a society having jjossession of the trust property, but in
all cases the trust and abuse of it must be clearly estab-
lished in accordance with the rules by which courts are gov-
erned in administering justice. If the alleged abuse is a
departure from the tenets of the founders of a charity, their
particular tenets must be stated, that it may ai)i)ear from
what tenets the alleged wrongdoers have de])arted. In like
manner, it must be stated in what the alleged departure
consists. There must be a real and substantial departure
from the i)urposes of the trust, such a one as amounts to a
])erversion of it, to authorize the exercise of equitable juris-
diction in granting relief. Happy v Morton, 33 111. 398.
Donor's Opinions. In ecclesiastical charities the religious
opinions of tlie founder are of paramount importance; in
educational charities his religious opinions are only of
value where some directions are given as to the religious
instruction to be given ; but in eleemosynary charities the
founder's religious opinions are wholly to be disregarded.
Attorney-General v Calvert, 23 Beav. (Eng.) 258.
In construing a bequest of money to a town with a direc-
tion that the income be used for the purpose of supporting
the Christian religion in the Congregational society, so called
CHARITABLE USE 73
ill said town, the interest thereof to be paid quarter-yearly
to the minister of the Congregational persuasion, who shall
be regularly ordained and statedly ])7'eaching in said society,
it is said it would be difficult to establish the religious opin-
ion of the donor, especially where the denomiuatiou to which
he belonged has no creed or admitted confession of faith,
and where there are no written artiiles of belief, to which
it is agreed he assented, nor any published and avowed
statement of his o[»inions in existence. As to what consti-
tutes a minister of tlie Congregational persuasion, see also
the articles on Congregational Church. Attorney-General
ex rel Abbot v Dublin, :5S N. H. 459.
Foreign Country. Testatrix, a resident of jNIassachusetts,
directed her executors as trustees to expend a specified sum
for the ])urchase of a lot and the erection thereon of a cliapel
in her native place in Ireland to be used for purposes of
l)ublic worship under the auspices of the Rojuau Catholic
Church. Tlie diarity was suslaini'd, it being lield that the
fact that the chai*ily would be adiniiiistercd in a foreign
country did not of itself render tlie gift void, and there was
nothing to show that it would not be a good public charity
by the law of Ireland. Teele v Derry. I(i8 Mass. 341.
Georgia. In Georgia, a court of equity has jurisdiction to
enforce the i>rovisions 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<l for the benelit of the Sabbnth
school library of the First Baptist Church in Shelburne,
or the Biiptist Home JNIissionary Society, A\liicliever may be
deemed most suitable, is a good charitable bequest. Fair
banks v Lamson, 99 Mass. r).*i3.
"Under a constitution which extends the same protection
to every religion and to every form and sect of religion,
which establishes none an<l gives no preference to any, there
is no possible standard by which the vnlidily of ;i use as
pious can be determined; there are no possible me;ins by
so Tin: ri\ iL \..\\\ AM) 'iMii; cihimii
wliicli jutl^cs ("in hv ('Ii;iI)I(mI lo (lisniiiiinnlc Ik'Iwccii si)( Ii
usoH as tend to pronioto the best inlcicsls of society by
s|»re:i(liii;; tlie l<iiowle<l<,'c :iih1 iiHiiI<;it iii<; the pi-ictice of true
relij^ioM, ;iihI those which can \\:\\v no olher ellect than to
foster the ^fvowtii of i»crnici(»ns errors, to «jive a dangeroiis
|)erniancnc<' l<> llie revi'ries of fanalicisni or enconi-a<;e and
I»eri)etnale the ol)servances ()(■ a coniipt and <h'.i:rading snper-
stition." Andrew v New York Bihh; and Prayer Book
Society, 4 Sainlf. (X. V.) ISI.
Testator j;ave all the residue of his estate to the I'^vangel-
ical Lutheran Send nary, with a ])i'ovision Cor the use of a
])ortion thereof for the |)nrpose of erectinj; a house of wor-
ship for the Evan}j;elical liUtherau Society in Stamford,
aj)i)lying the remaiuder of the income to the supjmrt of the
])astor, and the maintenance of the society. One of the con-
ditions of the jiift was that the service in the church shouhl
be in the German language. Another condition was that a
memorial tablet should be jdaced at the nmin entrance of
the church. It Mas held a cJiaritable use, and was sustained.
Mack Appeal. 71 Conn. 122.
Roman Catholic, Clergymen. Where a bequest of personal
estate was made to executors in trust to apjdy same for such
charitable ])urposes as the Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Dublin should direct, it was held that the Archbishop might
receive the fund for the purjiose of applying it in i)art for
the maintenance of Roman Catholic officiating clergymen of
his diocese, "directing them as a matter of religious and
moral duty, but not of le^al obligation, to say masses for the
testator's s(ud.'' RIount v \iditz, 1 Ir. R. 42 (1805).
Sermons and Music. In Turner v Ogden, 1 Cox. Rep. (Eng.)
'Sm it was held that a biMiuest for preaching a sermon
on Ascension Day. for keejiing the chimes of the church
in repair, and for a payment to be made to tlie singers in
the gallery of the church are all bequests to charitable
uses.
Shakers. For an interesting discussion of the effect of
contributing pntperty to a Shaker society and for the forma-
CHAIMTAULi: TSE 81
tion ol" a coiiiiimnily or cliiiiili lor tlic liciu'lit oT llie inc'iiil)i'is
iu carrying torwjiid < liaritable and religious work, see Gass
and Bonta v Williilc i' Dana (Ky.) 17().
South Carolina. The statute of IClizalicili in relalicjii to
charitable uses li;is never been adopted in Soniii Carolijia.
Attorney Oenenil v -lolly. 1 Kich. lOq. (S. C.) UU.
Sunday School, Diversion. A be(iuest in trust to aid iu the
eucourageiuent of Sun<lay schools by a society organized
for that purpose, was sustained in (.\irter v Green, :> 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<l
society is valid, and if made to the vestrymen of a church
the devise is not invalid because indefinite, and the rule
against perpetuities is not violated l)y a devise to the vestry-
men aud to their successors with jiowcr to sell, exchange or
dispose of the property. Biscoe v Thweatt, 74 Ark. 545.
Societies or bodies of men unincorporated have ever been
considered at common law as inca])able of receiving gifts or
legacies, to be applie<l to charitable uses, :ind it has been
the invariable i)olicy of our Slate (N'ennonl) to consider
them capable. Burr I'x'rs. v Sniitli. 7 \'l. I'll.
A gift of 1:111(1 for such ])urposes to an uniiicorporat<'d reli-
gious society is valid in Illinois. Alden v St. I'eter's rurish.
Sycamore, 158 111. V>-\\.
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 intende<l. Ilornbeck v American
Bible Society, 2 Sandf. (Ml. ( N. V. i 1:5:5.
A grant of land by a town for a cemetery is not void
because made to an nnincoi porati'd society. The gi*anl was
SL' TIIK CIN IL LAW AND Till: ( IUKCII
VJilidiitcfl l»y tln' Niil>s('(|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<l. if n<'('»l ])(>. 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 retaine<l
npon the .same terms npon which it was givcTi, and no c(»n-
cnrrence among the donees can operate to tianslcr or apjily
it to other i»nrj>oses. .MciJoberts v M(MuIy, 1!» Mo. Ap|». -(».
83
SI 'I'm: <'i\ iL LAW .\.\i> 'I'lii: <iii kcii
A charily j;i\<'ii Ini- a ]»arli<iilar imiposc caiinol Im; altcrcW
<ir (liv<'rtcMl to any oilier. N'cnahlc v C'offnian, li \V. \'a. ;>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)e<l,
and the plirase, "tlie jtreaching of Christ's Holy Gosptd,"
meant preaching by sntli ministers, and "the ministry of
Chri.st's Holy (Jospcd" meant the ministry exercised by snch
orthodox English dissenting ministers; that the words
sc 'I'lii: (I \iL LAW ANh Till: i'lii i:rii
**;i<)<ll_V iik'IiiIm'I's" iiicliHlcd iiicinlx-is (il the <liui"cli above
iiKMitlfHM'd, and that iiiiiialcs of tlir hospital cMtahlished by
IIm' <]i'i't] iiiiist be poor iiicinbcis of siicli clmrchcs.
J{('(pi('sls wiTc made lor the beiielit of poor dissenting min-
i.sterH living in any coutity. It was in proof that there were
three distinct societies of dissenters, and that collections
were made lor the poor ministers of each. It was held that
the l)e(|nests were good, and that they were intended for all
the ministry in general, and it was ordered that the money
be i»aid to all the treasurers of the three denominations.
Waller v Chi Ids, Anibl. (Eng.) 524.
Donor's Intention. "The necessary public benefit is sought
in the character of the purpose according to the intention
of the donor. If that intention be the performance of acts
which tend to benefit the j)ublic, the court never proceeds to
inipiire whether the result must be a benefit which it is cer-
tain would not otherwise accrue to it." A gift for the sup-
]>ort 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)rovi<le<l, and is
still furnished, and will continue to be given by the society
to homeless people at night in the manner specified in the
will. This society was held entitled to the bequest. Crox-
all's Estate, 1()2 Pa. St. 570.
Indefinite. Testator directed the executor to hold the resi-
due of his estate in trust for the education of freedmen, the
income to be paid by him to the proper oilicers of the freed-
men 's association, or disposed of as he pleases. There was
no society existing under the name given in the will, an<l
the court rejected evidence ottered to show that the society
intended was that organized by the Methodist Episcopal
Church in Cincinnati. The bequest was, therefore, void for
uncertainty. The term "freedmen" was said to include that
class of persons who were emancipated during the late Civil
War and their descendants. Fairlield v Lawson, 50 Conn.
501.
AVhere a testator, by his will, directs the trustees aiid
guardians of his child to ]>ay 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 <m- chai-ity sclnxd established
at Hillsborough, in the sai<l county, it was held that the
becpiest w^as void for uncei'lainty as to the persons who wei-e
to take under it. Dashiell v Attorney (Jeneral. liar. iS: .F.
(Md.) 1.
Irving Society. Fn Attorney (Jeneral v Lawes, S IIai-e
(Eng. ) :y2, a bequest of a sum to be paid annually to a bank
ss 'iiii: <M\ 11, L.WN AM) 'I'm; riii kcii
lor I lie "sole use :iiiil Itciiclil oT any ol 1 In- mill islcrs and
iiiniilirrs of I lie cIiiiicIk's now roiniiii;^ upon IIm* AjjOstolic
(lo<'li-iii('s lnoii;^lil I'orwaid l)y \\u'. laic IMward Irviiif;, wlio
may Ix' pcisccnlcd. ajij^iicvcd, or in poverty, for prcacliinj^
or ii|iliol(liiiji lliosc <lo<l lines, or lialf tlie sum may he appro-
jiiiated I'or llie henelit of the church rouiKJed hy tiie hit(!
Ildward Irxinji in Xewniaii Street,'' was sustained as ii vali<l
charily. IT there should aflerward he no jicrsoiis for whose
heiielil tiie t'liiid could i)e ap|»lied, the charity would uot. fail
for that reason, hul the court would adminisler as nearly as
praci icahle, according; lo the doiioi-'s iiitenlion.
Parliamentary Restriction, hi Attorney-CJeneral v fJnise,
L' N'erii. (I'^Ti;;.) iMid, it was Jield that a charity for the pur-
pose of proi)af;iitinjj; in Scotland the <loct lines of the Church
of Eiifjland could not he fully executed hecause of a recent
act of Parliament, but the legacy did not fall into the resid-
uary estate, and the purpose of the cliarity might be exe-
cuted so far as practicable in view of the act of Parliament.
Poor. A becpiest to the town of Skowhegan, Maine, for
the worthy and unfortunate poor, and to save them from
pauperism, to be funded, and one half of the income of the
sum to be expended by the women's aid society formed for
that purpose, was sustained in Dascomb v Marston, 80 Me.
223.
A gift to the poor of the town or parish, or church, is a
public charity to be applied by the ministers and deacons
according to the intentions of the donor. Attorney-General
V Old S(MitIi Society in Boston, i:> 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 an<l self-denial has ninie of
the requisites of a charitable institntion, whether the word
"charitable" is use<l in its j)opular sen.se or in its legal sense.
Admitting that religious ))urposes are charitable, that can
only be true as to religious services tending directly or
indirectly toward the instruction or the edification of the
public; an annuity to an iiulividnal so long as he spent his
time in retirement and constant devotion, wonld not be
charitable, nor would a gift to ti'n jjcrsons, .so long as they
lived together in retirement and i>erformed 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»iiil<liii;;s iicccss.iry lo <;ii-i-y (Hil llic object Jiiid piir-
])()s»'s of llic tiMisl" coiislilnlcs a |)ul)lk- charity. Morvillc
V Fowl.-. I M ^lass. KM).
Trustees to Account. Tru.stoo.s of ji charity may be requiicd
by Ihc court of chancory to account for income whicii has
been misai)|»li<'<l. f<»i- any len<?lli of time, without regard to
the .statute of limitations; but an application of such
income, made in uood faith and continued for many years,
will not be li«j;htly disturbed, esj)ecially after the lap.se of a
considerable time. Attorney General v Old South Society
in P.oslon, l.", Allen (:\rass.) 474.
Uncertainty, Free Churches. Testator devised his real
estate and directed that it be sold and the proceeds "laid
out in building convenient places of worship free for the
use of all Christians who acknowledge the Divinity of Christ
and the necessity of spiritual regeneration." It was held
that the devise was void for uncertainty, the court observ-
ing that the will was silent as to the place where the
churches were to be erected, and that there was no owner-
ship conferred on anj- religions congregation nor any trus-
tees for it. "It seems impossible for a court to hold that a
charity for religion is sufficiently specific, in which no
l>art 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 in<li-
viduals. It was, therefore, held that at the death of the
testator there were no persons in existence capable of tak-
ing this bequest. The corporation subsequently formed could
not take it, and the bequest became a jiart of the testator's
residuary estate. Trustees, IMiiladelphia Baptist Associa-
tion V Hart's Executors, -I AVheat. (U. S.) 1.
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Organization, 92.
Form of government, 93.
Changing doctrine, 93.
Church of Christ, 94.
Division, effect on property rights, 94.
Incorporation, eff(>ct, 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 ^<on of God and the Saviour of num.
and obedience to his commands, is to be required to consti-
tute i)ersons Christians, and to entitle them to membership
and good standing in said Christian churches.
They hold to immersion exclusively as Christian baptism,
and they teach that bai)tism, when preceded by faith in
Christ, repentance from sin, and a public confession of such
faith, is for tlie remission of sins, but tliey liave never
required unifoi-mity in oi»inions as to this j)ur[)()se or design
of baptism, and it has been their custom and usage from the
beginning, and held by them to be in accord with tlieir fun-
damental princijtles above stated, to regard and treat as
Christians jtersons from otlier Christian denominations
92
CHKIt-^TIAN CIIUKCH IKJ
who have been iiniiierstMl upon prolcssioii of their faith in
Christ, and to receive such jjersons into membership and
full fellowship in their churches, whether or not they believe
that baptisn) is for the remission of sins.
It is also a part of their fundamental principles that mis-
sionary societies, conventions, and similar voluntary or-
ganizations foi- Christ iiin woi-k, as well as the use of instru-
mental music ill connection witli tlieir woi-ship in the
churches, are re<;;irded as exj)edients concernim; whicli no
rule, ]>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\\('<I
libei-ty in opinion and pi-actice; and tliey liave j;ener;illy.
since the be<;inninn' of the denonunat ion, h;id tlieir <ienerai
societies and conventions foi- missictnarv w(»i-k, and each of
such voluntary or«;ani/alioiis beinj;- alhtwe*!, ;ind havinj;
free access to and use of their respective church houses oi-
places of worship in which to hold their meetings and
transact their business. Peace v First (Mnistian riiurch,
McCJregor, 20 Te.x. Civ. Ai)p. S5.
Form of Government. The government (»f a local society,
according to the doctrine an<l usage of tiie denomina1i(m, is
vested in the elders and deacons; tlie foniK'r administering
spiritual atfairs, such as te;iching and employing preachers,
while the deacons manage the tinances and attend gi'iierally
to the material needs of the clini-ch. The eldeis and deacons
are selected and ordained by other eldei-s of the church, and
cannot otherwise be appointed. Pi'ickett v Wells, 117 Mo.
Re. 502.
Changing Doctrine. Up to 1802. when tlie jiasior died, tlie
general accejtted docti-ines of that denomination wei-e
taught; the Sunday school, in which were \ised the interna-
tional Sunday School leaves, lucpared for ilu- purpose of
elucidating the Scriptures, llourislied ; an organ was played
in the jiraise service; linancial help was recei\ed from the
Ladies' Aid Society; baskets were passed by I lie elilcrs in
taking u]> collections; the sa<ramenl was administered
after services, and the church had self-goveinment. All this
94 Till: (IN IL LAW ANh '11 ill (ill i:<||
<(tiiroriiic<| Willi the pi-iicl i<('s of llic ("hiislijiii ( 'liiii-cli. Its
rrrvil wiis Ilic New Tt'stainciil. rpoii tlio julveiit of a new
jiaslor ;ill was cliaiijicd. The I nlcnial ioiial Suii<lay School
leaves and (lie orjj;aii were deiioniiced as iiistniiiieiils of I lie
devil. The Sunday school was altaiidoned as not authorized
l»y the S(ri|)tnres, thoujih the youth were sometimes tan;;ht
from the liihie. The orj^an was relejjated to the woodhouse.
Receiving contributions from outsiders was condemned, and
voluntary offering made only by dei)Ositing the gifts on a
stand before the altar. The rule of the elders was pro-
claimed. Its belief in the use of the organ, in the Sunday
school, the rule of the elders, and the methods of giving were
made tests of fealty. In December, 1804, for the purpose of
settling misunderstandings as to belief, all persons willing
to take the New Testament as a guide of faith were invited
to take the front seats. Subsecjuently three persons who
refused to accept the new teaching were expelled without
trial of specific charges. The persons making and favoring
the innovations were not entitled to the possession of the
church proi)erty, the court observing that the property must
be held in sacred trust for the promulgation of the doc-
trines of the New Testament according to the generally
accepted interpretation of the Church of Christ. Christian
Church V Carjienter, 108 la. (547.
Church of Christ. Land was conveyed by deed to three
persons as trustees for the Christian Church. It was held
that a court of equity should enforce the trust in favor of
the Church of Christ, it appearing that the Church of Christ
was legally incori)orated, and that the persons named as
trustees in the deed were in fact the trustees of the Church
of Christ, and there was no proof that there was any legally
organized or 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 (Miristian (^hurch, Hammond, 193 111. 144.
Division, Effect on Property Rights. The society purchased
land on which a house of worship was erected. Some time
CUKISTIAX ClirUCII IK")
about 1885 the (leiiomiuatioii in Texas hocaine diviiled into
two factions, known as the J'ro^ivssive and the I'^irni
Foundation factious, ditteriug ou the question relatinj; to
baptism with some other minor differences.
In Seittenibei', 1S!H, thei-(; was a sei)ai'ation in the IckmI
(hni'ch, a large majority adhering to the so-called Firm
l"\)undation Faction. The minoi-ity (»l)tained a charter, and
lironght an action to recover the jiroperty which was held
by the nmjority faction, under the claim that it was the
trne Christian Chnrch at that place. It was held that the
])laint ill's re]»resented the original soeicty and the docti'ines
of the Christian Clinicli at the time the ]»ro|>erty was
accpiired, and still a<lhered to the faith and ]»i'a(tice of that
denomination ; that the doctrines of the faction known as
the Firm Foundation Faction constituted a wide <leparture
from the original articles of faith, and that the ])laintiffs,
members of the Pi-ogressive Faction, who still adhered to
the doctrines of the original society, were entitled to the
possession of the church ]u-operty. Feace v First Clirislian
Church, McCiregor, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 85.
Incorporation, Effect. The society was organized in 18().">,
au<l continued in its unincorporated condition until 187;>,
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 <leclined
to sign the jx'tition t'oi- the charier, joined in a ddcnsc by
the bank claiming that they, snch minoiiiy, consiiinled the
i-eal church an<l were entitled to the property. It was held
that the incor|ioral ion was I'egnhir, and lli;il ail (lie iiicni-
bers of the congregat ion, including tiie minoiity, were bound
by it. That the new corporation succeeded to nil the i-iglils
of the foi'uier unincorpoi'ated society, including llie owner-
ship of the ceililicate of dep(»sil, of the funds in liie hands
or, Till': <'i\ II, LAW ANh 'rill-: cm kcii
of lli<> s:iviii;4s iiisl it nl inn, ;iii(| :i<-('(»r(liii;;l_v ili;it iIm- cliiirch
\v;is cnlilloH lo i-ccovrr llic <l('|M»si(. Xoi-lli St. Louis Chris-
ti.iii ("liuicli \ M((h»\v;iii, (IL* ,M(>. 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 nso<l in lis
general sense, means tlH)se \\li() believe in llic divinity of
Christ. Attorney Cleneral v I MiiiiniHtnd, .'! Dr. ^i; War.
(En,i;-.) ](;2.
The term ''Christian" embraces and inclndcs l»(ilh Koman
Catholic and Protestant alike; ;ind to be ol the (';ii Indie or
Protestant rtdij»ion, a jtcrson mnst lirst l>e 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, :iii<l llM'(il(»;^i(;il sense, denotes one who
ri'silly lieiicves the j,'os|)eI, inihihes the s|»irit, is influenced by
the p-:ice iin<i ohedieni t(» tlie will ot Clirisl"; jind Ihis it
(•nils the siicred :ind pi-o|>ei- 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<lered as nominal and real.
The court observed that the term "Christian" was ordi-
narily used in the above defined political and conventional
sense in constitutions, statutes, and legal documents, in
other words as nominal Christians. The idea that any man,
however good, can i^roperly be called a Christian, who does
not believe or assent to the truths and doctrines of Chris-
tianity, and first and foremost of all, to the doctrine that
Jesus was the Christ, the true Messiah, the Christ of God, is
simjjly i)rei»osterous. All Christians believe in Jesus Christ
as the true Messiah, and the Saviour of man ; in other words,
that Jesus Christ was just what he claimed to be — the
"Christ of God." Hale v Everett, 53 N. H. 1.
Blasphemy. Writing against Christianity is blasphemy at
comnioii law. Kex v Woolston, 2 Str. (Eng.) 83-1.
England. Christianity came in here (England) by ex-
ternal spiritual force, and discipline, was introduced as a
custom, and is ])art of the law. Lord Hale's MSS., cited in
Kex v Bosworth, 2 Str. (Eng.) 1113.
Law of the Land. The declaration that Christianity is
l»art of the law of the land is a summary descrijttiou of an
existing and ever-obvious condition of our institutions. We
are a Christian j)eoi)le in so far as we have entered into the
spirit of Christian institutions, and become imbued with
the sentiments and principles of Christianity ; and we can-
not be imbued with them and yet ])revent them from enter-
CUIMSTIAMTV 1)0
iiig into and inthuMuin;; more or less, all onr social institu-
tions, customs, and relations, as well as all our individual
modes of thinking and acting. Molinej' v Clark, iM; I'a. 342.
Massachusetts. The jteople of Massachusetts, in the frame
of their government, adopted Christ ianity as the basis of
organized society. This religion was found to rest on the
basis of immortal truth; and to contain a system of morals
adapted to man in all possible ranks and conditions, situa-
tions and circumstances. The manner of its constitutional
establishment was liberal, and consistent with the riglits of
conscience on religious subjects. The constitution jirovided
for the public teaching of the i)recepts and maxims of the
religion of Protestant Christians to all the i)eoi»le, and it
was made the right and duty of all cori)()rate religious
societies to elect and support a i)ublic I'rotestant teacher
of piety, religion, and morality. Barnes v First Parish,
Falmouth, G Mass. 401.
Nation. Our nation and the States com})Osing it are
Christian in jtolicy to the extent of endu-acing and adopting
the moral tenets of Christianity as furnishing a sound basis
upon which the moi-al obligations of the citizen to society
and the State may be establisluMl. District of Colundiia v
Kobinson, 30 A])p. 1). C. 28:}.
New York. Christianity is, in a qualified sense, a i»art of
the common law of New York, not to the extent that would
authorize a comi»ulsory conformity in faith and praclic*' to
the creed and formula or \\drsbi|» (»r any sei*t or denomina-
tion, or even in those matters of doctrine and worshij) com-
mon to all denominations styling tliemselvi's Cliiistian, but
to the extent that entillcs the (Mirislian religion and its
ordinances to resjtect and ]»roteciion, as the acknowledged
religion of the people. "Christianity is not the legal i-eli-
gion of the State as established by law. II it were, it would
be a civil or jiolitical institnlion, which it is not ; but this is
not inconsistent with the idea that it is in elfect, and ever
has been, the i-eligion of the pt'o|ile." Lindenmnller v
People,:::: Parb. iX. V.j 5 IS.
Ktii TJIi: (IN IL LAW A\l> 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 <jf the hiw of
the Stale. The statement tliat all religions are tolerated in
Ohio is not strietly accnrate. Mnch less accurate is it to say
that one religion is a part of the law, and all others only
tolerated. There is no imion of cluireh and state, nor has
th(? governinent excr licen Nested with aullioiity to enforce
any religions ohservanee sinii>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<l juomote tiie welfare of man-
kind. Gartin V I'enick, 5 Bush. (Ky.) 110.
CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY SOCIETY
This society was uiiiiicorixjrated, but was coiiiinoiily
i<iH>\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<le-
meanor to give such treatment for a fee was not an interfer-
ence with the rights of conscience and worship, secured by
the bill of rights; see also People v Cole, 1G3 A. D. (N. Y.)
292.
Expulsion of Members. In IToIcombe v Leavitt, 124 N. Y. S.
980, an injunction was granted against the expulsion of
certain mendjers of the society who had i)rop<)se«l by-laws
for its government, and who, if arl)itrarily expelled, would
be dejjrived of jtroperly rights.
Healer, Knowledge Required. One who holds himself out as
a Christian Science healer, and is employed to treat di.sease
according to the methods adoj)ted by such j)ractitioners, is
only required to j)Ossess the knowledge, and to exercise the
care and skill of the ordinary ('lii-isti;in Scientist. Spend
v Tomlinson, 7.'^ N. H. 4(1.
Medical Attendance, Religious Belief. See Slntc v c'Immi-
owetli, ir»:j hid. IM I'or iiiitliorilics on the ciVcct <ir i-('lit;ions
103
KM 'rili: <l\ IL LAW AM) '1111: cmKrii
ix'licr iis ;i (Icrciisc l»V |t;irfiils lor ;ill(';;c(l ii<';^lc(| Id Jil-uvide
lii(Mlic;il ;it Iciiil.iiic*' for sick cli i Mrcii, ;is Tccpiirctl l»y law.
Missouri Constitution. Jn Kc SI. Louis Iii.st. ol" Clirislian
Science, I'T Mo. App. i>'->'-'>, 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<l, the fundamental ])riii(ii»l(' of the teaching of
Mrs. Eddy being that what is icrmcd disease has no real
existence; that sickness, sin, and death are unknown to
truth, and should not be recognized by man as a reality.
The charter was refused.
Sunday School Treasurer. In First Church of (^hrist Scien-
tist in Bulfab). X. V. v Sdireck. 70 Misc. (X. V.) (;i.">; 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 forme<l and it may exist without any such connec-
tion. Holt V Downs, 58 N. H. 170.
The identity of a religious community described as a
church consists in the identity of its doctrines, creeds, con-
fessions, formularies and tests. General Assembly, Free
Church of Scotland v Overtouu (1004), Law Hep. App.
Cases, (F>ng. ) 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-
\\\<X worsliip, ;in<I in sncli cases the society commonly owns
the pioperly :in<l nuikes the jx-cnjiiary conti'act with the
minisler. Chnrches ;ire not cor])orate(| bodies, and com-
monly have no occasion for the exercise of corporate powers.
J>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<l ^lethodist l^jtiscopal Church in the
City of Brooklyn. (IT Ilun. (N. Y. i SG, an order dissolving
the corporation was sustained, although not made in ac-
cordance with the obligation of the I)isci])line of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church. "No church Discipline can super-
sede the law of the State."
So far as the canons of the church (Roman Catholic) are
in conflict with the law of the land, they must yield to the
latter; but when they do not so conflict they must prevail.
Ryan v Dunzilla, SO Atl. (Pa.) 1080.
Division. Property (communion plate) was given to this
society for the use of th(> 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'sti<jn for
tlie nse of tlie clnii-cli. The cluircli was tiie beneliciary. By
a division of the cliuich two conj^regations were formed,
eacli claimin«i to he the orij;inal. The defendant's party
witlidrew from the ])arish in 1S7<» an<l afterwaid iiad con-
nection with it. The jthiintilf's ])arty adhered to the parish
and claimed to be tlie trne churcli. Tiie |»laini ill's party was
held to rei)resent the original chnrch, an<l was, tiierefore,
entitled to the possession of the i)roperty in dispute. Uolt
V Downs. 58 N. TT. 170.
Doctrinal Controversy. One of the j;reat facts standing out
in the history of the Christian Church is that in its long
life many controversies as to doctrine ami ceremonial have
arisen, and there have been manj- divisions. While the
apostles were yet alive a serious question arose concerning
the necessity of continnino as a jKirt <)f the Christian system
a certain Jewish rite. It was a question so grave tliat it
was carried for settlement to the churcli at Jerusalem, and
was there considered by the a])ostles and elders, and dis-
cussed and disi)osed of in the presence of the congregation.
A decision was rendered which was transmitted, for the
purpo.se of quieting the controver.sy. to all of the churches,
to which it was deemed necessary to send it (.\cts l."ii. In
the succeeding centuries numerous controversies ar(».se over
matters of doctrine and discipline which were .settleil by
church councils, liy means of these councils serious divi-
sions were prevented until the gi-eat Keforniaiion of the
sixteenth centni-y, with the exceiilion of the division between
the Eastern and the Western chnrches. which occurred A. D.
1054, as a result of controversies which had proceeded from
time to time during several centui-ies.
Numerous etforts ha\(' been made in c»»mparat ively recent
years by various brancln's of the I'roteslanl disision of ilie
church for union among themselves. Landi'iih \ lludgins,
121 Tenn. 5uG.
Ill' 'I'm: ri\ II. LAW ANh riii; (iii i:ni
Elements. An iii(<>r|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<<iiiir(' an<l care for tin* i»rop('i-ty
lIuMTof. ("liristiaii (Miurcli, Iluntsville v Soniinci-, 14I> 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 iiiiite<l (ojiethci' lor ecclesiast ical iclalion and ])ur]io.se.s,
and for spii-ihi.il iinpiovenienl. Tiiis body is a voluntary
association, liaviii^ power to adojtt its own i-ules for admis-
sion and disci|»line, and administer them in its o\\n way.
independent of any control by the courts, while free from
an intention to injure its niemhers or tho.se belongini; to it.
A resolution passed by the church as above deftned for the
juirpose of excluding a member from the church and the
spii'itnal jirivilej^es enjoye<l by him is ettectmil for the ]>ur-
pose inten«le<l, while if passed by the corporation for the
pill pose of depriving him of the privileges secured to corpor-
ators by the Statute it is a mere nullity. People ex rel
Dilcher v (Jerman Tnited Kvang. Church, 5o N. Y. 103.
Extinct, What Constitutes. The facts which constitute
extinction are ]ilainly defined in sec. IC of the New York
Keligious Corporations Law, namely, "If it has failed for
two consecutive years next prior thereto to maintain reli-
iiious services accordinji' to the discipline, customs, and
usages of such governing body, or has had less than thirteen
resident attending members paying annual pew rent, or
making annual contribution toward its sup]>ort.''' 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<l by its occasional use
for social gatherings incident to the chui-«h. for societies
for benevolent objects, and for fairs held by the ladies to
raise funds for missionary w(»rk. All these <M-casional uses
are gerniane to the regular purpo.se of the room. Craig v
First Presbyterian Church, 88 Pa. St. 42.
Legislative Power. It is a matter dcducibU* from history,
as well as from the curi-ent religious literature of the times.
I I I Tin: (MX IL LAW AM) 'I'lli: ("III IMII
lli.'il cNciv tliiiifli ;iiiil »'\('iy |iiiiHi|i;il ('(•(•|('si;ist iciil ilciHtin-
iiKiliuii chiiiiiinu to he luniiijcd ii|i<)ii Clwist i;iii priiicipleK,
or coiiiiKtscd (»r persons (mIIIii;^ I liciiisrivcs ( 'liiisti;iiis, luis
williiii itself some (pi;isi legislative or siipreiiu; power luiv-
iiij; coiitiol o\ei- iii.ilters of (loelriiie ;is N\ell :is discipline,
:iimI lijiviiiij; some jiiris(li<lioii at least over wliat pertains to
the faith as well as the pi-actices of its memlters. While
Lick (,)iiart. Meet. etc.. v White Lick (^nait. Meet. etc. S!>
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-
ti<Hi and the lower story for its Sunday sciiool and also by
.several .Jewish charitable societies, which paid rent f<H' the
use of the building, was hebl to be a eliurch uuder the
Liipior Tax Law. Matter of McCusker, 47 App. I)iv. (X. Y. )
li;}.
In matter of Fiuley, 58 Misc. (N. Y.) 6.39, it was hebi
that where the i>arb)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 iiitru<lei-s. ami the majority may law-
fully remonstrate aj;aiiist it, and may use such means, not
amounting to needless force, as may be necessary to jirevent
it. Morris v State, St Ala. 457.
Merger. You cannot by union put one cluircii into another
having a different creed and doctrine, without forfeit in«; the
l>roperty 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 r<Mding
it before the chui-ch and c<Higregation. The jtastor of the
church and minister of the congregation was acting within
the scope of his authority in reading a paper, which, it was
proved, had been adopted in a separate nu^eting of the
church, and directed thus to be read. One gi-eat i)iiri>ose 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 organize<l body
of citizens, must be consolidated by an oi-ganic law; and
under and according to the constitution of the I'nited States
the organic law of the Presbyterian Ciinrch is a fnndamental
comjiact voluntarily made between all tiie menibeis <»f the
unincorporated association for liie gnidance ami piotec-
tion of each constitnenf churcli member, and neicssarily
inviolable by any delegated i)ow('r of the aggregate iluirch.
It defines the sphere of the General Asseiid)ly as the organ-
ized rej)resentative of all the nuMnbers of the l'resbyt«'riau
Church, as a Christian nationality, snbordinale lo the polit-
ical sovereignty of th*' civil nation, which is as sn|ii-cme over
niend)ers of the chnrch as over any other citizens.
The Tresbyterian Chnrch is certaiidy as mnch Ixmnd as
I h; 'I'lii; ("i\ii. LAW AM) 'i'lii: ciiri;*'!!
('t)ii<;r('ss \)\ llio l'(.'(lrf;il ((disl it iit ion, iiiid all its iiiciiiIxtk
are Hubonlinate to that and tlic Stalo constitutions, which
ai-c snpnMnc over all citizens in every condition, r.artin v
I'enick. .") P.usli. fKy. ) 110.
Property, Beneficiaries. When property is conveyed to a
l>articnlar 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 <hur(h. Boyles v Koberts.
222 Mo. 613.
Virginia, cannot be Incorporated. Chui-ches in X'irginia ai-e
not incorporated, and under the ])oli(y of the law ol' that
State cannot be. The property they are permitted to hold,
and its use, is fixed by statute. Church trustees are crea-
tures of statute, and theii' powers are limited by the law that
authorizes their ai»i)ointment. (Jlobe I'^urniture Company
V Trustees, Jerusalem Baptist Church, 1(13 Va. itiii).
Who Constitute. In whatever aspect a church, for some
purposes, may be c()nsidere<l, it appears to be clear from
the constitution and laws of the land and Irom judicial
decisions, that the b(»dy of tnMimunicants gailiered int<»
IIS Tin: ri\ iL LAW ANh 'riiio ciiriicii
cliiircli order, jircordiii;; lo csljiMislu'd nsiij^os, in any town,
pjirisli, |»r('cin<-(, oi- r<'ligi«His socicly, cslahlislicd according;
lo law, and at Inally connected and asHOciated therewith for
rc!i;,n(>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<l to be a building
in which people assenible i'or the worship of God, and for
the administration of such oflBces and services as pertain to
that worship. Ee St. Louis Inst, of Christian Science, 27
Mo. App. G83.
Not Subject to Execution. A meetinghouse is not liable to
be taken in execution foj- the debts of such society. Bigelow
\^ Congregational Society, Middletown, 11 \'t. 283.
When May Be Closed. If the church is held by the associa-
tion as its absolute ]»r()p(M-ty. without any trust whatever,
it nuiy be closed by a legal vote of the association, passed by
a majority of the members present at a legal meeting called
for the purpose, notwithstanding the fact that a minority
of the members i)resent desire to use the church, and vote
against closing it. But if a trust for the members of the
society attaches to the i»ro]KMty in the hands of the society,
the latter cannot close the cliui-ch against tiie wishes of a
minority of the society who desire to continue to worshij)
there in accordance with (he terms of the Irnsl. (Canadian
Iteligious Association v J'armenler, ISO Mass. 415.
119
C^HURCH OF ENGLAND
Clcr^J:>^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 lia<l
been inhibited by the Bishop of London from performing
divine service in that diocese was held incompetent to per-
form divine service in a chapel under lease, requiring such
service to be performed by a regular clergA'man of the
Church of England. Foundling Hospital v Garrett, 47 L. T,
(Eng.) 230,
Clergyman, Neglect of Duty. A clergj'^mau may be prose-
cuted by any one lor neglect of clerical duty. Argar v
Holdsworth, 2 Lee (Eng,) 224,
Communion. In a suit under the church discipline act,
against the respondent, for having on the 4th of October,
1874, re])elled from the holy communion without lawful
cause the apjiellant, a ])arishioner, who had presented him-
self after due notice, tlie respondent ansM-ered that he did
so for and on account of the writing and publishing by the
ap])ellant of certain letters addressed to the respondent,
and of his causing to be i)rinted and published a certain
volume of selections from the Old aud New Testaments, and
for no other cause or reason whatever. It appeared that one
120
("lU'lU'li OF i:.\(iJ.ANl) 121
of the letters jtiotested against tlic irrdijiioiis teinleucy ul" a
sermon, not produced, which had liccn jireached by the
respondent, and that another of the letters, a private and
solicited coniinunicatiou, explained that the construction
which he, the appellant, placed upon certain i)arts of the
Bible not being the same as the construction which, in his
opinion, was generally placed thereon, he omitted such
parts from the said volume and from his family reading. It
further appeared that the appellant had published a book of
family prayers, comjiiled entirely from the Liturgy of the
Church of England, and that he had stated that he valued
the Book of Common I'raj'er as "only second to the Bible
itself." It further ai)i)eared that the ai>i>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
recognize<l by the law as those which the mend)»'rs of that
particular faith believe to be true, cannot be recognized, as
can the doctrines of ;ni l^sliihlislicd Church, as being in
122 Tin: CINIL LAW AM) Till: ClirKClI
fact true; and (JHTcrorc, llic arjijnincMit thai llic services of
siicli a rcli^Moii, (illcred ii|i otiicrwisc than in puMic, are a
licnclit to llic pnhlic, lacks one of the essential elements
which is |>rcscn( 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 (!»»<! \viili(»ut a
regular license, and all the preachers in good standing shall
have their licenses renewed annually by the eldership of
which they are members. The constitution of the East
l*enns3'lvania Eldership provides for ministers making an
annual report, which if api)roved, their licen.ses .shall be
renewed. The same instrument gives a committee all the
power of the eldership, except to exi)el or change preachers
without cause. It may try, and .suspend a preacher, change
api)ointments or remove him, provided it is done through
the application of a preacher, or a church acting by its
elders. The stationing committee is authorized to locate the
ministers by the vote of a nmjority, in which case the com-
mittee are to take it back and report another; and all per-
sons asking for an a]>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 k<ii
Unitt'd Mntlin-ii in CJiiist, H't't.
Worship and Doctrine, KKl.
Charitable Use. It is not the in-oviiice of the court to
<leterniiiio wlielher ecclesiastical duties eu joined under a
charit;ihh' foiiiidMlion are pi-operly ]>eif()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 or<linary course of investigations or trials among
laymen. p]ach religious organization nmsi deterniiu*' its
own polity and be the judge of its (»\\ii laws. I*<Miai um v
Harrington, ()5 Xeb. S.". 1.
It is well-setl led law dial llie civil coni-ls h.ive and will
exercise no jnrisdicticui to rexiew the action (»f ecclesiastical
bodies in matters i-elaling pnrely to the faith ;ind discipline
of the church. l>nt 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<(<jenl»otham, l.'U', Mo. (;(;S. See Marie M. V.
Church of Chicaj^o v Trinity M. E. Church of Chicago, 25o
111. I'l.
The civil courts will not review or revise the proceedings
or judgment of church trihunals, constituted by the organic
laws of the church organization, where tliey involve solely
questions of church discii)line or infractions of the laws and
ordinances enacted by its ruling body for the government
of its officers and members. But where a cImum h tribunal
of original jurisdiction proceeds to try and discipline or
expel a member of the society, and the member proceeded
against claims that the presiding judge is disqualified from
acting on account of a challenge interposed before the com-
mencement of the trial, and where such challenge has been
disregarded and an appeal has been taken by the accused to
an ai)i)ellate church tribunal, the civil courts have jurisdic-
tion to enjoin the enforcement of a sentence pronounced
against the accused until the appellate ecclesiastical tri-
bunal has disposed of the appeal. Bonacuni v Murphy, 71
Neb. 40o. But see a contrary view ou a rehearing of this
case reported in ~2 Neb. 487, where the injunction was
denied and the former decision rever.sed but without affect-
ing the rule stated in the early part of the foregoing note.
This rule was reaffirmed on the rehearing.
Courts of this State will not review the i)rocess or pro-
ceedings of church tribunals for the purpose of deciding
whether they are regular or within their ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, nor will they attempt to decide upon the
mend)eiship or spiritual status of persons belonging or
CIVIL (\)URTs i:u
claiming to belong to religious soeieties. LJoiuuiiiii v
Muipby, 71 Neb. 487.
Wbenever tbe questions of discipline or of faitli, or eccle-
siastical rule, custom, or law, bave been decided by tbe high-
est of these 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 aj>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 ju<lgment it would necessarily have to
explore the whole range of the doctrine and discipline of the
given church, and survey tlie vast held of the Divine Word.
In matters of litigation where the title to ])ro])erty comes
in contest, the rule would be different, as it is the imperative
duty of the courts to adjudicate upon the civil rights of
all parties. Happily, in this country, there is a total discon-
nection betw'een the church and state, and neither will inter-
fere with the other when acting within their ai)pi-opriate
spheres. State of ^MisscMiri ex rel Watson v I'^irris et al, 45
Mo. 183. The rule as to civil rights stated in the foregoing
note was ai)plied in the same case to the elect i(tn <»r trustees
of Linden wood Female Tollege, by whose chartei- the trus-
tees were to be chosen by the St. Louis I'resbytei-y. This
])resbytery having been dissohcd for viobition (»!' a decree
of the General Assenddy. jiroliiltiling (lie enr(»llni('nt t)f
ministers who joiiu'd in the movenient rc])i-es('nlcd l»y the
so-called "Declaratioji and Testiniony." picpaicd in opposi-
tion to the deliverances of the (Jenerai Assenddy on certain
political (pH'stions. It was held in this case that trustees
elected by such dissoh«'(| ])r('si>yt(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\ iL law and tiih ciiikcii
iiiciiiltfis of (lie prcshylciy w lio adlicrctl to the (jcueral
Assembly, were eiitillcd lo Hie office.
"^^'lleI•(' rules and rej^iilalioiis are iikkU? by the j)ro])er
church fniicli(Hiaries, and such rules are authorized b}' the
laws of (he order, they will be enforced by the courts when
not in conlli<t with some law bearint; ujton the subject con-
tained in the rules." Alexander v Bowers, 7!) S. W. (Tex.) ;]4l'.
A civil conrt will not review the proceedings and findings
of an ecclesiaslii al tribunal. Irvine v Elliott, 20(> 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
re<ji;ai-d to any of the regulations or constitutional restraint
by which, according to the princijiles and objects of such
organizations, it was intended that such property' rights
should be i)rotected ; that those having control of church
property under a ])articular church organization have no
jtower to transfer this property to a different sect or de-
nomination, or divert it from the purposes for which it was
dedicated, when in violation of the fundamental law upon
which the organization is based. Ivinkead v McKee, 9 Bush
(Ky.) 5^5.
Where no right of j)ropert3' or civil right is invaded all
matters of a religious or ecclesiastical nature are left en-
tirely to the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical judicatories,
and the courts will not interfere with the decisions of the
church tribunal. All questions of faith, doctrines, aud dis-
cipline belong exclusively to the church and its spiritual
officers, and the courts will neither review their determina-
tion on the facts nor their decision on the question of juris-
diction. Waller v Howell, 20 Misc. Re. (N. Y.) 237.
The ecclesiastical judicatories having had jurisdiction in
the case, the civil courts will not inquire whether they have
proceeded according to the law^s and usages of their church,
nor whether they have decided the matter correctly. It is
the settled law of this country, repeatedly announced by the
most learned judges and highest courts, that in such cases
the civil courts must take the decisions of the ecclesiastical
courts as final and binding upon the j>arties. 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 e<clesias-
tical judicatories u]K>n 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 a<ljii<li(aHnj5 iipou civil and jiroperty rights
in those classes of (•limcli contentions to which this case
l»('loii<;s arc IhhiimI by the adjndications of tlie ecclesiastical
court as to which of the contending faciions in the church
is the true representative of the church and which faction is
(•utside of and heyond tlu* ])ale of the chni'ch, and that the
civil courts will decree the title of church property to beiong
to the faction in the church which the ecclesiastical courts
have held to be the true repi-esentative of the church. Pres-
byterian Church V Cumberland Church, 245 111. 74.
Courts of law will not interpose to control the proceed-
ings of ecclesiastical bodies in spiritual matters which do
not atfect the civil rights of individuals, nor will they inter-
fere with the action of the constituted authorities of reli-
gious societies in matters ])urely discretionary. Jennings v
Scarborough, oti N. J. Law, 401.
The rule of action which should govern the civil courts,
foun<led in the broad and sound view of the relations of
church and state, under our sj^stem of laws, and supported
by a preponderating weight of judicial authority, is that
whenever the questions of disci])line or of faith or ecclesias-
tical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest
of these church judicatories to which the matter has been
carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as
final and as binding on them. Watson v Jones, 13 Wall.
()70-72G, cited in Brundage v Deardorf, 92 Fed. 214, aff'g
55 Fed. 830.
If the sentence of an ecclesiastical court in a suit for
administration turns upon the question of which of the
parties is next of kin to the intestate, such sentence is con-
clusive upon that question in a subsequent suit in the court
of chancery between the same parties for distribution.
Barrs v Jackson, 1 Phillips Ch. (Eng.) 582, citing for a simi-
lar state of facts, Bouchier v Taylor, 4 B. P. C. (Eng.) 708.
C1\1L CUL'KTS 137
It belongs not to the civil power to enter into or review
the proceedings of a si)iritual court. The judgments of
religious associations bearing upon their own members are
not examinable here. In this countr}- no ecclesiastical body
has any power to enforce its decisions by temjKiral sanc-
tions. Such decisions are in this sense advisory — they are
addressed to the conscience of tliose who have voluntarily
subjected themselves to their sjtiiitual sway, and, except
when civil rights are dependent iijtou Ihcni, can have no
influence beyond the tribunal from whicli they emanate.
Where a civil right depends upon an ecclesiastical matter,
it is the civil court, and not the ecclesiastical, which is to
decide. The civil tribunal tries the civil rights, and no more,
taking the ecclesiastical decisions out of which tiie right
arises as it finds them. Every competent tribunal must of
necessitj^ regulate its own formulas, llannon v l>relicr.
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 <lis-
cipline are involved, and which did not iiichidc liglils of
property.
Over the church as such, legal tribnnals do not have, or
profess to have, any jnrisdi«tion whatever, except to pro-
tect the civil rights of others, and to preserve the pnhlic
peace. All questions relating to the laith and praitice of
the church and its members belong to the chnrch jndicatnres
to which they have voluntarily snbjected thcmsidNcs. but the
civil courts will interfere with chnr«-hes and religions asso-
ciations and determine upon (ineslions of laith and practice
of a chnrch when rights of propei-ty and civil rights are
involved, (irinies Executors v Ilanii(»n. and (tlliers .'.."» hnl.
1<)8.
The only concern oT courls willi the dill'ercnces of creed
or belief within or between i-eii^ions org. mi/at ions is when
some ]»roiK'i-ty or contract liuhls arc invuKcd and demand
140 T\\\: (MX IL LAW AM) Till: CIIIKCH
|)i'(>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<l
Creek, 21!) 111. 50:1.
Religious societies are regarded by the civil authority as
other voluntary associations, the individual members and
separate bodies of ^^■llich will be held to l)e bound by tlie
laws, usages, customs, and itiinciplcs ^\•llich are accejjted
among them, n])on the assuni]»tion that in becoming parts
of such organisms they assented to l)e bound by those laws,
usages, and customs, as so many stijiulalions of ;i contract
between them. It is oidy by so regarding the associali(»n
of individuals or bodies f(U' religious |)ur]ioses that llie civil
authority in this country can interfei-e at all. and then it
can interfere only so far as may be luM-essary to decide u|M)n
and protect rights of ]»roi)ei-ty flependent upon the cond-act
between the parties. Ami wlien tlial contract has been con-
strued by the ]iarties the conris will, as in (ttliei- cases, fol-
low their owii construction. I""'irst rresbylerian Cliui-ch.
Louisville, v Wilson, II Unsli. (Ky.) 252.
The judicial |»o\ver is rehu'tant to interfei-e in maltei's of
religious or ecch'siastical arrangement, and will do so only
when rights of jn-operty or civil lights are inv<ii\e(l. Iinrlsc
V Rector, etc.. Trinity Church. (»:'. Misc. ( N. V. i i:\, sustain-
ing the action of the vestry of 'i'linity Church. New York,
in closing St. .lolin's ('lia]iel.
Consolidation of Churches. In Trustees of Tiinitv M. E.
ML» 'nil: CIS iL LAW .\M> '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-a<tiee and tlie l)ishop's decision
was hindin<; on tlie <ivil eoiirts of Connecticnt.
Constitution of Church. A chnreh constitution generally
acipiiesced in by the oflfieial bodies and menibers as the
snpi-eiiie law of the church for many years, during which no
legal steps were taken to determine its validity, will not be
declared void by a court, even upon clear proof of irregu-
larity in its adoption, except when justice, morality, or
public policy requires it. All questions of doctrine, j)rac-
tice, and jurisdiction within a church must be determined
by the church judicature, and the secular courts of this
State have no authority to adjudicate upon them. The
decision of the highest legislative and judicial body of a
church that an old confession of faith and constitution had
been superseded by a new one is conclusive upon the civil
courts. Kuns v Kobertson, 154 111. ni)4.
"I cannot recognize any constitution, laws, ordinances, or
sentences of any ecclesiastical tribunal, or of any voluntary
society as having any efficacy or power over the civil rights,
immunities, or contracts of individuals." Smith v Nelson,
18 Vt. 511.
Acquiescence in and use of the constitution of a church
for more than fifty years is conclusive on the civil courts
as to its validity. I'liiloniath College v Wyatt, 27 Or. 390.
Creed. It is not within the ])rovince of any dei>artme!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; <iiri;(ii
(•((iilntl i»r tlic jictioii (»r :iii (•(■(•lcsi;ist ical li-ihmial, declare
tlic rxiciil (iC its jiiiisdiclioii, cxaiiiiiK* the rejjularity of \\n
pi-()ce('«Iiii},fs, and revise; its jnd<;iiieiils. Tlie civil courts <l('al
only with <ivil or ]>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 <d" clinrcli organization, creed, and discii)line,
construe the constitution, canons or rules of the church,
and reguhite and revise its trials and the i>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<m ol" the donor tiiat the property was to be
devoted to religions purposes, in such manner and in such
way as the governing body of the organization, whatever it
may be, shall, uuder its coustitution and rules, determine;
aud so long as any existing religious organization can be
asserted to be that organization, or its regular legitimate
successor, it is entitled to the use of the property.
In case of a schism in such an organization no in(|uiry
will be had into the existing religious opinions of liiose
who comprise the legal and regular organization ; the ]»ioper
inquiry is. Which of the two factions constitute liie clinich?
aud those who adhere to the acknowledged organization are
entitled to the use of the property, whether adhering or not
to the doctrines originally professed. ^lack v Kime, Il!l>
(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 a<h)pte<l l)y Hie congre-
gations (Lutheran) may be considered a condition of be-
coming or remaining a member, it is not so with any new
matter of doctrine that may arise, or with any lionest inter-
pretation of the statements of former doctrines. A civil
court could not determine that by adopting any particular
opinion of such new doctrine, or sucli int('r])rctation a mem-
ber, ipso facto, ceases to be a member of the congregation
so as to lose his rights in the corporation. Trustees, East
Norway Lake Norwegian ICvangelical Lutheran Churcli and
others v Halvorson, 42 Minn. 503.
Questions of dogmatical theology are not within tlie
jurisdiction of civil courts, but courts may determine
whether a complaint exists as to a change of religious belief
by the minister. The truth and importance of the question
are within the jurisdiction recognized by the uniform and
immemorial usage of congregational churches. Courts have
no means of determining })oints of doctrine. Burr v Sand-
wich, Mass. 277.
It is not the province of courts of justice to deci«k', or
to inquire what system of religious faith is most consistent,
or what religious doctrines are true, or what are false, in
any case, and it seldom becomes necessary for courts to dis-
cuss, or to examine the creeds, or confessions or systems of
faith of the dilferent religious sects in detennining (pies-
tious of law, excei)t in cases where they are c:illeil upon
to see that a trust or charity is administere*! a»< ordiug to
the intention of the original f(»un(lers. Hale v leveret t, .""tiJ
N. H. 1.
I IS 'riii; (IN II. LAW ANh tin; (iii kcii
('i\il ((Hirls iifsrr ;issillii(' llir ;il»str;icl tliitli or liilsity (»f
iiiiv n'li;;i<)us (loch-iiic. The iiiosi llicy «;iii <l<t is, w licii
ri;^lils of properly ;ir(' (IcpciKlciil <»ii jullici-ciice to, oi- Iciicli-
in;; of :i piii't icnhir rcliiiions doilriiic, 1o cxniiiiiic wlial, as
:i lact. liic (loctiiiir is, ami wiictlici-, as a fart, tlic parti<ulai-
person adheres to or teaclies it. Wlien tlie contrait pro
vides. or by iiii|>li(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
<liscipliiu; is exclusive and Dual. Tiicn^ is no ajipcal to any
s\i|»('T'ior ecclesiastical coiii-t, and ovei- tliin}i;s s]»iiitiial or
ecclesiastical, tlie civil c(»ui-ts, ordinarily, may not tnke
jurisdiction. The civil <>()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<l of no force or ell'ect whatever. Hendrvx v Teople's
United Chunli, Spokane, \'2 >\'asli. :j:;(i.
Friends, Form of Government. In Field v I'iel<l. :i Wt-nd.
(N. Y.) .■»!)4, tlu; coui't took cognizance of the foj-m of govern-
ment adopted by the Society of i-'iiends, especially as to the
method of organizing and ((Midncl ing business meetings, and
considei'cd theelVect of a di\ision of the Society in iSilS. See
the article on l^riends.
Heresy. The law knows no heresy, and is comniitted to the
su])port of no (h)gnia. I'veryone has the legal right to eiitei-
tain any religious belief, to practic** any religions principle,
and to teach any religious doctrine wliicli (l(»es not violate
the laws of morality or ]>i'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 c<mli<)verted ([neslions of faith, and for ecclesiastical
•government of all the indi\idnal members, congregations,
and ollicers witliin I lie general association. Jjand) v Cain,
\'2U Ind. 48t;.
The civil tribnnal j)ossesses no authority whatever to
determine ecclesiastical matters on a question of heresy,
or as to what is orthodox or unorthodox in matters of belief.
Wilson V Presbyterian Church, .John's Island, 2 Kich. l']q.
(S. C.) \U'J.
Judicial Notice. "The canons, rubrics, or rules of this or
any other church among us, are not laws; they are merely
regulations for the conduct of its ministers and members,
dei)endent for their force upon vows of the one and the con-
sciences of the other, so far as they are within the limits of
the rightful powers of such bodies. We know, nothing of
them judicially." The court cannot take judicial notice
of the meaning of the terms ^institution" and "induction"
as ai)plied in the Protestant Episcopal Church, nor of
any rights or disabilities which might result from their
observance or neglect. Youngs v Kansom, ol Barb. (N. Y. i
40.
The court will not take judicial notice of the civil rights
and powers of a Konuin Catholic Church. Baxter v Mc-
Donnell, 155 Js\ Y. 8:5.
Jurisdiction, True Rule. The true ground why civil courts
do not interfere with the decrees of ecclesiastical courts,
where no property riglits are involved, is not because such
decrees are final and conclusive, but because they have no
jurisdiction whatever in such matters, and cannot take cog-
nizance of them at all, whether they have been adjudicated
or not by those tribunals. This princii)le forms the fouuda-
tion of religious liberty in republican governments. The
CIVIL COIKTS 153
civil jiiithoi-ilios Ikivc ik* p(»\vrr to pass or eufoiTC laws
abridging the lit'Cflom of ihc citizen in this regard, and
hence, in matters ]»nrely religious or ecclesiastical, the civil
courts have no jni-isdiclion. A deposed minister or an ex-
communicated member of a chnrcli cannot appeal to the
civil courts for i-edress. They can l<»ok alone to their own
judicatories for reliel", and must abide the judgment ol' their
highest courts as tinal and conclusive. JJui when property
rights are concerned, the ecclesiastical courts have no i»ower
whatever to pass on them so as to bind the civil courts. If
they expel a mendter from his church, ami he feels himself
aggrieved in his rights of jti-operty by the expulsion, he may
resort to the civil courts, and they will not consider them-
selves precluded by the judgment of expulsion, but will
examine into the case to see if it has been i-egidarly made
ui)on due notice, and if they tin<i it to be duly made, they
will let it stand, otherwise they will disregard it, and give
the proper relief. Watson v Garvin. r)t ^fo. 353; see also
Dismukes v State, 5S So. 1!)5.
Jurisdiction. This suit originated from a controversy Ix'-
tween two factions of this church over the church ]»i'operty,
and involved the right of one faction to enjoin the other
faction from using the pi-o]»erty until the latter slnndd con-
form to the laws, usages and customs, fjiith autl doctrine of
the chnrcli. The court held that it had no jtirisdiction of
this question, ami could not compel one faction to cease
worshiping in the church because of an abandonnuMil of the
faith, laws, usages, ami customs of the church. Smith v
Charles, 24 So. IMIS.
A house of worshij) had been erected by the l<»cal society
as a memorial to Bishops IJowman and Kemjier. A move-
ment to change the location of the church from Kadnor to
Merion, take down the church edifice, and use its materials
in the erection of a new building at the latter i>lace was
resisted by certain nuMubers of the < hurch. The destruction
of the memorial building was held to in\(ilve a <piestion of
good faitli and not simply a (picsliou of ecclesiastical jtolity.
ir.i Tin: ('i\ iL LAW AM) 'I'm: (iniicii
Tlic iinitlcr w;is, llicrcrorr, williiii tlic jni'isdictioii (»f ;i court
<>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 a<lult luenihers of the
reli«;ious body, the couo;regation, and uo others, are ineuibers
of the cor|»oration, so that when one l)econies a uieud)er of
the ndijiious body he becomes a member of the corjtora-
jioii. and when he ceases to be a ineniber of the relij?ious
body he ceases to be a nieudx'r of the corporation and has
no further ri<;hts in it and in the property owne«l by it,
the court, to determine on the civil right claimed — that to
be a UKMuber of the cori>oration — 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 <hnrch or of pei-sons
who were not the church, an<l who consequently had no
right to excommunicate others. Bouhlin v Alexander, 15
Wall. (U. S.) i:)l.
Minister. Towers v IJnndy, 15 Neb. -OS involved rival
claims of two ministers each claiming to be the regular
pastor of the church, but it was held that the title of the
claimants was an ecclesiastical matter to be determined by
the proper church tribunals and that the civil courts could
not interfere.
A minister was appointed to this local society according
to the rules of the denomination. Subseipiently charges
were preferred against him, and a trial was had before a
tribunal constituted according to the law of the denomina-
tion. The charges were sustained and the decision was con-
firmed by the Annual Conference, and the minister was
thereupon discharged from the ministry and expelled from
the church. It was held that the action of tlie church tri-
bunal was binding on the civil courts, ami that they had no
power to review and revise such decision, and a perpetnal
injunction was granted restraining the minister and others
in the local church from continuing to occu])y the clmnh
pro])erty. INnmder v Ashe, 41 Neb. (JTl'.
In Christ Church v rhilli]>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«t<list
Church of Canada, the conrt. in Ash v Methotlist Chnr«h.
27 Ont. App. Ke. (Can.) (102 said that the "(incsiicin whether
a minister is accejdable or incllii i<)i( is pccnliarly one for
ir.d 'I'm: cix ii. law and tiii: (Hiik'U
tlio jinlginont ol' llic Coiit'crciMe, and by Ihc Discipline that
ImkIv is in.ule the sole judge ou the subject."
Courts have no ])ower to control the action of religious
society in the employment or payment of a minister. Burrel
V Associate Keformed Church, Seneca, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 282.
"Courts of law do Tiot interfere with tlie discijdine of the
church, or the i)unishment of ministers, by sentences of the
ecclesiastical authorities." Reformed I'rotestaut Dutch
("Iinrch of All>any 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
<mr institutions and the organic law, the courts refrain from
interfering when the olfice or functions are i)urely ecclesias-
tical or spiritual, disconnected from any fixed emoluments,
salary, or other temporalities. In such case there is no legal
temporal right of which the civil courts can take jurisdic-
tion. State ex rel McNeill v Bibb St. Ch. 84 Ala. 23.
Officers, Powers. When church officers undertake to make
fundamental alterations in the organization and its plan
of operation, such as affects the entire membership and their
status, the civil courts should for themselves ascertain the
authority of such officers when this is called in question by
the proper parties and in proi)er proceedings. Especially
will this be done when the authority challenged affects
the integrity of the organization and dissolves the relation-
ship theretofore existing among the members and the sub-
ordinate bodies of the church. Such an inquiry does not
imply that civil courts will restrain or interfere with what
a church tribunal may have done in excess of its authority.
This might be considered as taking cognizance of an ecclesi-
astical matter; but they may declare the legal effect of such
action upon the property rights of the members, and award
the common i)roperty to that faction, which has rebelled
against the wrongful authority sought to be exercised over
theuK Clark v Brown, lOS S. W. 421, 451 (Texas).
ri\ II. COI^RTS 157
Courts of e(iiiily c;iii only iiilerrcic with the action oi' .siuli
officers as have been placed by the corporation itself iu the
control of its affairs, unless either in excess of their discre-
tion or in aggrieved cases of misconduct amounting to actual
or constructive fraud. Cicotte v Anciaux, 5o Mich. 227.
Property Rights, Three Classes. Courts are iu no way con-
cerned with the transactions of ecclesiastical bodies except
in so far as tangible rights of jifisoiis or property are
affected. (Questions relating to these are divided by tlie
court into three classes; the tirst is where projierly, by the
express terms of the grant, is devoted to the teaching, sup-
])ort, or spread of sonic si>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 divide<l into three classes, namely, first, cases
where the ]>ro])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;<ii
cliiiitlifs ,'iimI llicir iiiciiiltcis Jirc <i\il. jiihI oI' lliciii tlu; coiirts
of the Sl;il(' luive exclusive juiisdictioii. EcclesiaKtical
foiiils Ii;iv(' no juiisdictioii to decide tlie rights of i)ro])('rty
and enforce its ])i-oteclion. Bridges v Wilson, 11 Ih'isk.
(Tenu.) 458.
Protestant Episcopal Vestry. Considering a question relat-
ing to (lie ;i]»|iro|»ria(ion <»!' the linnls of a Trolestant l^pis-
(((pal chinch in South Carolina, the court in Vestry and
Wardens of lOpiscopal Church of Christ Church Parish v
Barksdale, 1 StrohliarCs Kq. Ke. ( S. C.) IDO, said: "This
court has no autliority to interfere with or control the dis-
cretion of the vestr^' and wardens unless they transgress
the limits of their charter. However unwisely they may
exercise the power, they are responsible only to their con-
si it ncnts.''
Quakers, Who Are Overseers. The question, Wlio are the
overseers of a mouthlj'^ meeting of Quakers? within the
meaning of Massachusetts statute of 1822, cliaj). 02, is to be
determined according to the discipline of that people, ex-
pounded by the general usages of those persons of most
experience and judgment who have acted under it and ac-
knowledged its authority. It was held that the decision of
a Yearly Meeting as to the status of subordinate officers was
conclusive on the court. Earle v Wood, 8 Cush. (Mass.) -431.
Religious Questions. When rights of property or civil
rights as contradistinguished from ecclesiastical rights are
involved, and such rights dei)end ui)on the religious faith or
orthodoxy of citizens, or the rules, discipline, and practice
of churches, or religious denominations, the courts of this
State may hear evidence and determine judicially all such
questions so far as they atfect the rights of persons or reli-
gious denominations to jiroperty or civil rights. Grimes
Executors v Harmon and others, ;>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<nstonied.
ami the lields in which they are wont to W(uk. Hut when
chnrcli organizations buy and take title to |»ropeiiy. tlieii
tiiey enter the domain wherein civil courts control, in case
any ([uestions arise between contending parlies (U* individ-
uals as t(t such pi<>|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 an<l adjudge accordingly. It can do no
less in view of its obligation to do justice between the
parties. It cannot, in discharging its duty to decide on
questions of projterty, hand over its conscience to the keep-
ing of any church organization. The civil court cannot
rightly evade tlie labor of investigating the questions that
arise in such controversies, no matter how ditficult or
unfamiliar the (piestions may be, nor can it escape the re-
sponsibility no matter how embarrassing. It is proper that
the civil court should act with diffidence, it is true, on such
questions, yielding all respect due to the opinions of experts,
as upon any subject on which expert evidence is required,
but when it clearly ai>pears 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 <liscii)line in the absence of jiny invasion of IIh; I('<,';iI
rights of persons or property. Hellstern v Kat/.er, 10.'> Wis.
391.
Resulting Trust, Beneficiary. C(jui1s of law will not enter
into the examination or <liscussion of jnirely theological
questions in order to ascertain the proi>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 promulgale<l,
or forms of worship specially ])rescribed have been adopted
or rejected. Not to decide whether such doctrines are sound,
but whether the trustee has conscientiously done that with-
out which lie has no good right to hold I lie prctperty. «»r to
use it as he has done." Attorney Oeneral v Troprietois of
Meeting House in Federal Street. :'. dray (Mass.) ,"iS.
"The jurisdiction <d" civil courts to adjudge any ecclesias-
tical matter must result as a mere incident to the determina-
tion of some ](roj)erty right. Thus, whei-e i»ro]ierly has been
conveyed to some religi(»us use, and lli.it use is express and
specitic, and has been indicated by the doncw and is set out
in the conveyam-e, a trust arises, and a court of cMpiily will,
upon application of the beneticiaries. ,is it Wiudd in case of
any other sort of valid trust, prevent any diversion of such
l»ro])erty to any other than the purp(».ses o\' the founders of
the trust. In the case of a detinile I rust for tlie inainlenance
of a jtarticular faith or form of \\orshi|». the conn will even
go so far as to ju-event tlu dixcisiou of the proi>erly 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<i;iiies,
and entitled to the contiol wnd enjoyment of the property
without interference by Hie nnlaithfnl majority." Nance
V Hnshhy, !)1 Tenn. 'MYA.
It is not tlie jtrovince of the courts of equity' to determine
mere (piestions of faith, doctrine, or schism not necessarily
involved in the enforcement of ascertained trusts. Courts
deal with tanj^ible riy;hts, not with spiritual conceptions,
unless they are incidentally and necessarily involved in the
determimition of leyal rights. Such trusts, when valid ;in<l
so ascertained, must, of course, be enforced ; but to call for
equitable interference there must be such a real and sub-
stantial dei)arture from the designated faith or doctrine as
will be in contravention of such trust. Fadness v Braun-
borg, 73 Wis. 257.
The <-ourt lias no right to institute an inquiry into the
doctrines or mode of worship of any religious society, except
such inquiry shall become absolutely necessary for the pro-
tection of trust pr()])erty. Tf property is given to a partic-
ular denomination of Christians adhering to certain doc-
trines and forms of worship, and an attempt is made to per-
vert the ])ro])erty to any use, religious or otherwise, different
from that to which the donor devoted it, it is the duty of
the court to restore the property, and to protect it in its
original use. To do this it frequently becomes necessary
for the court to inquire into the peculiar tenets and doc-
trines of different societies claiming the property under the
same trust. It is not the ]U'ovince of the court, in j)ursuing
such an inquiry, to decide which doctrines are correct, but
which society maintains the doctrines, to support and pro-
mulgate which the donor dedicated the property. German
Evangelical Lutheran Church, Newark v Maschop, 10 N. J.
Eq. 57.
When ])roperty is devoted to a specific doctrine the civil
courts will, when nccessaiy to protect the trust to which
CIVIL COLKTS 165
the property has been «levote(i, iiupiin' inlo the religious
faith and practice of the parties claiming it.> 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, an<l will not be reviewed by tlie civil c(un-ls.
The action of the highest ecdesiiisl ic;il ImhIv of a icligious
sect, in ado])liug the rejMtrt of a committee app(»inted to
detei'miue llie vali<lity of :i coiisl il ul ioual anieuduieut, and
to subiuit it lo a vole <»! ils nieniliers. llie amendment being
adopted by llie a(btpli<»ii of llie r<'p(ul. is legislative, and not
an adju<lical ion binding on ci\il coiiils, williin llie nile con-
cerning the binding ell'ecl of decisions by cliuicli Iribunals
on (piestions of lailh oi- of ecclesiastical law or cu.slom. The
Hiii 'rili; (IN II. LAW AM) Till- (III K<ll
action, llicri, (»!' (iciicrjil ('oiilVrjMHC of ISSI) of the clniicli of
the United liiethrcii in Christ in adoptinj^ the report of the
committee of seven, to the elfeet that the revised confesKJon
of faith and constitution ])i-oi)os<'(l by tlie General Confer-
ence of 18S5 had been adopted anil carried at the election in
Novend)er, 1S8S, and shonbl be so recognized nj>on 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(cor<lin<i to the known
will of God. The constitution provided, anioiij; other things,
that agriculture and raising of catde and other tlomestic
animals, in connection with some maiiuractni'ing and trades,
shall, un<ler the blessing of (Jod, form (lie means of sns(e-
nance of this society. The exi)enses of (lie society were (o be
paid from the income, and the surjdus a|»plied (o the im-
provement of th<' common estate of tlie society, meeting-
houses and sclioolhonscs, printing establishments, the care
of aged UHMnbers, (he establishment of a business an<] safety
fund, and to benevohMit jtnrposes in general.
Members of the society wei-e entitled iiot only to support
and care, but an annual snm for maintenance lor (liem-
selves and (heir lamilies, and (he members relincpiished to
the society all <lainis I'oi' wages, and any interest in tin?
l»i-o|»erty. No divi<lends were declared, and no money was
given to any mendter, save (o meet (he bare necessities of
the most economical e.\is(ence. No compensation was made
for work.
167
ir.s T\\\: ri\ IL |,.\A\' A.\h 'llli: rill iKii
ill !!)()(» Ilic socicly <'<>iisistc(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<l to he worth $70,000, and its
;innual income was about §80,000.
in a proceeding against the society, charging it with
wrongful exercise of corporate powers, it was held that the
corporation was a religious corporation, although carrying
on various ojjerations of a secular character, and that its
members had a right to establish and maintain the com-
munity of property, and that the corporation could not be
dissolved ou the application of the attorney-general. State
of Iowa V Amana Society, lo2 la. 304.
Harmony Society, Organization. The society was organized
by articles of association made between several persons in
1821, and by other articles in 1827. According to the latter
articles, the society was formed "on the basis of Christian
fellowship, and the i)rinciples of which being faithfully
derived from the Sacred Scriptures, include the government
of the patriarchal age, united to the community of property,
adopted in the days of the apostles, and wherein the single
object sought is to approximate, so far as human imperfec-
tion may allow, to the fulfillment of the will of God. by the
exercise of those all'ections, and to the practice of those
virtues which are essential to the happiness of man in time
and throughout eternits'.'' The associates conveyed to the
leader. George Rapi>, 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 ma<le by him, liis personal repiesen-
tatives had the same right. The light to withdraw was not
transmissible; and even if it were transmissible, the sid)-
scriber's release on joining the a.-^sociation would i»e a bar
to any claim by his heirs or next ..f kin. St iiribrr v Kapp,
5 Watts (l»a.) 351.
The society was composed at lirsl of (leiniaus, who emi-
grated to the Tnited States in 1805, under the leadership
of George Ea]>p. 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<lo|.ted
17(1 Tin: ("l\ II. LAW AM) Till: ('III K(ll
ill I lie <I;iys of the ii]>(»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. an<l entitled to
share in its ])roi»erty, and also for an accounting; and a
division of the propei-ty amon<? the nuMubei-s. It was ludd
that he could not maintain tiie action. ( )ii sij^nin^i the
articles the propei-ty of each s\d)scriber immediat(dy be-
came an insej)arable i»art of the community's capital, and
while no one was comp(dled to toil, yet labor was enjoined
as a relif»ious duty, au<l the earnings (A' all were minjiled
in the common treasury. ICvei-y member was at libeity
to withdi'aw at any time upon his (»wn niolion. but he
could not take with him <u- demand as a rijiht any shai-e
of the joint projierty; all must be left intact for the use
and enjoyment of those who remainetl btynl to the jmr-
poses of the orj^ani/.atiou. An a<(ounl was kept of the
property contributed by a memlxM* upon his admission, and
if he withdrew, it was the ]nactice to refniid it ur its e(piiv-
alent in value without interest or increase. This was not
regarded as a liability, and the time and manner of r»'fund-
ing rested in the discretion of the conimuniiy, llir(tn;;li tiie
voice of its mend)ei-s, but the education, subsistence, cloth-
ing, and other necessaries of life furnished them and their
children were to be recei\-ed as just (Mpiivalents for all linir
labor and services, and no claim for wa^es was l<i be in.ide
172 Tin; ('i\ii. LAW AM) Tin: (Imkch
l»y any \villi<lrii\viii.n iiicmlxT. Tlicic \v;is ii iniihiiil sfijnila-
lion tliiil no incnilx'i' oi- his licirs, cxcciifors, adiiiiiiislriifors,
or jissigns would ever luin^ ;iny action, either at hiw or in
e(iuity, or other process or proceeding for wages or other
conii»ensation for services, nor for tlie recovery of any ])rop-
erty contributed at any time, or make any claim or demand
therefoi- of any kind or nature whatsoever. Burt v Oneida
Coniniunily, K^7 N. V. ^>4<^.
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<l
only to a decent sujtport as a mendjer of the corporation,
and by becoming a member of it he agreed to give it every-
thing which he then had, and everything which he might
thereafter acquire. During his later years Wirth wrote and
published several books under contracts for royalty or other-
wise, and performed other services for which he received
comi)ensation, and he was allowed by the order to expend
the sums received for his books for charitable purposes as
the agent of the order. At the time of his death there was
money on hand and also copyrights and otlier property. It
was held that all the property acquired by him and money
not disposed of at his death belonged to the order of St.
( 'OilMI' X IT V S()( ' 1 1 :t I i:s 1 7:».
Benedict ol" >.'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 <li('d every-
thing that he left belonged to the order, and tliongh the title
to it stood in his name that fact did not make it the property
of his heirs. Order of St. Benedict of New .Jersey v Stein-
hauser, 171) Fed. (Minn.) i;JT. See same case in li-i S. Ct.
(U. S. Sup.) 9:^2.
The judgment in this case was reversed by the Circuit
Court of Appeals (Steinhauser v Order of St. Benedict, V.U
Fed. 289, March, 1912) and it was there held that the canon
law is of no intrinsic authority ontside the jnrisdiction of
its origin or countries observing that system of law, except
as it is sanctioned by statute or immemorial usage; that
in this country it is tlie inherent ami natural right of every
person to acquire and hold property in his own right and
this right must be maintained by the state; that the legal
title to a possession of the ])roi)erty in controver.sy was in
Wirth at the time of his death, and under the statute of
Minnesota would descend to his legal heirs, and ihal the
order of St. Benedict was not entitled to such |»roperly.
Various questions relating to I'^ather ^^'iI•tll's nieniber.ship
in the order, the rights of his administrator and ol the i»ul»
lishers of his books, including also the rights of the order
itself were considered in I'enziger v Steinhauser, 1."! Fe<l.
151, where the character of the oi-dei- is again desi libed.
Separatists. In IS! 7 members of an association calk'd Se|>-
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 (•<Misisled of women and children. Whihe the
society was in Philadelphia they i)nrchased, in the name of
the chief meniher of the society, 5,500 acres of land in Zoar.
Ohio. They found the jn-ojieily jtractically a wilderness.
They were economical and industrious. In April, 1810, the
society ])repared articles of association, signed by 5?> 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<led articles of association were formed in 1S24. The
articles contained numerous details relative to the owner-
shi]> 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 rea<ling of i)rayers in the
college chapel, was not a public reading, for tlie reason 1li:il
the members of the college constituted a ])rivate family or
household. But it also appeared that strangers were some-
times present at chapel service. Tlie court said it was
impossible to say that the assenddage was a private fannly.
and under the circumstances the reading of prayers was a
public reading and contrary to tlie rules.
Defined. "The congregation, bcfoi-e tlu^ sale of pews, con-
sists of those who have in f.icl uiiilcd together, and by
mutual agreement nn<ler seiiK «>r 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<l
the two terms are there used indillerently, to signify the
same sect and the same system of ecclesiastical i)olity."
"At the time of the first emigration to New Kngland the
colonists were Congregational and indopendcnt in their
o])inions." As early as 1(140 tlie cliui-clics in New I'ngland
were denominated Congregational, ainl were not known as
Independent. Congrogationalisls jiihI liidciKMidcnts were
in their origin the same religions sect : llicy sprung in (he
commencement from the same piinciplc, !<» wit. ili;it cadi
church and congregation were indc|»ciidciil of :ill others.
It was u]»on tliis Inndaniental jirinciple of church polity
and discipline that Congregati«»n;ilisls scpiinitcd Ironi i'rcs-
byterians and I'vpiscojtalians. and forincd Ihciiisclvcs into a
new ami <listin<-t dcnoniiiuition, and not on account of any
difference in matters of fiiitli an<I doctrine, for in doctrine
tl ley agreed snbstanlially with Iheoliu'r rrotesi;ints. "Tliey
held that the Scrijilures were the only standard and test of
179
is(> '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<l (V)nj>;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 consi<leration.
Home Missionary Society. Tlie testatrix nmde a bequest
to the Home Missionary Society of America. There was no
.society bearing the mime mentioned in the will. The (pies-
tion in this ca.se involved llie i(k'ntity of tlie society intemh'd
as the object of her bounty. The legacy was claimed by
the Congregational Home Missionary Society. This so<-iety
was organized in New York in 1S71, niuh'r tiie name of tiie
American Home Missionary Society. Originally, this asso-
ciation, then unincori)orated, beginning in ISlMI, had been
composed of re|)res('ntalives or membei-s of four church
bodies, namely, the Congregation;! 1. l>nitli 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<l»'<l into two Crunches, Iciiowii as Old
and New Schools, ami only the New-Kchool branch con-
tinued the connection witii the mission work cai-ried on by
the American Home .Missionary Society. The local J'reshy-
terian (linicli to wliicli the testatrix belonged for many
years made contributions to the American Home Missionaiy
Society.
A will ^i\inj; a legacy to the American Home Missionary
Society was made in 1802, and another in \S'.)V>, 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 in<kq)endent republic, and adopts its
own laws, its own constructions of the Scripture doctrine,
its own church ]K)lity; and in none of these resjiccfs is it
subject to any control by any othei- oi- more comprehensive
organization. Cape v Plymouth Congi-cgational Church,
lao Wis. 174.
Saybrook Platform. In order to establish a more energetic
government the General Assenddy provided foi- the calling
of a synod at Saybrook. The svucmI met imrsuant to the
act, and adopte<l a confession of faith, heads of government,
and articles of discipline. tog<'ther constituting the plat-
form, and the object and |ini|»<>se. 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 in<o the ministry, and tlie i)romotion of onler
and li.ii-niony anionjj the ministers and churches. This was
not simidy a const ilution, but an instrument for the con-
federation of the churches under standing authoritative
councils, for the perfection of discipline, the easing of dilli-
culties, the preservation of the faith, and tlie rendering of
assistance on all occasions ecclesiastical. Gibhs v Gilead
Ecclesiastical yocietj', 08 Conn. 153.
CONSCIENCE
Right inalienable, 187.
Rule, 187.
Right Inalienable. The rights of coiisciLMK-e are inalien-
able. Mere civil or political rights could be surrendered to
the government, or to society in order to secure the protec-
tion of other rights; but the rights of conscience could not
be thus surrendered ; nor could society or government have
any claim or right to assume to take them away, or to inter-
fere or intermeddle with them, except so far as to protect
society against any acts or administrations of one sect or
persuasion, which might tend to disturb the public peace or
affect the rights of others. But when tlie rights of con-
science come in question, the right of worshiping Clod either
privately or publicly; the right of making profession of any
religion, privately or publicly, the entertaining of any reli-
gious sentiments and the proi)er exi)ression, maintenance
and vindication of them whether in private or in public;
the right of belonging to any persuasion, which word, in the
sense in which it is here used, means a creed or belief, or a
sect or party adhering to a creed or system of o])inions, the
belonging to any sect or denf>mination 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<l the Westminster Confession of
Faith in the particulars above referred to. Subsequently
the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian
(,'huroh was formed; and in ISI*!) this judicature made such
changes in tiie form of government as were demanded by the
formation of this church court,
Tlie CmnlxM-land Presbyterian Church grew in nund)ers
and in influence, especially in the State in which it was or-
ganized, and adjacent States, but its territory was not lim-
ited to these. In 11)0(> 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 an<l declared them-
selves to be the true General Assembly »»f the Cund>erland
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 <lisci|»iine seriously and reasonably proposed. And
;iilhonj;h e;Hh court exercises exclusive and original juris-
diction over all matters es]>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<lment, whether or
not they will so jtermit. At all events, the people of the
church were entitled to have the whole (jucstion submitted
to the presbyteries. We do not think that the (ieneral
Assend)ly had power to determine (his (jucslion without a
submission to the presbytery. There is nothing in any part
of the constitution of the chnrch which conl'cis (his power
upon the Assembly, ami by secticm L'r> 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 <listrict. Landriih \ llndgins. IL'I Ten n. ."».">(!.
Session. The session is the go\erning agency of (he c<tn-
gregation. The session, so l;ir ;is comp().^cd of elders, is
1!M Tin: CIN II. LAW AND 'I'lli: ("III IM'II
itcjiIimI Ity (lie Noicc ol' I lie people who coinposc the congre-
ffatioii; ;ni<l liv llie coiiihiiied voice of the iireKbyterj', the
session. :iii(l llie people, the miiiister is attaehed to the eoii-
ure^^alion. Thus the session, composed of the leaders and
llie minister, is created l>_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 stu<ly
and review of numerous ]»T'ol)h'nis affecting tlie Presbyterian
family of churehes. In I'lissell v Hail, 233 111. 7.1 the court
considered the uni<ni of the two churches, but declined to
entertain jurisdiction of the action on the ground that it
involved only an ecclesiaslii al <|nesiion Nxhidi was nut sub-
ject to the sui)ervision of <i\il ((tmls.
The union was sustained in J'.aikley v Hayes, 2(K V. ."il9
(Mo.), August, 1!»i:5. It was there held that the nnited
church became vested with all pi"(»|K'i-ty lights of each enii-
stituent; see also Sharp v Ilonhani, 2i:'. 1"\ (Tenn.) (ItlO.
Helm V Zarecor, 2i:'. ImmI. (Tenn.) {US.
DEACONS
Baptist Church, 196.
Ecclesiastical officer, 196.
Baptist Church. Deacons of a Baptist Church are ex officio
trustees, and have charge and control of its i)roperty,
records, etc. Fulbright v Higginbotham, 133 Mo. 6G8.
Ecclesiastical Officer. The office of deacon "is an office not
created or exi)ressly authorized by State law, but is one
created by an unincorporated ecclesiastical body, and filled
by election by a body which possesses no corporate powers
or functions. Over the office, and over the election to it, the
courts of the State have no authoritj' whatever; they are
controlled exclusively by an unincorporated membership in
an organization whose unincori)()rated tribunals decide for
themselves, and decide finally upon the election." Attorney-
General ex rel. Ter Vree v Geerlings, 55 Mich. 5G2.
196
DENOMINATION
Defined, 197.
Defined. Persuasion refers to the opinion, convictiou or
belief which occasions the separation. Sect means the party
persuaded, or avIio, enlcrtaiiiiiij^ opinions diMci-cnt from tlie
rest, are cut oil', or seitavatcd from the main body. Denom-
inatiou is the next step in llie i)rocess. It signifies the name
the sect acquires when actually st'paratcd, and which is
generally descrii)tive of the i>rincipal 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<l to cclcln-ale the birth, lite, diMili, and
resurrection of Christ, and in coniincnionilion of the begin-
ning of the Christian era, was iicld to be ;i religions serviii',
and one who disturbed it by iinpTojK'r condnct was held
liable to ])unislinient therefor. Stallord v State. l.~| Ala.
71; see also Cline v State, i:!0 Tac. (Okl.i .".10.
Church Trial. Chnrcli authorities, convened for the trial
of a member of the society, are entitled to the i»i-ot«'clion of
the law against the dislui-bance of religions meetings, and
a person who disturbs su«li a trial is liable to i»unishment
therefor. Hollingsworlh v Stale, ."i Sneed. (Tenn.l r)lS.
202 Till-: cix iL LAW AXh riii; ciniMii
Common Law. This is an ollcnsc n\ coiiiiiion l;i\v, l'('0|)le v
J)(>}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(ii<M's mi:i:tix(: lmci
people met for religious worship, by noise, profane dis-
course, rude or indecent behavior, or by some other act or
acts of like character, at or near the j)hice of worship, but
such interruption or disturbance must be willfully made by
the person or persons accused. Tlie intent is of the very
essence of the otfense, and to be willful, it iiiiist be somelhing
more than mischievous, it iinist he in ils character virions
and immoral. Brown v State, 4() Ala. 175.
The substance of the oilence consists in the indulgence
of improper conduct, and attracting the attention of any
part of the assendily thereby; and mIumi these facts concur
the offense is complete, llolt v State. 1 Baxter, (Tenn.l
192.
Described. It is an offense which tends to subvert those
principles of morality which are the fonndation of all good
government, of all social order, and of all conlidences be-
tween man and man; for the strongest sanction of those
l)rincii)les has, in all ages and conntries, :ind under all forms
of government and of religions woiship. been l<»nnd in reli-
gious faitli; in that relation which subsists between man
and his ^Maker, the duties «»f which relation are in a par-
ticular manner the subject of all religious instruction.
TJ. S. V Lee, 4 Cranch ( V. S. ) 44().
Dispersion of Congregation. After the benediciion and
before the people had left the house, the defendant assjtulted
the minister and used towai'd him rude and insulting lan-
guage. It was held that it was for the jury to <letermine as
a mixed question of law and fad, wlietliei- the congregati<Mi
should be deemed dispersed ;ii iIh lime of the occui-rence.
State V Snyder. 14 hid. 4L'!t.
After the church was dismissed. ;ind the i)aslor and part
of the congregation on their way home, the delVndant, with
others, engaged in a broil, and defendant, by cnrsing and
sweaiiug, disturbed tho.se then on the gronnd ; defendant
behaved in an or<lerly nmnner so lung as the jtastor was
]>resent 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<l
under the statute against disturbing religious meeting.
Folds V State, 123 Ga. 167.
The congregation, which had been holding religious serv-
ices, in the forenoon, took a recess until the afternoon serv-
ice, and during this interval partook of a basket dinner just
outside the church building. While the congregation was
thus engaged, the defendant used language calculated to dis-
turb the worshipers. He w^as held liable under the Ala-
bama Statute, which the court said was not limited to dis-
turbances during the actual progress of religious serv-
DISTURBING RKLIOIOUS MEETING 205
ices, but. Ihe coiigrcj^jilioii \v;i.s ('iilillcd to he pi-oleetCMl
against disturbance during tlie intennission. Ellis v State,
65 So. (Ala.) 412, 10 Ala. App. 252.
Evidence. Talkinj; and heating on a tin can constitutes a
disturbance nnder the Texas statute. Cantrell v State, 29
S. W. (Tex.) 42.
A canij) meeting was disturbed at night. A conviction was
sustained on cn idcncc that the dclVndant was arrested at
two o'clock in the morning, ha\ ing in his i)()ssession a jtistol,
and that he was in conijjany with one of tlie jtarties causing
the disturbance; no explanation being given oi" his being out
at that hour in such coni])any, and there were otiier circum-
stances indicating his participation in the disturbance. Ball
V State, 07 Miss. 358.
To constitute the statutory otl'ense of (iisturl)ing religious
worshij), the act or discourse chai-ged must have been inten-
tional, and its natural tendency must have been to disturb
the assenddage, to derange its (piiet and order. It is not
necessary that the assemblage shoidd have been actually
engaged in worship at the moment of the discourse, or of
the condiict complained of. The statute applies to assem-
blages when in the act of gathering t«»getlier and until there
has been a dispeision of the jx'rsons met ioi- woi-ship and
they cease to be an assemblage or congregation. Leave to
speak given a member of Ihe assemblage and the religious
organization by ihe conductor of the services cannot justify
or excuse a vioh'iit. passionat(>. and insulting discour.se
and deliberately nmde, ami whi<h by its vioh'nce olVends
the order and decorum essential to Clirisiian worship; nor
is it any excuse or justilication that the delcndant wliile
making such discourse was not lalled to ordei-. Lancaster
V State, 53 Ala. 398.
A charge of loud and vocifei-ons talking and (|uarreling in
a religious meeting was ludd sullicient to sustain an indict-
ment under the Texas statute. Ilnsh v State, ."> 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<l In he :i (list nilciiicc of tlic iiiccl iii;^ aii<l lie w;is
convicted. Dorn v State, 4 Tex. A]>|». 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 notifie<l the congre-
gation that there was a fight. It was held that the deleiid-
ant's act of fighting did not disturb the congregation, which
could not have known of the fight except for the notice by a
third person. State v Kir]»y, 108 N. C. 77'2.
Grantor Preventing Occupancy of Property. A ])erson wlio
held ti deed of the land on which a meeting house had l)een
erected, claiming title thereto, locked the dooi- and l»re-
vented services fi-om being held. This was not a <listnrbance
of religious worshij*. Davis v Stale, 1(1 South. (Miss.) :'.TT.
Intention. Q'he defendant cannot prove a secret intention
not to distul-1) the assenddage, although he may rebut the
presum])tion of guilty intent by proof of a lawful excuse.
Williams v State, 8: 1 Ala. (is.
Interruption by Expelled Member. It was held lo be a dis-
turbance for an expelled member to interrupt the .service by
calling attention to his recent expnision and ]>rotesling
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 li<pn)r either on their insides or (»n their out
sides.
L'KI T\\\: CINIL LAW ANh 'I'lli: ('111 ICdl
'i'lic (!«'or;;i;i INicil ('ode, scdicii |:'.S, f<»rl)i(ls ;iiiy ixTsfHi
from ciirrviiiii to ;i clinrcli, or oilier ])l;ir«' where llie people
li;i\e ;isseiiil)l('(l lor divine \vorslii|i. iiiiy litjiioi- or iiitoxiejil-
iii«;- (IriiiU. I'ul l>y seclion 411, it is not niilawfiil to use iii-
loxi(:iliii^ liipioi's ;it such phu-es in ense of aeci<lent or niis-
lorluiie, nor ai-e pracUciiin ]»]iysi(iaiis jjroliihited from
caii-yinji and nsiiij; such licpioi' as they niii^ht deem necessary
In Iheir rej;nlai' jiiaclice. The defendant atlended a church
serxice wilh his wife, and left his Itu^iuy helweeii one Inm-
di-ed and Iwo lunidi-ed yai<ls fi-om the <-hnrch, and left in
Ihe bu^uy some whisky in a bottle, which he said he cari-ied
on the advice of a |»liysi(i;Ln (»n account of the illness of liis
wife so as to have the nie»licine ready in case of a sudden
attack. The court overruled the defense, saying among
other things that the prohibition contained in the statute
was inqterative, and forbids its introduction not only into
a religious sen-ice, but also to a place in such immediate
proximity to tJie church building as to make it readily
accessible to those who may desire to use it. Bice v State,
109 Ga. 117.
The Pennsylvania act of 1822, forbidding the sale of any
kind of articles of traffic, sj)irituous liquors, wine, ]>orter,
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 di<l not thereby commit any ollense.
Divine worship was not prevented, but was actually carried
on. AVoodall v Slate. I <;a. App. 7S:',.
Protest against Minister. Tlie dclcndauts were hrhl indict-
able for attending a religi(tus meeting for tlie puriKt.se of
])rotesting against the preaching (»!' a certain minister \\hosp
anthoritv to act they (lisp\ited. In lon.setptcnce of this pro-
ni'j r\\\: ('i\ iL LAW AM* Tin; (III i;(H
Icsl llicrc Wiis ;i disl mhiiiicc <»r llic meet iii;^, wiid the iiiiii-
islei- was forced lo \vitlidi-;iw lioiii the clmi-cli. ('omraon-
we.illli V Dupiiy, llii-ililly X. P. (Ta.) 44.
Removal of Disturber. A per.son distnrl)i!if; a icli^fHCus
meeting and iiiteii'ni»l iii^" its ordei- and decornm. nia.y be
renM»ve(l tlierelroni by flie application of force sufficient for
that ]»nr]»ose. The dist nib;ince need not be willful. Where
in a Roman Catholic meeting a jtei-son i-ose in his ])lace and
demauiled of the piiest an exjilanat ion of a part of his ser-
mon, ami on bein<;- i-ebuked and oT-dei-e<l to leave the room
refused, it \\;is held that the i)riest, as i)residin<i; officer of
the meelini;-, had authority to i-emove the disturber liy the
ai>plication of needed force, au<l for that purjtose might call
to his aid <»lhei' nuMnbers of the cougregatiou, and that a
]>riest, 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
en<j;agin<; in a riot fortj' feet from a conj;regation in reli-
gious worship was so certain to disturb the congregation
as that it must be held to have been within the contempla-
tion and intention of all particii)ants.
Salvation Army. One who enters a religious service con-
ducted by the Salvation Army and, keejjing his hat on and a
cigar in his mouth, i>ersists 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 ma<le while the religious services
are progressing but at a camp meeting, and after the reli-
gions services are closed for the day, and the congregation
has retired to rest. In this case the defendant was charged
with going about on the camj) ground, among the tents,
blowing a hoin after the wor.shipers had retired for the
night. A conviction was .sustained. Commonwealth v Jen-
nings, ?y Graft. (Va.) (;24.
Singing. The defendant's alleged offense consisted in his
singing which was described to be so j)eculiar as to excite
mirth in one ])ortion of the congregation and indignation in
the other, his voice being heard at the end of each verse
after all the othei' singers had ceased. To the expostulations
against his method of singing he replied that he would wor-
shij) his God, and that as a part of his worshij) it was his
duty to sing. Defendant was a <levout mendxM- of the church
and a man of most exemplary dej>or(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<ed by de('<l for
the use of a congregation of Christians designating such
congregation by the name of a sect or denomination, without
any other sjtecifications of the religious worshij) intended,
the intent of the donoi-s or fonndei's in that res]»ect may be
implied from their cnvn religions tenets, fi'om the jtrior and
contemporary usages and <locti'ines of the sect or deiionnna-
tion to which such congregation belongs. Tn ascertaining
the early and contenii»orary usage ami docti'ines of sncii sect
resort may be ha<l to histoi-y, and to stamlard woi-ks of tlieol-
ogy of an era j)i-ior to Ihe existence of the dispute of con-
trovei-sy." Kniskern v liUtlieran ('hurch, 1 Sandf. Ch. (X.
Y.) r.v.).
Predestination. 'IMie docliines (»f abs(»]ute predestination
and of limited jn-edest inal ion a i-e both lan;^ht in substance
in ciiurches of good standing in tlie associat ions of tlie I'rim-
itive Baptist Church in Kentucky, and as there is no una-
nimity upon the subject in the teachings of those I'ccogni/.ed
as learned in the docti*iiie of the cinircli, the teaching of
either of these docti-ines is not a departure from the faith as
understood in ISI,"), at the time church ju-opei-ty was con-
veved for tiie jMii-poses of a church of thai denomination.
Bennett v jNlorgan, llL' Ky. .MJ.
215
D0WIEI8M
Leadershi[), (lucstiori of succession, 210.
Religious belief iis excuse for |)iirental neglect, 216.
Leadership, Question of Succession. This question was con-
sidercd in Lewis v Voliva, 1.")4 III. Ap]*. 48, where it was
held that the civil courts would not decide the question of
leadership, but that the question must be left to the church
to be determined accordinji; to its laws and usages, no prop-
erty right being involved in the controversy.
Religious Belief as Excuse for Parental Neglect. See State
V Chenoweth, liV.) Ind. !)4 for a case where the defendant
charged with manslaughter ou account of the death of his
infant child eight months old excused his neglect to pronde
medical aid for the child on the ground that he believed in
divine healing without the aid of medicine, according to the
views maintained by John Alexander Dowie. The case con-
tains a review of authorities bearing on the question
whether religious belief is a valid excuse under such circum-
stances. The court directed a verdict of acquittal for fail-
ure of evidence.
216
BUNKERS
Deed, license, trust, 217.
Deed, License, Trust. In 17S7 land was coiivcycd t<> 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 groun<l
for members of the German Bajjtist Society, conimonh'
called Dnnkers, and such other ])ers()ns as the trustees might
l)erniit to be buried therein, and any house of worship to
be erected on the land was to be used by the society and
others.
No house having been built on the lot, an agreement was
made by the German Baptist Society in 1S4!) with the trus-
tees of the congregation of tlie Discijdes of Christ, by which
the latter agreed to erect on the lot a house of worship, to
surround the land with a brick wall, and also erect a vault
on the premises. Tlie building was to be used exchisively
by the second society as a place of worship, or such .society
might, at its o])tion, permit the building to be used by other
persons. The building was erected and used. The present
action was brought by the trustees under the original deed
to recover possession of the jiroperty, on (hi' alleged invalid-
ity of the licen.se under which the .second society procured its
right to erect the house of woiship and take possession of
the property. It was held thai tlic license was \ali<i, ami
that the action to si't it aside could not he maintained.
217
I
LMS TIIIO (M\II. I.AW AM) TIIi: (MiriU'II
^Vll;ll('V('I' I'ciiicdy tlic jiraiiloi-s of llic license iiiiiy liavo liad
by way of foireidiic of the proijcily iimst have \ntv.n resorted
to in a court of law aud uot in a court of equity. Grove v
Trustees of the Conj^jregation of the Disciples of JesuH
Christ, :i;j Md. 151.
ECCLESIASTICAL COUNCIL
Defined, 219.
Described, 219.
Minister, change of religious tenets, 219.
Defined. An ec-flesiasiicjil coiiiicil is a judicial trihiuial
whose province it is, uitoii the proper presentation of
charges, to try them on evidence admissible before such ii
tribunal. They have no power to dissolve a contract, or to
absolve either party from its obli<i;ation. Sheldon v Congre-
gational Parish, Easton, 24 Tick. (Mass.) L*S1.
Described. Au ecclesiastical council is a tribunal well
known in the history of oni- connnonwcaltli, and recognized
and regarded in judicial decisions. It is one frequently
resorted to in the settlement of clergymen, in reconciling
and healing dilt'erences and divisions in cliurches, and iu
adjusting and terminating controversies i»et\veen i>astor.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 a<lin;4 by adopt inj^ a rcsultitictn declar-
ing that they were iiicapacitalctl by reason of alliniiy and
]tai-tiality, the cliartre of alliniiy applying:. bo\ve\er. Id only
one of Ibem, wliile both were cliar;ied with partialily. Tlu'V
were both iiiclinieil in one i-esolnlion. wliicli prevented either
from votiiij;-. l>y the casting:; vote of the niodei'at<n' tliey
were declared e.\<lnded. The method of t'.\cln<ling these two
221
222 Till': ("l\ IL LAW AM) 'rili: CIUKCII
iiiciiiltcis ul' the |ir('sl»_\ Icrv was (|c(1;ii(m1 Io he wliolly iiii
\vjirr;inf;ibl«? jind as vilialiiif^ llic siihscfiiicnt procctMliii^s of
tlie iircshylcry based on llic action of llio inajoi-ity ohlaincd
by this ill('<2;al cxclnsion. Sniitli v Nelson, IS \'t. oil.
Denominational Rules. Under tlie canon of Die I'l-oleslant
ICpiscopal Clinrch relative to the investif^alion of cbai-<;;es
ajjainst a rector, it was held tbat no coniniission need be
issued by the bishoj). The Idshop is i-e((nired to appoint
tliree i)ersons to examine the case and make a i)resentnient,
but the method of malcing the a]»i»ointment was left to his
discretion. Tlie court on j)resentment and diie notice, ba<l
l)ower to take co<;nizance of the case. The ])resentinent
sliould not be tested by the strict rules of criminal jdeading.
The court, in this instance, was not authorized by tlie stat-
ute, but was the creature of the law of the church, and
must be governed and judged by the canons of the church.
Chase v Cheney. 58 111. HO!).
Ecclesiastical Question, Defined. An ecclesiastical matter
is one that concerns doctrine, creed, or form of worship of
the church, or the adoption and enforcement within a reli-
gious association of needful laws, rules, and regulations for
the government of the member.ship, and the ])Ower of exclud-
ing from such associations those deemed unworthy of mem-
bership by the legally constituted authorities of the church.
All of these matters are within the province of church
courts, and their decisions upon them should be respected
by civil tribunals. Clark v Bro^^^J, 108 S. W. 421. (Tex.)
England, Description. In lOngland the ecclesiastical law
and the ecclesiastical courts are established by legitimate
authority and become a part of the law of the land. By the
common law the king is the head of the church, which means
that all ecclesiastical power and autliority is established by
him and not by a law. No canons can be made except by
his consent. Ecclesiastical courts and ecclesiastical law
are adopted as part of the common law. Their proceedings
are according to the forms of the civil law, and the king
nmy pardon all ollenses within the jurisdiction of the spir-
ECCLESIASTICAL COLKTS L»J:',
iliial couils. The courts of coniinou law have and exercise
a sui)eriiiteii(leiice over tlieir i»rocee<liiij;s, and may keep
them within their jurisdiction, and control them bv man-
damus, i)roliibition, etc. The sentences of these courts are
there entitled to the same consideration as the sentences
of any other inferior ti-ihnnal. Theii- decisions are linaland
conclusive on all subjects within their jurisdiction, but they
nniy be controlled and examined into by the courts of law.
Smith V Nelson, IS \'t. niL
England, Jurisdiction. In lOngbind such coiirts liave juri.s-
diclion of ollenscs of bi-awlinj^, indejuMidenl ot' shitnte con-
ferring jurisdiction on t('ni|»()ral coiiits. Taylor \ Morlcy,
1 Curteis ( lOnj;-. ) :380.
Friends. In llendrickson v Shotwell, 1 N. .1. Va[. 7u1, the
following observations are quoted from Barclay's treati.se
on church government : "Whether the Church of Christ have
power, in any cases that are nuitters of conscience, to give
a positive sentence and decision which may be obligatory
u])on believers, I answer aflirmatively, she hatJi. All prin-
ciples and articles of faith which are held doctrinal are,
in respect to those that believe them, matters of conscience.
Now, if any one or more so engaged with us should arise
to teach any other doctrine or doctrines ct)ntrary to these
which were the ground <tf onr being one, who can deny but
the bod}" had ]>ower 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 <ivil (((Ui-ls. Connill v ltd". Protestant
Dutch ('liur<-li, ni X. y. r>~>], 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 <lecision the
civil courts will allow the property to go in that direction in
which the decision of the church tribunal carries it.
The constituted tribunal of the religious oi-ganization has
jurisdiction to determine all ecclesiastical questions which
are submitted to it under the law and usages of the society.
It has also the authority to determine foi* itself whether it
has jurisdiction in a given case. The highest church c(»urt
of a religious society is like the highest civil court. It has
submitted to it not only questions growing out of contro-
versies, but it has of necessity, imjiosed u|>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, an<l effect of the powers vested in the church ti-ibnnal.
Mack V Kime, 12!) Ca. 1.
There cannot, in this count ly. be attributed to the deci
sions of a syno<l or the decisions of any e<-clesiastical judi
catory either infallibility or freedom from eiror, nor (an
they claim rightfully uidimited obediem-e; and when il is
attempted to give to their adjudications the same elTect as
is given to the sentence of ecclesiastical couits in ICngland.
or the superior courts of i-onmion law. the attempt must i»e
unavailing.
The proceedings ol an ecclcsiasi i( al court in Ijiglaiid and
Scotland may be in(|uiretl into collaterally, and when they
proceed illegally, even those who prononnccti (heir decr»'es
are not exemi)t Ifom res|»onding for any damages whit li an
220 Til 10 (MX II. LAW A N I » Till; ('III Iv'CII
iii(li\ i<lii;i I iii;iy snshiiii in (•onsciinciicc ol' their illc;4;il ;icts.
Jiikcwisc ill tliis coiiiihv tlic procccMJi nj^s of :iiiy self const i-
lutcd ('((IcsiiislicMl I riliniijil, not i('co;4;niz(M| ;is :i part of our
jurispriKlcncc, iiuiv lie »'X;iiiiiii(Ml, (lisicj^jirdcd, :iimI (h'clai'cd
void w licncvcr the subject comes hel'ore our courts of I;i\v,
wlu'lliei* directly or coll;iter;illy. The jtroccediii^is of iIk;
synod, or of any other ecclesiastical triliunal in this conn-
try as a coni't of tlie last i-esoj-t, are not to he held con-
clusive Jind absolute when they come iu question in courts
of law. Smith v Nelson, IS \'t. Hll.
"Where rnles and regulations are made by Ihe jiroper
elnirch functionaries, and such rules are anthorized by the
laws of the order, they will be enforced by the courts when
not in conflict with some law bearing upon the subject con-
tained in the rules." Alexander v Bowers, 70 S. W. 342.
(Tex.)
The decisions of ecclesiastical courts, like those of every
other ju<licial tribunal, are final, as tliev are the best judges
of what constitutes an ottense against the Word of God,
and the discipline of the church, A party thinking himself
aggrieved by the decision of a lower church tribunal should
appeal to a higher. Skilton v Webster, Brightly N. 1*. (Pa.;
203.
Where a minister- and his ])arish submit a controversy
between them to an ecclesiastical council the decision of
such couiuil, if not impeached for good cause, is a justifica-
tion of the party' conforming to it. though it does not oper-
ate as a judgment, llollis Street Meetinghouse v I*ierj)ont,
7 Mete. (Mass.) 405.
rpoii (piestions arising under the discipline, as upon those
arising under the articles of faith, the decisions of the
ecclesiastical courts are ordinarily final, and they will be
respected and enforced by the courts of law. But if such
decisions plainly violate the law they profess to administer,
or are in conflict with the laws of the land, they will not
be followed. Krecker v Shirey, 1(53 Pa. 534.
Judgment, How Enforced. Ecclesiastical courts could only
ECCLESIASTICAL COUKTS 227
inflict si)iritiial (eiisuivs or |»;iss Ju(l<;iiic'iil on tlie moral
aspects of the question, for if they should determine and
adjudge the right to possession in favor of one i)art as
against the other, they are utterly powerless to enforce their
judgments. Deaderick v Lampson, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 52:?.
Judgment, When Binding on Civil Courts. Wiienever the
questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule,
custom, or law have been decided by the highest of the
church judicatories to which the matter has been carried,
the legal tribunals must accept such deci.sions as tinal, and
as binding on them, in their application to the case before
them. Coniniittce of Missions v Pacific Synod, 157 Cal. 105.
Judgment, When Conclusive. Where the subject-matter of
the judgment or determination of the ecclesiastical coin!
attemi)ted to be brought under review by a civil conrt is of
ecclesiastical cognizance, the judgment of the ecclesiastical
court is conclusive, and no civil court has jurisdiction or
power to revise it or to question its correctness. Sati< ilcc
V U. S. 20 A]»p. 1). C. :',o:^.
Jurisdiction, General Rule. The decisions of ecclcsiasiicil
courts, like every other judicial tribunal, are tiiial, as tiny
are the best judges of what constitutes an ollensc againsi
the Word of God and the discii)line of the church. .Vny
other than those courts must be incompetent judges of
matters of faith, discipline, and doctrine; an«i civil conris.
if they should be so unwise as to attemjtt t«» sii|.ci\ise ilieir
judgments on matters whi<"h come within their jnrisdiciion,
would only involve them.selves in a sea of niiceilainly and
doubt, which would do anything but ini|H-o\e eitlier reliiiion
or good morals. <Mi. v Seiberl, .*{ I'a. St. 2S2.
Jurisdiction, When Exclusive. JM-clesiastical comis have
exclusive jurisdiction in matters of clinrcji governineni.
(hnrch organization, religiotis tenets, and the laws of reli
gious judicatories; with these the «-ivil coiiits must not and
cannot interfere, but must leave them to tlie free, nncoii-
trolled jnris<lict ion of tin' Iribnnals estahlishetj by tin*
church, for thev are mailers of religious faith an<l <oii
L»L>s 'iMii: ('i\ II, LAW AXh tin: cm \n w
scicMcc, iiiid .'iiT snhjccis I'oi' <l<-lci iiiiii;it ion Ity ;i jiirisdirt ion
(>r(]iiiiie<l iiinl inspired by a |»o\\t'r above a crealor of |»olit-
ical inslilulion. P.ridjjjcs \ ^^'ilson, II Ileisk. (Tcnn.i ir»S.
Legislature, Jurisdiction. In Octolier, 1771, tlio (Jeneral
Court of Virginia entertained jurisdiction to hear charges
of improper coiHliict ])ros('nt('(l against a rector of the parisli
foi-niing a i»ai'l of the lOstablisluMl Chnrch. (lodwin v Lnnan,
Jeff. (Va.) 9G.
Mandamus. When the organic law of the church or eccle-
siastical organization to which it belongs has provided rules
and regulations for the settlement of disputes between a
minister and his congregation, or the church trustees who
have control of the building and property, the courts will
not interfere by mandamus until there has been a final deci-
sion by the proper church authorities. State ex rel Mc-
Neill V Bibb St. Church, 84 Ala. L*:}.
Members, Trial. A member by joining a church agrees
that the church shall be the exclusive judge of his right to
continue. For the purpose of trying a mend)er on charges of
having violated the rules of the church, or the laws of God,
the church is the tribunal created by the organic law. The
member has consented that for all spiritual offenses he will
abide the judgment of the highest tribunal organized under
the constitution of the cliurch, but he has not consented to
submit to usni'pation. The inquiry whether or not the tri-
bunal has been organized in conformity with the constitu-
tion of the church is not ecclesiastical. Where a member
of a church was tried on charges, and appealed from the
judgment to an appellate tribunal provided by the law of
the cliurch, it was held that he was entitled to have such
appellate tribunal constituted as required by the law of tlie
organization, and it appearing that the tribunal was not so
constituted, but was apparently constructed with a view of
defeating instead of promoting justice, the appellant was
entitled to an injunction restraining such illegal tribunal
from proceeding in the matter. The civil court has juris-
diction to determine whether an ecclesiastical tribunal is
ECCLESIASTICAL Cur KTS L»2;)
constituted as requiied hy the law ol the deiiouiiualiuu.
Hatfield v DeLong, 150 lud. 207.
Object and Purpose. The object and i)ui-i)ose of a i>i-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(, :tii<l coiise-
(|ii('ii(l_v <"iii iK'vci' !)(' tolcnitcd in ;i free coniilry. Sniitli v
Nelson, IS Vt. 511.
Scotland. The Kirk is the establisliod church of Scotlniid
— (lie jurisdiction of their jiidicjilories was conceded or con-
tinned by act of Scottish I'arlianient at an early day, and
was contirnied by the act of Union. If a |»('ison disobeyetl
their order, the aid of a civil conil. the Lords of Sessions,
nii<;ht be obtained to put him to the horn. The decisions
of these chnrcli courts, like the decisions in connnon law
rei)orts, form a body of ecclesiastical law which would be
recojiuized in the other courts. These judicatories derive
their authority through the acts of the civil Legislature;
and in this resjject they stand in the same foumlation as
lhe«t;hurch of lOugland. It was claimed for them that their
General Assembly was a superior coordinate ecclesiastical
court — that they had a right to judge absolutely and with-
out control, and exclusively, on all subjects which they held
to be within their jurisdiction. Their claim, however, was
rejected and entirely re])udiated both in lOngland and by the
courts of Scotland. Smith v Nelson. IS N't. 511.
Secret Investigations. "While Anglo-Saxon notions of fair
play mux lead us to look with disfavor u])on secret investi-
gations, and summary determinations by one person, we
must not forget that contentious methods of investigation
are largely English, and that the Konuin system, from which
the Ronuin Church has derived its juocedure, has always
been and still is to a large degree inipiisitorial. However
much we may think that o])en and iud)lic ]>roceedings 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 <loes so only upon equitable ]>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 ii<niiiii;il<' one clmrili-
\v;inU'ii :iii(l llio roiiuic^al ion oi' ]»;irish luid tlit* i-iglit to
cliose aiiodici'. At an election where the ehoi»-o was to be
made tlie vicar, aj;ainst the protest of members of tin? con-
gi"ej;ati(>n ]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 itrohilMte<l per-
sons from voting who were in arrears two years on ])ew rent.
This by law was sustained iu Commonwealth v Cain, 5 Ser.
and R. (T'a.i r>10.
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(ifie<l lime before lOaster Monday, when
the election occni-red. The comi»lainant was elected as elder
at a re<jnlai' meetinji l»u( wilhont snch nomination. Having
been refused induction into office, and having applied for a
writ of mandamus to comytel such induction, it was held
that the custom of the society an<l consistory as to nomina-
tions was valid and binding on all members, and that there-
fore the election of the com])laiiiant was irregular. Miller
V Eschbach, 4n Md. 1.
Notice. Where the charter makes the minister president
of the vestry and requires notice of an election to be given
by the president, such notice is necessary to constitute a
valid election. Smith v Erb, 4 Gill. (Md.) 437.
Where the law of the church required the election of
vestrymen to be held on Easter Monday, and notice thereof
to be given at regular divine service on the preceding Sun-
day, and an election was not held on that day, but on the
.*]Oth of July following, jmrsuant to a notice given at an
irregular church service on the preceding Sabbath by a
rector Mho had been sui)er.seded, but who intruded into the
church for the j>urpose 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 lia<l annually thereafter contrihnted not
less than lOs. foi' the cm-rent expenses. The conti-ihntions
ninst have been annually or yearly, and the re(piirenient of
the act was not satisfied by ])aynient on the day of election
for the pur])ose of (puilifying the i>erson 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<ler a notice
regnlar in form, but with this notice an additional notice
was given Ihat a class meeting would be held in connection
with the corporate meeting. The election notice contained
no reference to a class meeting. The election at smli a
meeting was sustained, the court observing that even it
both meetings Avere called for the same honr and at tin.'
same place, this would not alfcct the rcgidaiity of ihc ( (»r-
I)orate meeting unless the rights of some p('rs(tns entitled
to attend and ])aitieipate therein were allected. This did
L'lO Tin; <'l\ 11. LAW AM) Till; riirHPH
IH)( ;i|»j»c;ir In he the <;is('. rc()j)le CX icl Wilson v Alricail
W. M. H. (Mnin-li, ir>(; 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 <h'chn'ed accordingly. It was held that the pre-
sidium; officer could not afterward reconsider the matter,
<le(lare the person not qualified as a voter, and therefore
not entitle<1 to the office. A mandamus was granted requir-
ing the rector to recognize as a churchwarden the person so
elected. Re Williams, 57 Misc. (N. Y.) 327.
EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION
History and form of government, 241.
Organization, 243.
Description, 244.
Division of property, effect, 245.
Expulsion of member terminates office, 245.
General Conference, place of meeting, 24G.
Minister, power of appointment, 247.
Secession, when seceders cannot control property, 247.
History and Form of Government. This association was
organized about tlic year ISOO^ and is a volnntary nnincor-
porated religious denomination. Its doctrine, discipline,
and chnrcli government are similar to those of the Metliodist
Episcoi)al Church. "Its ecclesiastical organization consists
of the society or congregation divided into classes. Each
congregation liolds its Quarterly Conference, wliicli is the
local governing body of each church, and it meets four
times each year. The General Association is divided into
what are known as 'Annual Conferences,' of whicli there
are twenty-five in iMnubci-, each of which holds a session
annually, and its nicndtcrsliip consists of all fully ordained
ministers who have been in the itineracy. These Annual
Conferences are under the control of what is known as the
(leneral Conference, which meets once in I'oui- years. The
Annual ConCei-ences are subordinate to, and are established
or abolished, reorganized or their boundaries changed by
the General Conference. The Annual Conferences are pre-
sidecl over by a ]»isho]», if one is jtresent. In the absence of
a bishoj) the members of the Conference are required to elect
a president, and the president and the presiding eldeis of
the Conference assign tlie preachers to their i-esjicctive
ciiarges. MiMubeis of the (Jeneral Conference are elected
241
•jiL' Tin; ("i\iL i-.\\\ AM) riw-: cm'KCH
lioiii llic Aiimiiil ('oiirci'ciHcs (»ii ;i pfcsciiltcd rjitio. The
(!cii('r;il ( 'onrciriicc olccls llie l)isli()|»s for ;i term of four
yciirs. The l;iw or consjitnlioii of flic clnii-cli is (-oiitwiiKMl
ill :i hook ciillcMJ flic Discipline, in which flic powers of the
(liffereTit ofticial bodies of the church ;ire jirescribed." Uy
flic Discipline, the time iiiid jiljice of holding the (Icii(?riil
Conference \v;is fo he (lcfcrinine<l Ity flic bishops wifli flic
conscnf of lli«* ni;ijoi-ify of flie (icneral ( 'oiilVrcncc, or if
there is no Itishop pi-cscnf, flic (Jcnci-al Conference may, by
vofe. fix such fiine and place; or if no action is taken at the
(Iciicr.il ( 'oiifcrcnce, then flic oldest Annual Confci-ence was
anth<ni/c(l fo fix flie fiine and ])lace of the meetiiifj; of the
next (leneral ('onl'erence, and was recpiired to notify other
Animal Conferences accordingly. At the General Conference
held in Buffalo, in 18S7, a resolution was adojited fixing the
time of the meeting of the General Conference in 18!)1, and
there being no invitation for the next General Conference,
authorized the Board of Publication of the church to fix the
place. The Board of Publication was composed of the
bishoi)s of the church and eight other persons ^elected from
eight districts, into which the general association is divided.
In 1800 this board fixed the place of the meeting of the next
General Conference at Indianapolis, Indiana. In February,
1891, the East Pennsylvania Annual Conference, claiming
to be the oldest Annual Conference, adopted a resolution
fixing the place of meeting of the next General Conference
at Philadelphia. This action resulted in a division of the
denomination, and in October, 1891, the time fixed by the
]»revions (leneral Conference for the next General Confer-
ence, two General Conferences were held, one at Phila-
deljihia and one at Indianapolis. Prior to these General
Conferences, and apparently prior to the action of the Board
of Publication in designating Indianapolis as the place of
meeting of the General Conference of 1891, a church court
had been held by which all the bishops were deposed from
otiice. The Indiana]»olis General Conference revei'scd the
action of this church court and held that the judgment of
i:\A.\(;i:iJ('AL association lm;;
sns|»i'iisioii was void, and reelt'clcd two of tlic hisliops tor
the next foiir years. The Philadelphia Conrcrence ratilii'<l
tlie suspension and elected three bishops, incliidinj; Hishop
Dubs, who had been sus])ended. lOighleen Annual Couler-
ences sent delegates to the Indianapolis (leneral Con Ter-
ence; the other Conferences were divided, some oi theia
sending delegates to this Conference, and others to the I'liil-
adelphia Conference.
In 1800 the Des ^loines Annual Conference was divid«'d
on a question involving a status of the bishops. In IS!H' the
majority party in tliat Conference brought an action to re-
strain the preachers rei»i«*senling the seceding jiarty from
attempting to occupy the i»uli»its of certain church buildings
as ministers of the l">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 C<nirerence, were in fact the seceding
party, and ii-regular, and that the minority of that Con-
ference, jiresided over by a bishop whose suspension was
declared illegal, constituted the regular ('(aifercnce. Au-
racher v Yerger, 00 la. 558; see also Krecki-r v Shirey, l(i:i
Pa. n.-u.
Organization. The Evangelical As.sociation of North
America is a religious denomination organized about ISOO,
under the connect ional or associated lorm of church govern-
ment, founded ui»on lluit of I lie .Mdluxlist ICpiscojtal Church,
244 Till; ("i\ 11. LAW .\M» Tin; <'iiri;<ii
:iii(l liaviiiji ;i system of }j;i-;i(J('<l cxcctil ivr. I«';;islal ivc and
judicial ecidesiastical bodies and officers, and a code,' of rulen
known as the I>is(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
('hui<li. They were subse(|iieiilly exixdled from the church
and were cut oH" from all cliuich riu;hts and privile^^es l»y
the regular ecclesiastical aniliorities of the lOvangelical
Association of North America. They brought an action to
secure control of the church i»ro])ert3% but it appeared that
their offices as trustees had become vacant before the bill
was tiled. Hy their secession from the church they were no
longer entitled to the control of the church jiroperty. The
church ])roj>erty 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 <lid not a<lhere lo the Indianapolis Gen-
eral Conference, but assumed to act undei- authority of the
Philadelpliia Conference, had no valid standing in the
denomination, and had no authority to ai)[»oint ministers to
particular local churches. Krecker v Shirey, 163 I'a. 5:54,
see also Dubs v Esher, (> 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 Ai<l Society was an )inincor|)oi'ated religions asso-
ciation, and an indepcMident soeiety with ahsdinle powei' over
248 TIM'; CIN IL LAW AM) Till: CliritCll
its jiropfMly. 'I'lic sociriy Ii.mI imiwcp uiidei" its <-()iiHtitnlion
lo <lis|K)s(' (»r ifs IiiikIs accordin}^ to its own judf^riiciit. After
the election of oniccis of the society in 1801 certain disaf-
fected iiUMnbers withdi-ew, and formed a new society. They
hroujjfht an action against the oiij^inal society to obtain
possession of the funds tlien on liainl. The court held that
the original society was entitled to the j)ossession an«l con-
trol of the funds. Manning v Shoemaker, 7 Pa. Su])er. Ct.
375.
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN
Historical sketch, 249.
Division of society, effect on property rights, 249.
Historical Sketch. The Evangelical LutJieran Church in
the United States is a descendant of the Lutheran Church
of the sixteenth century — the first churcli of tlie Rofoniui-
tion. It takes its name of Lutheran from the great founder
and apostle of l*rotestantism, and seems to have been called
''Evangelical" to distinguish it from the Reformed or Cal-
vinistic Lutherans. In the United States there are several
families of this Lutheran Church — the Dutch Lutherans, the
Swedish Lutherans, and the German Lutherans. Tlie
organic or fundamental creed of these various branches of
the Lutheran Church is the Augsburg Confession. Wehmer
V l^"'okeiiga, 57 Neb. .51(1.
Division of Society, Effect on Property Rights. This church,
which at one time was attached to the Holston Synod, was
afterward divided into two factions, one of which withdrew
itself from the Holston Synod and attached itself to the
Missouri Synod. It was held that by such withdrawal this
faction forfeited its interest in church jjroperty whicli lia<l
been conveyed to it to be held and occupied so long as the
society continued subordinate to the Holston Synod. Kodg-
ers v Burnett, 108 Tenn. 17:'..
249
FREE BAPTIST C HURCH
Creed, 2.50.
Properly, \vh(>ii fnuisfcr (o n-KuIar |{;i[>tisl Clitircli invalid, 2r)0.
Creed. Tlic I'rcc linplist fjiitli is )>jiso<l upon the doctrines
of Aviniiiius. ;iii<l is sinlod to be: "1. ('oiiditionul election
and i('pi(tl»;i(i<tii in opposition to al)S(diite ])i(*destin:ilioii.
2. Universal redemption, or that the atonement was made
by Christ for all mankind, thonjih none but believers can
be partakers of the benetit. M. That man in order to exerci.se
true faith must be regenerated, and renewed by the opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit, which is the gift of God. 4. That the
grace which confers this is not irresistible. 5. That men
may relapse from a state of grace, and die i5i their sins.''
Park V Chaplin. 00 Ta. 5,5.
Property, When Transfer to Regular Baptist Church In-
valid. The society was incorporated as a Freewill Bapti.st
Church, but soon afterward the articles of incorporation
were amended bj' changing the name to the Free Baptist
Church. It was at that time connected with the quarterly
meeting of that denomination. A resolution was ado])ted
by the congregation to join the regular Baptist denomina-
tion, and steps were taken for such union. About the time
of its incor]>oration 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 entitle<l to hold for behoof of the Free Church, the
jiroperty held by the Free Church before the Union in 1!)00.
(leneral Assembly, Free Church of Scotland v Overtoun.
Law Rep. App. (1!)0?.) cas. (Eng.) 515.
Minority's Right. The owner of land made a contract with
certain persons, members of tlie Presbyterian Church, in
connection with the Free Church of Scotland, for the sale
and conveyance of a piece of land for a site of a burial
ground, and a church in connection with the Free Church of
Scotland — in case a congregation of that church wouhl be
assembled together; the i)arties entered upon the land and
erected a church in which such a congregation did assemble
for divine worshi]). Several years afterward the great body
of the congregation ceased to be in connection with the Free
Church, and they, iu concert with the vendor, sought to hold
possession of the chni-ch and land to the exclusion of such
of the members as still adhered to the Free Church. It was
held that so long as any one remained to claim the site and
church on behalf of the Free Church the right of the latter
body continued, notwithstanding the change of opinion in
the body of the members. No other denomination had a
right to take jxissession of the church and insist on holding
ajid using it; and an injunction was granted restraining
such attempted possession and use, as against the minority
who still adhered t<) the Free Church of Scotland. .Vttoiiiey-
Gcneral v Ciiristie, \'.\ Grant's Ch. (Can.) 4!t5.
254 'riii-: ('i\ii. LAW AM) Tin: ciukcii
Union Did Not Affect Freedom of Private Opinion. 'IMiis
oi'jiniiiznl ioii \\;is rurMiicd in l*.)(M( l»\ .1 iinioii (-(Miiitoscd (tf a
•jrcal iii;i joi-il y of llic iiiinistcrs :iii<l elders ol" tlio I*'ree Clninli
of Scotland with the ministers and elders of tiie rnite(l
ri'esl)ytei-i;in Clini-cli of Scotland. Tlie act of nnion left
ministers and lavnien free to hold opinions as rejiiirds the
estjihlishment j>rineii)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, aii<l tlicv liavo ever since been
intrusted willi corporale jtowcrs 1o take and bold projjerty
in succession. Tlie Montlily ^Meeting is snl)oi'dinate to a
Quarterly Meeting?, Avliicb is conijiosed of as many Montbly
Meetings as may be tbougbt fit to constitute the same; and
eacli of the Monthly Meetings elects delegates to it. It
meets (juarterly. Over all these meetings is a Yearly Meet-
ing, which includes within its jurisdiction all the meetings
of the denomination of Friends in New ]*]ngland, except those
in A'ermont. It meets annually, in the sixth month, in
Rhode Island, and each Quarterly Meeting elects delegates
toit. Dexter v Gardner, 7 Allen (Mass.) 243.
Besides the delegates and re]>resenta 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<l to trustees for the use of the Ohio Yearly
Meeting of the Society of Friends. The property A\as
intended for a boarding school and suitable buildings were
soon afterward ei'cctcd, and a school was maintnincd there.
The Ohio Yearly Meeting was unincorporated, but exer-
cised supervision over aflfairs relating to the Society of
Friends in Ohio. In 1854 a division occuimhmI in the Ohio
Yearly Meeting, resulting in the organization of two soci-
eties under the same name, each claiming to be the Ohio
Yearly Meeting entitled to the trust property destiihed in
said conveyance.
2(52 Tin-: (M\IL LAW A N h Till-: CIUHCII
Tlic (Miio ^^';lI•ly Mccliiij^ w;is estnblisluMl in llic i'c^iil;ir
onlci- of IIm' Society <A' I-'i-iciidH in 1812, The territory ]iI;i<(m1
uikIci- its care had roniici-Iy hccii within tlic jurisdiclioii of
llic IJaltini()i-(> Yearly Mectinj^.
Tlu' division in the Ohio Yearly Meeting of 1854 was
apiKircnfly the ivsult <d" a division which liad i)reviously
occurred in New lOiigland Yearly Meeting. Out of this dis-
sension there were formed in 1845 two New England Y'early
Meetings. There were two i>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, an<l tlie nuMnbers of
1ha(: religions society and their already organized nuviiiigs
and judicatories of inferior grades. This body was not a
mere incidental, casual, disconnected assemblage, (onvening
without ju-evions arrangement, ceasing 1o exist when its
members separated, and formed anew when individuals
came together again at some subseijncnl time. It was a
i-egularly organized and established body, holding stated
sessions, corresponding with other bodies of the same reli-
gious denomination, consulting together for the welfare
of a portion of their church and its members, the ultimate
arbiter of all differences, and the common head and governor
of all belonging to the Society of Friends, within its juris-
diction, which extended over the territories just mentioned,
while they were called provinces, and since thej^ assumed
the name and rank of States. The meetings of this body
were held annually, as its name imports, and as long and
steady usage has wrought into a part of its essential strur-
ture. The time and place, however, when and where only
the body can constitutionally assemble and act, must when
fixed, so remain, until "the voice of the body," "in a Yearly
Meeting cajtacity," which alone has the power and right
"to govern its own proceedings," shall resolve on and enact a
change. From the year 1085, for nearly a century an«l a
half, this body held its ])eri()dical sessions; for years, alliT-
nately at Burlington and Philadeli)hia, and finally in the
latter city alone; and there, successively, at fheii' houses on
JMue Street, on Keyes' Alley, and on Arch Street ; in the
year 1820, at the prescribed time and place, a nicciing was
held. After the transaction of its business il adjourned,
according to the ancient ami wonted form, "to mecl in the
next year at the usual time." This body, Ihns convened and
2(51 Tlii: <"l\ Ih LAW ANh Till: CHrKCH
lliiis iidjounuMl, WAS, without dispute, the I'hiludelphiu
Yearly ISIeetin^^ «»f Friends. Ileiidrickson v Decow, 1 Kax.
(N. J.) r>77.
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 ;in<l Mlteiward held
im;<; 'riiio cinii. law and tiii: cm kcii
i'('«j;iil;ir iii«'«'liii;;s. Tlic Ilicksilcs rctjiincd possession of llu;
nu'cl iiij^lionscs ;iim1 sclioolhonscs. :iii(| control the kcIiooIs
iiinl snitport tliciii. It seems lli;i1 hy one of the rules of the
Society of Friends quc!stions ;it ii nieetinjjj are not decided
by vote, bnl^ hy tlie clerk, who j^iithers as best lie may the
opinions of the members present and decides it according to
his jndjinient. The court snstained the validity of tlie meet-
ing; held by the exchxled clerk, notwithstanding a niajoi'ity
of the persons present at the opening of the meeting re-
mained, and elected another clerk. The regular clerk could
not be excluded from his office, nor i)revented from exercis-
ing his functions by the action of the meeting. He was its
legal head under the rules of the society, and authorized to
act as its presiding officer. The idaintiff as treasurer of the
Purchase Preparative Meeting in 1817, having loaned to the
defendant a part of the fund on his promissory note, was held
entitled to recover notwithstanding a subsequent division
of the society. The plaintiff represented the original so-
ciety, and the title to the fund was not affected by the seces-
sion of a portion of its members. Field v Field, 9 Wend.
(N. Y.) 394.
Exemption from Military Duty. A Quaker who claims an
exemi)tion from duty in the militia must prove that he is a
member of a society of that denomination, and that he fre-
quently and usually attends with such society for religious
worship. Commonwealth v Fletcher, 12 Mass. 441.
Meetings. The meetings in the Society of Friends are of
two kinds — for worship and for discipline, as they are
sometimes called; or, in other words, for business. ICvery
meeting for discipline is in truth a meeting for worshiji,
since he cordially and faithfully performs any ecclesiastical
duty ; does thereby pay an act of adoration to the Almighty.
The meetings for business are four in number, marked and
distinguished by ])eculiar and characteristic differences —
preparative, monthly, quarterly and yearly.
Office, When not Bound to Accept. The court declined to
compel a Quaker to accejit the office of churchwarden to
FRIENDS 2<H
which he had been elected in the Established Church. Adey
V Theobald, 1 Cnrteis ( Eng. ) ;>7: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|»[>rove<l oi- jnacticed by those
churches which are connected with the ICvangelical Lulheran
Ministerium of the Slate of New York and adjacent i»arls,
among wliicli jd-actices was the use of lighted candles
during the services in the clunch in the daj'time, the use
of tlie wafer at the sacrament of the Lord's Sui)pei', auric-
ular confession, and the use of the sign of the cross, and
such Bomish practices as are disapproved by the Evangel-
ical branch of said denomination.
The ti'ustees gave the pastor notice of the termination of
his pastoral relations after three months. The trustees at-
tempted to get ]>ossessi(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. :in<l this <liversion could
not become effective even w'\\]\ the sanction of a niajtti-ity.
On the api)li(ation of a niinoriiy, who adhered io the
271
27:2 Till-: (M\ IL LANV AM) Till: ("III KCII
(»rijiiii;il sociciv, :iii iiijimcl ion w;is i;riiiil(M| iiroiiihii in;^ tin*
iiiiijorily from <liv('r( iiij; Hm' pi-opciM y from the use; to Axliich
it li;i(i been dovoted al tli<' lime of its ncfpiisit ion. jiihI llie
erection jind (IcdicjHion of tlx' clinnli edifice. Franke v
Mann, 100 Wis. 118.
GERMAN REFORMED CHURCH
Description, 273.
Dissolving relation to Clussis, effect, 273.
Joint title, division, effect, 274.
Judicatories, 274.
Description. The German Reformed Church, founded in
1563, was a distinct ecclesiastical organization, not merely
having adopted the Heidelberg Catechism as the confession
of its faith, but having a written constitution, a settle<l
form of government by ecclesiastical judicatories, four in
nund)er, in regular gradation, from the lowest to the highest,
having cognizance of ecclesiastical matters though tlielr
power, of course, was wholly spiritual. First, the Consis-
tory, the primary governing Itody of each church or congre-
gation, composed of the minister oi' ministers of that church,
together with the elders and deacons as the representatives
of the peo])le; second, the (Massis, consisting of all the min-
isters and delegated elders of the congregations within a
certain designated territorial district; third, a Synod, eon
sisting of the ministers and lay delegates of the several
classes embraced within its prescribed geograjthical limits;
and, fourth, the General Synod, tlie highest jndiiatory of
the church, and the court of last resoi-t, composed of min-
isterial and lay delegates elected by all the classes respec-
tively, according to a prescribed ratio of representation.
Koshi's A pp. CO Ta. 4(;2.
Dissolving Relation to Classis, Effect. According lo ilie
head note in Miller v Gable, 10 Taige (N. V. i (i-7. wlu-ic
the trustees of a German Kefornied Clinrch which was in
ecclesiastical connection with, an«l subject to. the church
judicatories of the Dnlch Reformed Churcli in the lniie<l
States, attempted to diss(»Ive the connection ot such church
273
1»74 TllIO CINIL LAW AND Till: ("IUKCII
willi Ihe cliisscs to whicli il bclonj^JMl, iind j'lnplovcd (J«;riiiiiii
LullicrjiM pMstors. without the cousjMit of a large poitioii
of IIm' cliiircli aii<l congregation, or of the claKseH with which
the clmi-ch was connected, and refused to permit the stated
supplies jii-ovided hy the classes to (xcupy the pulpit. Held,
that such conduct of the trustees and their adherents was a
diversion of the funds and property of the church from tin-
purposes for which they were conti'ihuted by the oiiginal
donors. See this case on a]»|>eal '2 I)eni<j ( N. V.) 41)1', 570.
Held also, that tho.se inendters of the church ami congrega-
tion who adhere<l to the oiiginal doctrines of the church,
and who had continued their ecclesiastical connection with
the church judicatoiies to which they were subordinate when
the property of the church was acquired, and who had also
kept uj) a proper corporate organizatiou, by the regular
election of the proi>er 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]iie<l
about ten years without objection.
Judicatories. The Judicatories consist of three heads; the
Consistory, the Classis, and the Synod. And by the sixth
article of the Discipline it is provided that when any i^erson
GICKMAX KKFOKMi:!) CIUJ^Cll L'75
may tliiuk himsell" ajigrieved by the decision (if a lower judi-
catory, be has a right to appeal to a hi<:;her; and whatever
is conclude<l in such judicatory by a majority of votes, is
valid and binding, nidess it can be shown to be contrary to
the Word of God and the coustitution of the church. Church
V Seibert, :} I 'a. 282.
GERMAN SOCIETY
WashinKton, D. C, 270.
Washington, D. C. About the year 1832 a hirge number of
(revniaus l'()un<l tbeniselvos douiiciled in the city of Washing-
ton, which then contained no church where the services were
l)erfonned in their own tongue. The bond of nationality
l)roved stronger than devotion to religious forms, and they
all, from time to time, assembled in common worship con-
ducted in the German language by some of their members ;
and the testimony disclosed the rather remarkable fact that
this company of foreigners, composed of .lews, Roman Cath-
olics, Lutherans, and Calvinists, for a considerable time con-
tinued in harmony to attend the same religious exercises.
Ebbinghaus v Killian, 1 Mackey (Dis. of C.) 247.
276
GOSPEL
Defined, 277.
Defined. "( Jos|)el, aocoidiii}; lo the common and more gen-
eral acieptation of the lerni, is synonymous with Chris-
tianity or the Christian religion." Attorney -General v
Wallace, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) (HI.
277
GREEK CHURCH
Comparison with other C'atholic; rhurchos, 278.
Diversion of property, 278.
Priest, api)ointment and removal, 279.
Comparison with Other Catholic Churches. The United
Greek Church is an orj^aiiizatiou separate and distinct
from the Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church, and its
doctrines, tenets, rules, etc., are the same as the Roman
Catholic Church, except in some matters of discij)line. al-
though acknowledging the i)ope as the ecclesiastical head
of the church, and acknowledging the authority of the
bishops appointed by him. The Ortliodox Greek Catholic
Russian Church differs in many respects in its faith, doc-
trines, tenets, rules, etc., from the United Greek Catholic
Church, and acknowledges as its spiritual or ecclesiastical
head, the Synod of Russia, consisting of bishops appointed
by the Czar of Russia. These two separate and distinct
churches have existed and had these marked differences in
llieir beliefs and government for a long period of time.
Greek Catholic Churcli v Orthodox Greek Church, 195 Pa.
St. 425.
Diversion of Property. In 18S1) a deed of land was made
on which a church had been erected, and was then being
used by a society with a regular pastor, worshi]>ing 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 (lie<l
in 181)0, by hi.s will a])i)oiiitt'(l iiis si.ster guardiau of his
iufaut daughter, eleven years of age. In H)00 the guardian
became a Roman Catholic. Under the circumstances, the
court considered this change of religious faith a sufficient
ground for the removal of the guardian. The ward, who had
been brought up a Protestant, objected to remaining longer
under her aunt's charge. The court ob.served that the
father's religion is prima facie the infant's religion, and the
guardian's duty is to see that the ward is brought up in
that religion, and is protected against disturbing influences
by persons holding the tenets of a different faith. The court
also said that in considering questions of guardianship, it
has regard, before all things, to the infant's welfare; and
expressly declared that there was no imputation against the
guardian who had changed her religion from conscientious
motives.
"One of the lirst and most sacred duties of (he parents is
lo imbue the mind of the child with some religious belief,
and this is done, not merely by precept and instruction, but
by the unconscious influence of everj'day life and conduct.
The child is entitled to this care, and the opi)ortunity of
resorting to the guardian for assistance and instruction in
the doubts and difficulties that assail tlie youthful mind,
and they usually become more marked an<l urgent as she
develops from girlhood to womanliood. But if the guardiau
changes her religion, she dej^rives the ward of this protec-
tion and refuge." "1 accept the guardian's assurance that
280
OTWRDIAN 2S\
she has not attempted, and will not attempt in any way to
influence the ward ; but this means that the subject of reli-
gion is excluded from their conversation, and that the ward
is deprived of all the protection and assistance in religious
matters which she is entitled to ex])ect fr(»m her guardian.
Further than this, the disturbing influence arising Inun the
sight of the guardian worshiping in a difleront chnrcli. and
consulting the jjriests of another faith, may well he i»rej-
udicial to the ward's peace of mind and secure (((iilidcnce in
her own religious belief." F. v F. |1 i. 1 L. II. ("h. i lOng. i
088 (1902).
In State ex rel Baker v Bird, 25:^. Mo. SOD, it was hehl
that under the Missouri Revised Statutes of 11)00 a guardian
could not be removed merely because he was of a dillerent
religious faith than that of his ward or his ward's i)arents.
Ward's Reli^ous Education. Such education sliould bo
according to the religious j)reference of the parenls. it' any
have been expressed, and such preference should be con-
sidered by the court in appointing a guardian. lie Jacquet,
40 :disc. (N. Y.) .^)7r). 82 N. Y. S. 080. Citing Matter of
Scaulan, 57 L. J. (*h. (Fug.) 718, in which the court refers
with approval to an authority holding that the guardian
was to have sacred regard to the religion of the father,
whatever that religion may have been.
In Matter of Mancini, 80 Misc. (X. Y.) 83, a Catholic girl,
an orphan, fourteen years of age, requested the apj>ointnient
of a Protestant in whose family she had lived for live years.
The Surrogate r<Hognized the claim of her family that she
be educated in the Catholic faith, and directed the appoint-
ment of the ])roi)osed Protestant guardian, on condition
that he place her in a Catholic ivsidential educati(»nal insti-
lution.
INDEPENDENTS
Definition, 282.
Definition. Independents are so called for maintaining,
in opposition to Ki)iscopalians and I'resbyterians, that each
congiej;ation is a conij)lete cliuich, and is in no respect snb-
ject to the control of others. The Independents are a sect
of modern date. The liierarchy established by Qneen Eliza-
beth, the vestments worn by the clergy in the celeliration of
divine worship, the Book of Common Prayer, the sign of the
cross nsed in baptism, etc., were considered by many persons
as too nearly resembling popery, and a purer worshij* ami
more perfect reform were demanded. These persons were
called Puritans. They divided from the church, or, rather,
the church cast them out. Brown first, Robinson afterward,
molded a certain portion of this mass into the sect now
known in England by the name of Independents. From
thence sj)rung Congregationalists in this country. Bom in
the Old World and in tliis, I'resbyterians, Independents, or
Congregationalists form <listinct religious societies or
churches. Muzzy v Wilkins, Smith's X. H. Rep. 1.
282
INJUNCTION
Baptism, use of stream for, 283.
Cemetery, obstructing access to lot, 283.
Cemetery, removal of bodies, 284.
Diversion of property, 284.
Ecclesiastical bodies, 285.
Expulsion of members, 285.
I^ase, 286.
Members, interfering with property, 286.
Members, interfering with trust<M3s, 286.
Minister, dissolving relations, 287.
Minister's occupancy of church, 287.
Minister, restraining call, 290.
Pews, rearranging, 290.
Priest, restraining exorcise of functions, 291.
Removal of building, 291.
Restraining increase of salarj', 291.
Sale of property, 291.
Use of building, 292.
Baptism, Use of Stream for. The trustees sou<j;ht an iujuiic-
tioii restraining the niaintenanco of a mill dam, allejiing
that the back fiow of the water covered a place in the creek
which had been given to the church and u.sed bv it for bap-
tismal puri)oses, and that such u.se was interru]»ti'(l and
prevented by the dam. The li-ustees claimed a I'ight under a
deed of certain land including the creek wliicli assumed t<»
reserve the right to use the cieek for baptismal pui-poses
without conveying any express title. It was licid tliat the
church ac(piired no right by ]»r('scri|»ti(»n or oihcrwise to a
jterpetual use of the water of the s])ring or creek for bap-
tismal puri)Oses, and the injunction was denied. Stewart v
White. 12S Ala. 202.
Cemetery, Obstructing Access to Lot. An injunction was
granted restraining the chui-ch autlioi'ities from obstruct-
ing an avenue in a cemetery in which a lot had been sold i>y
283
usi tin: ("i\ il law and 'iiii; rm ijcn
tlicni 1(> <lu> ]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<l and Coal Company conveyed to the First
Baptist Church of Tanuniua land for the use of public wor-
ship, according to the usages and ceremonies of the Baptists
only, with a condition of forfeiture if used for any other
purposes. Afterward the land and improvements were
transferred by the members of the Baptist Church to the
Salem Church. In 1804 the Schuylkill Company, under its
right to reenter for condition broken, granted and conveyed
the land to the respondents, and secured possession of the
l)roperty. They thereupon applied for an injunction, and a
mandatory injunction Avas granted. It was alleged that the
complainants, claiming to be pastor and officers of the Salera
Church, had withdrawn therefrom many years before, and
were not members of the society ; that the Salem Church
was not a member of the Evangelical Association, but was
and had been for years an indejjendent organization. With-
out disposing of the questions directly on account of the
form of the remedy sought, the court on appeal dissolved the
mandatory injunction and dismissed the proceedings. Fred-
ericks V Huber, 180 I*a. 572.
In Mt. Zion's Baptist Church v Whitmore, 83 Iowa 138
it was held that a majority of a church had no power to
divert the church property to the propagation of doctrines
contrary to Baptist articles of faith and church covenant,
and an injunction was held i)roper to prevent the majority
INJUNCTION L'S.")
fioiii ellectiug .such a (Hver.sioii. See also Morgau v (Jahaid,
58 So. (Ala.) 002.
Ecclesiastical Bodies. A iiiiuistei- was regularly ai)pointe(l
by llie bishop as pastor of this church. The presidinj^ elder
removed this uiiuisler, assiguni<»- him to another church aud
appoiutiug auother minister in his place. The pastor and
a board of .stewards, who, it was alleged, had been ignored
by the presiding elder, began a })roceeding against a new
board of stewards to procure an injunction restraining the
new stewards from preventing the use of the church by the
pastor and former stewards. The injunction was denied,
the court holding among other things that the questions in-
volved were ecclesiastical only, and that the civil courts
had no jurisdiction in the matter. Travers v Abbey, 104
Tenn. 005.
The j)rinciple may now be regarded as too well established
to admit of controver.sy, that in the case of a i-cligious con-
gregation or an ecclesiastical body, which is itself but a
subordinate member of .some general church organization,
having a supreme ecclesiastical judicatory over the entire
membership of the organization, the civil tribunals must
accept the decisions of such chui-ch judicatory as tinal and
conclusive upon all (piestions of faith, disi ipline, or eccU'sias-
tical rule, and the l)ar<y aggrieved cannot invoke the aid of
the civil courts to have such ]troceedings reversed. High on
Injunctions, sec. 2lV.\. State e.\ rel Soares v Hebrew Cong.
31 La. Ann. 205.
Expulsion of Members. In Holcond)e v Leavitte, 121
\. Y. S. !)S() an injunction was granted against t lie expulsion
of certain niendters of the society \\Ii<> had proposed Ity-laws
for its government, an<l who, if arbitrarily expcUcd, \\(»uld
be dejtrived of ])roperty rights.
In Waller v Howell, 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 2:{0, the court de-
cline<l to inteil'ere by injunction to i)revent the rector from
striking the names of the ])laint ill's from th(> ]»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<i Tin: ('l\ IL LAW AM> 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 <lenie(l on the ^ronnd
thai tliecburcli would not lak(.' such extreme action wiliioui
<j;ivin<i' hiui iin (►iiporlunitv t«> 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, grante<l re-
straining the vestry from further action until the pastoral
relations had been regularly severed in accordance with the
constitution of the chui-ch. Batterson v Thomj>son, 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-
in<j; anotlicr pastor, and sclioolniaslcr, and tlial tlic pi'opcrty
a('(piircd by the local clnirch tor jfcnci-al ])nrpos<'s was not
impressed with any trust.
An injunction cannot he maintained by session of an inde-
])endent i'resbyterian church to i-esti-ain the occupancy of
the ]»n]])it by u pastor who has been employed by tlu' con-
j;regation. Trustees, Independent Presbyterian Clnirch and
Society of Bull'alo (}rove and ]'olo v I'roctor, (KJ 111. 11.
Minister, Restraining Call. The court of chancery dissolved
an injunction restraining the churchwardens and vestrymen
from extending- a call to a minister without first having the
salary ascertained and tixed by a majority of persons
entitled to elect churchwardens and vestrymen or trustees
of the said church at a meeting of such persons to be called
lor that purpose. It was held that the vestry had the right
to make the call which would include an agreement as to
salary. Hund)ert v St. Stephen's Church, N. Y. 1 Edw. Ch.
(N. Y.) 308.
Pews, Rearranging. Plaintiif sought an injunction re-
straining the society from reconstructing the i)ews so as to
permit members of the same family to sit togethei-, it appear-
ing that prior to this action the sejjaration of the sexes had
been observed, the males occupying the ground floor and
the females occupying the gallery. riaintilV insisted that
to pei'Uiit the sexes to sit together would W immodest, un-
chaste, unlawful, contrary to the discii)line and rules of the
congregation, and in violation of his rights as a pew owner.
It was held that under the statutes governing religious
societies the trustees had power to make the i)roi)osed alter-
ations without any vote of the congregation, but it ai)peared
that a meeting of the congregation was had in which the
action of the trustees was authorized and approved. The
injunction was denied. Solomon v Cong. B'uai Jesurun, 49
How. Pr. (N. Y.I 263.
iN-irxcriox 2!H
Priest, Restraining" Exercise of Functions. In Iloiianim v
Harrington, (55 Nel». S:!l, (tn the ajtjdicatictn of llu* l)ishop.
an injunclion was granted against the delcMMlant, a priest,
restraining him Ironi exercising the powers and faculties of
parish priest in or upon the property of said parish of Or-
leans in contravention of the orders of th<' Idshoj) exercising
therein the functions of which he had been deprived b}" the
bishop, or excluding such person as the bishop shall appoint
regularly as ])riest of said i)aris]i from the church ])roperty.
or interfei-ing willi liim in the exercise of his office.
Removal of Building. The society being weak, and in-
debted for nearly the value of its property, voted to sell the
meetinghouse and lot to the creditor, on condition that he
move the building to another town and establish it there
f(>r 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<l in the resolution.
Davie v Ileal, S(; A. D. (X. Y.) 517, affirmed in ISO N. Y. ."»!.">.
Sale of Property. I^and was conveye<l to triistees, wilh
<lii-ections to biiild lliereon, at llicir discretion, a hou.st* t»f
worshi]) for the use of the Methodist l^jusc ojcil Cliurch,
South, with a ])rovision that ministers of that deiioniinaliou
should be i»ermi1ted to preacii in the clnnch, and that tlie
(Inii'ch might be a|»pro|»rialed for such other pnrpo.sj's as
wonhl best furthei- the cause of Clirist and (lie interest of
i".>L' 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<i; determined to sell the
buildiu}; and lot, an injunction was sou^jjlit rest raininj^ such
sale (Ml the j;round that Ity ahandoniiig the iir<i|(eity it had
revei'ted to the ^I'antoi'. Tlie <M»urf held this view eiM'oneous,
and authoii/,ed the sale of the juoperty. liar*! v Wiley. S7
Va. 125.
Use of Building'. Land was convoyed to the society for
tiie purpose of orectiug thereon a li<»use of uorshijt foi* use
by the society according to the discipline of the denomina-
tion. The basement was made for a prayer-room, but the
trustees leased it to a teacher of a common day school an<l
authorized him to change the internal arrangement of the
basement for the convenience of the school. An injunction
was granted on the application of members of the society
restraining the trustees from making such use of the base-
ment. Perrj' v McEwen, 22 Ind. 440.
JEWS
Bequest sustained, 293.
Consolidation disajipioved, 293.
Consolidation, when may be set aside, 293.
Dismissal of teacher, 293.
Bequest Sustained. In Bronson v Stroiise, 57 Oonii. 147,
the coiut sustained a beijuest for the benefit of some poor,
deserving Jewish family residing in the city of New Haven.
The trustees had power to determine what Jewish families
were within the coiKlition prescribed.
Consolidation Disapproved. Tn Chevra Bnai Isiael Auslie
Yanove und Motal v Chevra Bikur Cholim Aushe Rodof
Sholeni, 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 180, it was held that the plaint ill'
could not consolidate with the defendant without legislative
autlioritj', or the ap])roval of the supreme court.
An attempted consolidation of the Congregation Beth
Tephila Israel and the congregation Anshi Emith, the
former to receive all the property of the latter, and also its
mend)ers, was held ineffectual for the reason that it did not
conform to the Religious Corporations Law of 1S!)5, cliaii.
723, sec, 12, nor to the Mend^ership (^)rporations Law ()!'
1895, chaj). 551) sec. 7. The contract of consolidation con-
tained provisions beyond the powers of either congregation,
and it was held that any dissatisfied member might maintain
an action to set asi<le the agreement. Davis v Cong. Helh
Tephila Israel, 40 A. D. ( X. V. ) 121.
Consolidation, When May Be Set Aside. An unauthorized
cons(didation of corporations may be set aside at the snil
of either corporation. Cluvra Medrash Auschei ^Ld^avcr
V IMakower Chcvi-a Ancclii I'oland. (1(1 \. V. Snp]). **55.
Dismissal of Teacher. A pcison who had Itcen cniployc*!
by the society as its tcaclici-. |)i('a(iicr. and liasson, after
beginning his services, eslahlisliecl :i mci'canl ile Imsiness in
293
2!M
tin: cin il law and tih; rm kcii
tlie SiUiK' lowii. It wiis ;ill('j;t'(l lluil lie 1 r;ins;Ml(Ml worldly
Imsiiu'ss ill llic sloiT on IIk; .lewisli Sal)l>;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 ma<le by a mend»er ol .1 cliurcli, in the
regular course of church discipliiu', against a i>erson n<it
a nuMubei", cannot, as to him. be consideicd as .1 privileged
communication. ('oondis\ i{ose. S lllackf. (Ind.t \~t~K
2m Tin: cix il law am> '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<l .sejt-
arate from the Wisconsin Distiid <»l' I lie (Jennaii IO\angel-
i<'al Synod of Norlli America, and in some respects in con-
llict therewith.
The Lntheran ('linich, or symtd. adojds cei-tain writings
in and shortly after the time of Martin Lnther, as concln-
sive expression of llie creed and inerrant inlei'|ti-elation of
the Scriptures, and i-ejects certain <dher writings which ai-e
ado])ted by what was called the (Jerman Kefoinied Chnrch
as correct interpretation of the Sci-ijdnres. The I'vangfl
ica! Chnrch recognizes e(|naily said syndxilical books of the
Lntlierans and of the Kefcn-nuMi ('hnnh, bnt .iccords to
297
li!)S TIIIO ('i\ IL LAW AM) Till: ClUJiCU
ikmIIum" coiiclnsivcnoss jis to the doctriiu's therein i»roiiml-
gatcd, or- iis to tlu; intciju-ctiitioii of the S(rij)tiires, Init
;i|»|H()V('s lliein as the work of human niinds subject to wliat
may he (Jccmed either by the individual or by the churdi
authorities the true meaning of the Scri|)tui-es themselves.
The Lutherans prescribe certain books as necessarj' to be
used in Sunday schools, confessions of faith, and the like,
while the lOvangelicals approve and use other Itooks and
writings. The name ''Lutheran" is a distinguishing char-
acteristic of the churches adhering to the former creed,
and, according to the allegations of the conifjlaint, they yield
almost inspirational authority to the writings of Dr. Luther.
Marien v Evangelical Creed Congregation, Milwaukee, lo2
Wis. 050.
Organization. Church government in regard to general
bodies has three distinctions: First, episcopal ; as in Sweden,
Norway and Denmark. Second, territorial, which prevails
wherever the civil government is Protestant and interferes
with ecclesiastical atl'airs; in this system there are two i»re-
cedents in the consistorium, or synod ; the first is bounded
by the civil power, from the legal profession, with rank
e<inal to a bishop; the second is a clergynmn. Third, the
third system is the collegiate, and j^revails in countries not
under I'rotestant rule, and where the civil government does
not interfere with ecclesiastical matters; it ])revails here in
the United States. Harmon v Dreher, 1 Spcer's Va\. (S. C.)
ST.
Alaska, Property, Effect of Cession from Russia to United
States. The society was not incorporatcMl. The society was in
existence long before the transfer of Alaska from Russia to
the United States in 1S(J7, and the society, before such
transfer, became the owner in fee of land in Sitka by a grant
from Russia. Upon the transfer of the territory from
Russia to the United States the commissioners of the two
governments appointed to effect the transfer issued to the
said congregation a certificate of title in fee simple to said
lot. The church building on the lot fell into decav and was
LT'TITKRANS 200
removed. Afterward the defendants entered on the lot and
began the erection of a bnihiing adversely to the title claim
by the congregation, and the society, throngh its trustees,
sought a perpetual injunction against the erecting of this
building.
It was held that the congregation, even if not incorpo-
rated, could maintain an action through its trustees or i)er-
sons appointed for such j)uri)ose. The church jiroperty must
be held to be "private individual property" failing witiiin
the exceptions of the treaty of 18G7, by which Russia trans-
ferred Alaska to the United States, and this view is sus-
tained by the protocol, inventories, and maj). The title to
the Lutheran Church lot never vested in the United States,
but the congregation hebl the absolute and indefeasible title
in fee simple of said lot of ground as granted to it by
Russia. No title thereto could be obtained exce])t through
said congregation, and a failure to use and occujn' the lot
for church purj)oses, did not divest the congregation of its
title. It was held that the lot was not open to jiossession
and occupancy as i)ublic lands of the United States. "Onr
government, therefore, is bound u])on its national honor to
maintain in good faith these stipulations of the treaty by
sustaining the fee simj)le titles set forth in the ])rotocol,
including that of the congregation of the Lutheran (Miurcli,
and by protecting the holders of such titles in the enjoy-
ment of tlie ]iro|terty so grante<l." The court sustained an
application of the congregation for an injunction restrain-
ing the defendants from erecting any structures on the lot,
or exercising any ])ossessory rights tlierelo. Callsen v
Hope, 75 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 758.
Associations. Oernian Evangelical Lutheran Ulinrclies an;
congregational in their j)olity. Tiiei-e ai'e several dilVerent
national associations or synods of such churches, but their
powers over any particular local church are advisory, and
similar to those of associations and conferences of congre-
gational churches. German I'vangelical Lutheran ( hnrtlies
of the General Council, and of the Missouri SNuod. alil<e.
:;()(> Tin: ("i\ il law and 'riii: cm i:cir
liokl lo (he caiioiii";!! Intoks of llic ()I<I ;iinl Nrw Tcsljiinciit
as the Word of God, tlic iiiuillcicd Aii;isl»m-^ CoiifesHion uh
the st;ni(lin-(l of Cnith iiiid llicolo^y, and llic Symbolical
Books, so called, iiichidin*^ the Apology of the Au;;s1mii-;;
Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Catechisms of J^uther,
and the Foi-mnla of Concord, as trne and oi-lhodox exjiosi-
tions of that faith. It is a well-settled rule of the Lutheian
denomination that a pastor cannot be dismissed except by
his own consent, or for persistent nnchristian life, or njM)n
the ground that he willingl}' teaches false doctrine. Dnessel
V Proch, 78 Conn. 343.
Close Communion. The congregations in the Iowa Synod
j)ractice what is called ''close communion," that is, these
congregations do not permit members of other Christian
churches to conimujie with them, while the congregations
subject to the general synod admit all Christians to their
communion table. Wehmer v Fokenga, 57 Neb. 510.
Confession of Sins, Should It Be Public or Private? This
society was originally connected with the Butfalo Synod,
but in 1890 a majority of the congregation voted to with-
draw from that synod and join the Ohio synod, and this
change was made; thereupon several members withdrew
from the society. Each party admitted that confession of
sins is neces.sary as a condition ]»recedent to the recejttitjn
of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The matter in dis-
pute was the manner in which such confession should be
made. The majority held that i)rivate confession was not
comi)ulsory, but did not ])rohibit its use by those of the con-
gi'egation who preferred that method. This was in accord
with the teachings of the Synod of Ohio. The minority ad-
hered to the rule that private confession was necessary, in
accord with the teachings of the Synod of Butfalo.
The minority then withdrew from the society, and brought
this action to enjoin the majority from using the church ami
schoolhouse, and to exclude them from any participation in
the affairs of the society. The court dismissed the action
holding that the question in disi)nte was ecclesiastical and
J.ITHEKAXS 301
not within the jiii-isdiction of Civil Ti-il)uiial8. Schradi v
Dornfeld, 52 Miuu. 4G5.
Congregation, Powers. Actoi-ding to the usages of
Lutheran churches or congregations, each congregation is
or may be sujirenie. There are synods and conferences, but
a congregation may or may not unite therewith, and yet
be a true Lutheran congregation to all intents and purposes.
Nor is a congregation bound to unite N\ith a synod in the
same State; so that although there may be a synod in one
State, a Lutheran congregation may join a synod in another
State. It is regarded as doubtful whether any formal action
by the congregation is required in the first instance in order
to join any s3'nod. Notwithstanding a congregation may
have joined a synod, it remains sujjreme so far as the right
to manage and control its property is concerned. The synod
has the power of visitation and exj)ulsion if the congrega-
tion does not believe and ])ractice the faith and doctrine of
the synod. Dressen, et al v Brameier, et al ">(> 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 <nstom of the Kvangelical
::(r_' 'riii: ciNii. LAW .\.\i> 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 ])rovi<le(l that iiiiiiistcrs must he iiiciiiIkms in {^ood
faith in an Evanji;('lical Lutheran synod, and who, besides
the Word of God, hold as a rule of their faith, the unaltered
Au^sburji; (V)nfession, and the Symbolical Books of the year
inso. The society received at dillcrciil times conveyances
of laud for j;eneral church jdirposes. It was held that under
the Maryland statute only the trustees selected by the
society became the actual corporation, and that the corpora-
tion had no ])ower or autlioritj' to interfere with forms of
worship, articles of faith, or any other matter relating
strictly to spiritual concerns.
Referring to the allegation that the use of the German
language in worship had been discontinued, the court said
that there was no evidence as to what the denomination had
required concerning the language to be used in worship.
The court had no power to iiiterfere as to sjuritual matters.
Such matters were exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
denomination. There was no allegation that the general
church had made any decision or rule relating to the use of
the German language, or the effect of discontinuing it, or
the effect of noncompliance with the regulations concerning
the Augsburg Confession and the Symbolical Books. The
civil court, therefore, had no jurisdiction. It was held that
the court could not grant the relief sought, namely, that
the trustees be restrained from holding services such as
are objected to, and the ministers who have, and are yet
otticiating from conducting smh services. Shaetfer v Klee,
100 >rd. 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<i;ical exptMts as to the belief of J^utlieraiis ami vaii-
oiis forms of inspiration.
Independent Congregation, Status. In a conti-oversy be-
Iween two factioiis of llie society concerning;- the dismissal
of the pastor and the employment of another, and ilic ii<j;lit
to snch property, it was held that there was no chnrch tri-
bunal with jurisdiction to determine the (piestions in contro-
versy, or any matters of faith or church organization, and
that this local society or congregation ha<l never aililiate<l
itself with any of the national associations or syno<ls. Land
was conveyed to trustees described as trustees of the. local
society. Thereafter, by means of church contribiitions and
money derived from other sources, a church edilice was
erected on the lot. In 1902 the church adopted an iiide-
l)endent constitution. This constitution vested in the whole
congregation the right to call a j»astor. The call was not to
be for a definite period, nor was it to be terminated at the
will of the congregation so long as the i)r<'acher should teach
as i)rescribed in the constitution. The article regarding the
call of a pastor was abrogated in 1!)04. After the commence-
ment of this action a meeting of the society was held and
several votes previously taken fornuilly rati lied. The local
society was congregational in jiolity, and acted by a niajoi--
ity relative to the call of a pastor, and it was not bound to
alliliate with the Missouri synod or any other. The consti-
tution did not require the unanimous action of tin' con-
gregation. A majority was snllicicnt to express its purpose.
The pastoi- who had been excluded from the church was held
not entitled to tlie relief sought by way of an injnnciion.
He was rei)resented l)y a minority only. The majority was
held entitled to hold the pro]»erty and administer the trust.
Duessel v Proch, 7S Conn. .'U:?.
Minister, How Employed. Ry the law which governs tlu'
Lutheran church it is allowalde for a congregatiiMi to call
a pastor who is not a nuMnber of any synod, but w lio t'\|tects
to be admitted to mendtcrsliip therein. I lis cnijilov incnl by
;{()! TU\: ('i\ii. LAW AM> 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)ii<i llie
first emigrants from Holland to this j)rovince, an<l there is
no do\d)t but that they were driven from Holland by the i)er-
secution of the Ai-minians, and those holding kindred tenets,
which had been denounced by the Hynod of I>ort 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 stoo<l was granted
to them by the government in 1674." A substantial stone
edifice was afterward, between 1725 and 1740, erected on the
same lot, contributions therefor having been made by
citizens of New York, Lutherans and others, and by Luther-
ans in various places in Europe. During the earlier years
of this church its service was in the Low Dutch or Holland
language. There was little migration from Holland after
the end of the seventeenth century, and at the time of tlie
erection of the stone church the uundter of Germans had
increased to such an extent that the service was in the
German language ])art of the time.
About 1750 a large lunnber of Germans detached them-
selves from the Trinitj' Church and established a new church
known as Christ Church, at the corner of Frankfort and
\Villiam Streets, in which the service was conducted in the
German language exclusively until the Kevolution. Trin-
ity Church was burned during the Kevolution, and at the
LUTHERANS 805
close of the war both clnuches were destitute of a pastor,
lu 178-1: the two churches were uuited under the name of the
United German Lutheran Churches of New York. A part
of the time the service had been in lOnf^lish in (.'hrist Church,
and also in the reunite<l churcli. Prior to the war of 1812.
most of the conj>regati(»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 an<l
form of worship, from the faith of Islam and Mohammed
to the Catholic creeds and high-sounding liturgies of the
Greek and Komau churches; all enjoying the protection, if
not the patronage, of the crown. Among these the member-
shi]) of the Lutheran denomination ranks next in nund)ers
to that of the established church, and the population of the
Baltic provinces and Finland are almost entirely Lutheran.
The reasons for this policy are not far to seek, as it is one
which must inevitably bind to the autocrat adherents of
all the different denominations thus fostered and ])rotected
by the sovereign head of the em])ire. Following its long-
established policy on religious matters, Russia desired to
l)rotect the congregation of the Lutheran Church, with
others to whom title to lands in Alaska had been givcTi. in
the enjoyment of the ])roperty so gi*anted, and the Tnited
States acceded to that desire. Callsen et al v Ho]»e et al,
7(; Fed. (V. S.) 758.
Secession. It was held that the society was entitled to
maintain ejectment against a jiortion of the congregation
who seceded, formed a separate organization, and took
LUTHKKANS :;07
])osses.sioii of the church [)i-()i)crty. Fcrusller v Seiberl, 114:
l»a. 1J)G.
Synod. A general synod of Lutlieraii Cluirches in the
United States was organized in 1820. KnisUern v Lutheran
Ch., 1 Sandf. Ch. ( N. Y.j 439. The synod does not assume
any authority to define doctrine for the congregation. But
the meetings of tlie synod are only advisory so far as the
congregations are concerned. ''Questions of doctrine and
conscience cannot he <lt't(M-mined by a ]durality of votes,
but only according to tlie Word of God, an<l the syndiolical
books of our churcli." The synod, and the congregations
sending delegates to it, are merely religious bodies in Ihe
organization, control, and government of which, as such,
the civil tribunals have nothing to do. It is for the syno<l
to determine when and for what cause it will sever its con-
nection with any congregation ; and for the congregation,
considered merely as a religious association, to determine
when it will expel a member. Trustees, East Norway Lake
Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Chui'ch and others v
Halvorson, 42 Minn. 503.
MANDAMUS
Cemetery, burial, 308.
Expulsion of member, 308.
Joint use of property, 308.
Member, restoration, 309.
Minister, reinstatement, 310.
Special election, 311.
Trustees, title, 312.
Vestry, 312.
Vestry, duty to attend meeting, 312.
Cemetery, Burial. In People v St. Patrick's Cathedral,
21 Hiiii (N. Y.) 184, a Freemason was held not eligible to
burial in a Koman Catholic cemetery under its rules, and a
writ of mandamus to compel the cemetery officers to i»ermit
such bnrial was refused.
Expulsion of Member. In Saltnian v Nesson, 201 Mass.
534, it was held that the remedy to test the validity and
regularity of the exi)ulsion of a member of a religious corpor-
ation is by mandamus, and not by a suit in equity. See also
Members and Injunction.
Joint Use of Property. For the purpose of erecting a new
church edifice on land owned by this society subscriptions
were made and paid by persons some of whom were mem-
bers of other denominations, and some not adherents of any
church. The subscriptions were made on condition that
when the building was not used bj' the Methodist Protestant
Church it should be free for the use of other religious de-
nominations in the vicinity. The Methodist Protestant
Church having refused to permit the Christian Church to
use the building, the latter society applied for a mandamus
to compel the Methodist Protestant society to oj>en 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 ha<l no }»i-op-
erty; that the relator had acted in hostility to the interests
of the society, had given grounds for regnlai- removal and
that his restoration would desli-oy the society. It also
appeared that if restored, he might be immediately .again
expelled. The court declined to exercise its discreti(»n in
favor of the relator, and therefore refused the writ. Teoplc
ex rel Meister v Anshei Ohese<l Hebrew Congregati(tn, P>ay
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 provide<l for the trial of ecclesiastical questions, civil
MANDAMCS ;;il
courts, in tlic cxciciso of their «]iscreliuii, will uot iriaut Ji
writ of inaiulaiinis to restore a rejette*! minister to his oflSce
and funttions, before a final derision has been had by the
church authorities. State ex rel McNeill v Bibl) St. (Mi., 84
Ala. 23.
Where the minister of an endowed dissenting mcM^ting-
house had been exj)ene(l by a majority of the congi-ej^ation
the court refused a mandamus to restore him ai>iili(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 <lenied,
it not appearing that there ^^ere any fees or emoluments
attached to the office, t'nion Church v Sanders, 1 Houston
(T)el.» 100.
Man<lamus will not lie to compel the reinstatement of a
minister who has been suspended from his office on the
ground that he had no pro]»er notice of trial, where it
appears that he had actual notice of the time and place of
trial; and was present with his coun.sel aiul participated
therein. Demp.sey v Noi'ih ilichigan ronference, Wesleyan
Methodist Connection of America, 1)8 Mich. 444.
Special Election. At an election held by a I'rotestant Ejiis-
copal society the rector pi-csiding declared ten persons
elected as churchwardens and vestrymen. Subsetiueiilly
seven of these persons were (tush'd fi-oni offirc, it a]»peariii^
;;i"j Tin: cinii. \.\\y A\h Tin-: ciichcfi
(hat the rector li:i<I rccciviMl ciiougli illegal voles to (•liaiig(^
the result. A iiiaiidanius was granted directing th(! rector
to join in a special election for the j)nrj)ose of filling IIk*
vacancy caused by the ouster; and a referee was af)poiiite(l
to supervise the special election. I'eople ex rel Fleming v
Hart, .".(; St. Kep. (N. Y.) 874, 21 N. Y. Supp. 07r5.
Trustees, Title. It was held that mandamus was the ])roj»er
remedy under the Maryland statute to determine the title to
the (►ttice of trustee of a church. Clayton v Carey, 4 Md. 2(1.
Vestry. Mandamus is not a proi)er remedy to restore a
rightful vestry to the possession of church property wrong-
fully withheld. Smith v Krb, 4 Gill. (Md.) 4:37.
Vestry, Duty to Attend Meeting. In People ex rel Kenney
V Winans, 21) St. Kep. (N. Y.) (")51, a writ of numdamus was
granted on the application of the rector to compel certain
vestrymen to attend a meeting of the vestry.
MASSES
Defined, 313.
Described, 313.
Not a superstitious use, 313.
See Also Prayers for the Dead.
Defined. The mass, actonliny; to Webster's International
Dictionary, is '*the sacrifice in the sacrament of the euchar-
ist, or the consecration and oblation of tlic host." It is a
public service, a public act of worship, by which, according
to the tenets of the Ronuin Catholic Church, the priest who
celebrates it "helps tlie living and obtains rest for the dead."
Coleman v O'Leary, 114 Ky. 388.
Described. The saying of mass is a ceremonial celebrated
by the priest in open church, where all wlio choose may be
present and participate therein. Il is a soh'mn and imj)ies-
sive ritual, from which many draw spiritual solace, guid-
ance, and instruction. It is religions in its form and in its
teaching, and clearly comes within that class ol trusts or
uses denominated in law as charitable. And, while the
effect of these services upon the mendxMs of the church is
impressive and beneficial, the money expended for the cele-
brations thereof is of benefit to the clergy, and is upheld and
maintained for this reason, as one of the cherished objects
of religious uses. Webster v Sughrow, (I!) N. II. ;1S<>.
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<jrity of those who
appear may act. Craig v First Tresbyterian (Munch, S8 I'a.
St. 42.
A majority of an unincorporated religious society may
direct and control the disposition of real estate belonging
to it, notice of the meeting at which such action is taken
having been given to the members of the society. Where it
apj)eared that tlie business meetings of the society were
invariably hebt in the evening and were called by announce-
ment to the children at the school connected with the society,
and by the ringing of a bell, and it was shown that the usual
notice was given of the meeting in question ; that in addition
thereto, a written notification was carried round to most of
the members, and that none of tho.se resisting the action
taken claimed that they did not know that the meeting was
being held, it was held that the notice was sufficient. Hub-
bard V German Catholic Congregation, 34 la. 31.
Notice. Notice of a meeting of the mend)ers of a church
to vote upon conveying the church ])roperty is snllicicnt
if it is given in accordance with the church rules. Jones v
Sacramento Avenue Methodist Ki)isco]»al Cliurch, IDS 111.
G2G.
The society had not adopted any by-law or vote by which
meetings were to be called. No assessors were appointed as
authorized by the statute, and the directors did not a]»point
any meetings. In the absence of assessors, or committee
authorized to call meetings of the society, the statute author-
ized a justice of the peace to call a meeting. A meeting
called by the clerk on the application of four nuMnbers of
the society was held to be irregular under the stattite, and
a vote at a subse<pient meeting, also iiregnlarly called,
confirming the action of the jtrevious meeting, was void.
Wiggin V First Freewill Bajjtist Church, Lowell, S Mete.
(Mass.) ;;()1.
ftuorum. ''The rnle of the coiiiinon law seems t() bo thai
\\ heie a body is coinposcd of an iiHlcliiiite inunbci* of per-
;!i(; 'riii; <"i\ ii> 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 bo<ly to trans-
act business. The presumption is that all the mendjers i>res-
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 ])rovi<l('(I tbaf new iiKMiiIicrs coubl b<* added oidy
by a vote of the coii;;rejjjatioii, and another by hiw reiiuired
a notice of a special meeting to state tlie object of it. Per-
sons eh'cted at a special nieetiii}^ without an announcement
of snch intended action contained in tlie notice of the meet-
ing were not regular members and had not been duly elected.
Gray v (Miristian Society, 1:57 Mass. :{2J).
Baptist, Powers of Congregation. The e.xclusive jx^wer to
admit and exclude members lies in tlie local congregations,
and associations have no power to reverse or review the
action of the local churches as to its members, nor to rein-
state a member who has been excluded by any local church.
Igleliart v Kowe, 20 Ky. Law Kep. S21.
Dismissal. A minister assunie<l to dismiss members of tlie
church without a hearing or trial. It was held that the
action of the minister was nugatory. Burke v Roper, 7!)
Ala. 138.
Dues, Effect of Nonpayment. Where the by-laws of a mem-
bership coi'poration i>rovided 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<tpcrty i-iglits oi-
privileges shall be alVccted oi- adjudicated without an opjior-
tunity to be fully and fairly heard."
Expulsion. A mendier cannot be expelled liy the consistory
without the consent of the congregation. The jiower of the
consistory is limited to the exclusion of a member from the
communion of the Lord's Supper, and the ]»ower of excom-
munication is vested in the congregation. Church v Seibert,
3 Pa. St. 282.
Several persons about 1874 organized this society, and
made preparations to build a church edilice. The i)lainliir,
one of the incorporators, had general chaige of the erection
of Ihe building, .uid in addition to his original subscription,
advanced about .81,400 to complete the building, also giving
his time and services to the enteri)rise. For many years
thereafter he was one of tlu' most intluential and devoted
members of the society. "Without previous notice, with no
hint of i\uy charges to be that day made against him. he was
on Sunday, Ajiril .■>, 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 con<luct. See also Injunction and Man-
damus.
Expulsion, Damages. The plaint ill' hiouglit an action
against the trustees of the church for damages resulting
from an alleged unlawful expulsion from the society. By
the act of organizing under the statute the church becomes
a civil corporation. Usually, there is a religious society con-
nected with the church. The church has its members who
are sujiixised to hold certain beliefs and subscribe some cove-
nant with each other, if such is the usage of the denomina-
tion to which the church is attached. The church is not in-
corporated, and has nothing whatever to do with the tempo-
ralities. It does not control the property or the trusees; it
can receive anybody into the society, and can expel anybotly
from it. On the other hand, the corporation has nothing to
do with the church except as it provides for the church
wants. It cannot alter the church faith or covenant, it can-
not receive mend>ers, 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 expelle<l, without
notice, without hearing, and without evidence. Such action
was held to have no effect ou the rights of the members
included in the resolution of exi>ulsion.
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<l, and the members must conform to these
rules. If, however, it has no rules on the subject, those of
the common law prevail, and before a member can be ex-
pelled notice must be given him to answer the charge made
against him, and an opportunity ottered to make his de-
fense, and an order of exj)ulsion without such notice and
opi)ortunity is void. .Jones v State, 28 Neb. 4!)r>.
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
<letermine the disputed <|uestions relating to matters pecu-
liarly within the j»i'oviiice of the organization. Miick v
Kime, 12!> (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<l, individual mem-
bers may be liable. A meetinghouse is not liable to be
taken in execution for the debts of such society.
Powers. The male members of the church nrc invested
with no visitorial or controlling jjowcr ovci- liic minister
or trustees, or interest in the jn-ojx'rty of tiic corporation;
nor with any authority, except in the case of selling, or
leasing, or amending the articles, when the consent of two
thirds is re(piired.
The right of the ministers in charge to the use and en-
joyment of the cliurch (which includes all the uses to which
it can be a])plied for religious jmrposesi is expressly re-
served to them ; and the economy and management of the
fiscal affairs, the receii»ts and disbuisements, are as explic-
itly assigned to those appointed for th.it pui-pose under the
disci])line of the church. Tartei- v (iiltl»s. 21 M<1. ;'.23.
Qualifications, How Determined. I'lider a Michi^inn statute
relating to the incorjioration of religi«»Ms societies, it was
held that the statute indicated who might be inend»ers of
the corporation, but did not determine the (piMlitications
of church nuMubers, or the mode of their admission. Those
questions are i)rimarily, at least, of <*cclesiastical cogni-
zance, and both ])arties must tirsi e\li;nist th(> renie<lies
:{i.'<; Till-: cinii. law a.\i> '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 owne<l by llie cor-
poration may be quite another thing. His riglits in tlie
corporation and as coritorator will (IcikmkI ex«Iusi\('iy u|>on
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 an<l rontrol its pioperty.
Trustees, East Norway Lake Norwegian lOvangernal Lu-
theran Church and others v Halvorson, 12 Minn. ."»();',.
Town Society. The society was incorporated in In()2 i>y
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 ('on<!;re<;alional society. The corporation
was the same society that was known in the town as such,
and for whose benefit the land in controversy had been con-
veyed. The princii>al 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<)()k<lale was one,
had been associated in a common ('oiiference calh'd Irom
its place of meeting the Franconia Conference, which was
composed of clerical and lay delegates from the several ion-
gregations, and its ])nrpose was the general government of
the church. In or about the j'^ear 18i4 a discnssion arose
in this Conference concerning the customs and nsages of tlie
Mennonite Church. One parly desired 1o introduce varions
innovations into their mode of life and method of religions
v;orship, a departure that was signalized l»y ihe leader of
the movement, a Kev. John Overhollzer, ajtpearing in the
Conference in a coat of a different cut from the custonniiy
garb of the Menonnite ]>ersuasion. 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 extende<l from the Conference to its comitonent con
gregations. T>aiMlis 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' ;ni<l soiifilit ;iii iiijniH-t i(»ii rest r;iiiiiii;^ tlic
(Icinolil ion of Ww clinicli I)iiil<liii<4 niiil tlif ci-cct ion of ;i new
one, and nskcd tlia( tlic minority mif^lit Ix' declared to he
ttMwints in eomnion of the iti-opei'ty witli the majority. It
was lield tliat the majority liad tlie ri^ht^ 1<» the jtossessioii
and conti'ol of the ])i'o|>ei'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<e in Canada; and in 1SL*4 the
Canada Conference included the whole (tf the upper prov-
ince, and thus it stood in 1828. when erected into an inde-
I)endent establishnuMit. Hasconi \ Lane, I'ed. Cms. HIS!>,
(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 acti<in are
subject to the jurisdiction (►f an .Vnnuai Confei-ence. com-
l)0.sed of the ministers within a limited area, and an eipial
nund)er of laymen, elected thereto as |nd\ided by a code
of laws called the I)isci|dine of ihe Chnich. Aectuding to
the Discipline, certain detined mattei-s ;ire considei'jMJ ;ind
dis])osed of ill joint session (»r l»otli minislei-s and lavineii;
but matlei-s aU'ecting the eliar.itler and (piali li<a I ions of
331
'S.V2 Till-: ("l\'II. LAW AM) Till-: CJll KCil
niiiiislcrs jirc iii(|iiirt*(l into ;iii<l disposed of in what are
called niinislerial sessions; that is, nieetinj^s composed of
ministers only." The Discijiline provi<les a system of ap-
j)eal. An Annual Conference has j)ower to locate a min-
ister without his consent. A located minister cannot exer-
cise the functions of the ministry, but may if he desires,
be considered a local j)reacher subject to the rej^ulations
allecting local preachers. In 181)4 the plaintirt" was deposed
from the ministry and exjjelled from the membership of the
church. The judgment of expulsion was reversed by the
Court of Appeals, a tribunal provided by the Discipline.
The matter came before the Annual Conference again in
1895, when the plaintiff was located at his own request.
From this action of the Annual Conference the plaintiff
appealed to the Court of Appeals, which court reversed the
action of the Conference on the ground that it was extra-
neous to any provision of the Discipline. In 1897 he was
left without a station at his own request, and a resolution
was adopted by the Conference requesting him to ask a
location. In 1898 the idaintitf was located, he still refus-
ing to ask a location. The plaintiff appealed to the Court
of A])peals from the action of the Conference of 1898 in
locating him, and the ai)peal was dismissed. Considering
the foregoing facts, the court in Ash v Methodist Church,
27 Ont. Ai)p. Ke 602, (Canada) said, "The question whether
a minister is acceptable or inefficient is i)eculiarly one of
the judgment of the Conference, and by the Discipline that
body is made the sole judge on that subject."
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Organization, 333.
Anti-slavery control, 335.
Baltimore Conference, 335.
Baltimore Conference, sepanition of 1S44, 338.
Bible Society discontinued, 338.
Bishop's authority to consolidate churches, 339.
Book Concern, 340.
Church Extension Society, 341.
Church investigations, 341.
Consolidation, 342.
Corporators, cannot evict trustees, 342,
Division, 342.
Division of 1844, 343.
Drew Theological Seminary, 344.
Foreign Missionary Society, bequest, 344.
General Conference, power to divide church, 344.
Illinois, Preachers' Aid Society, 345.
John Street Church, New York, 345.
Maine, Preachers' Aid Society, 34(5.
Methodist Preachers' Aid Society, Baltimore, Maryland, 346.
Ministers, how appointed, 347.
Minister's salary, 348.
Missionary Society, 349.
Missionary bequest, 349.
Missions, 349.
New York, 9th ward, bequest for purcluuse of coal, 350.
Ohio Corporation, 350.
Oregon Mission, 351.
Properly to be held in trust, 355.
Separation, Church South, plan final, 355.
Separation, Church South, ilolston Confcr<>tice, 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<l been j^oveiiied hy .loliii
\\'esley, the fotiiider of tiiis (leiioininalioii of rhristiaiis,
through the agency of his asHistaiits. During tliis year the
entii-e governnient was taken into the hands of th<* traveling
preachers with his ajiprohation and assent. They organ-
ized it, established its doctrines and <liscipline, ajipointed
the several authorities, superintendents or hishojts, min-
isters and preachers, to administer its polity and promul-
gate its doctrines and teaching throughout the land. From
that time to this [1X51] the source and fountain of its tem-
poral power was the traveling preachers in this connection
in General Conference. The lay members of the church have
no part or connection with its govertimeiiTal organization
and never ha<l. The traveling preachers comprise the em-
bodiment of its power, ecclesiastical and temporal, ami
when assend)led in General Gonference according to the
usages and discipline of the church, represent themselves,
and have no constituents, and this organization continued
till the year ISOS, when a modification took ]dace. At a
General Conference of that year, composed of all the travel-
ing preachers, it was resolved to have thereafter a delegatetl
Conference, to be comi)osed of one for every five members of
each Annual Conference. The ratio of representation has
been altered from time to time so that in 1844 the Annual
Conferences were re])resented by one delegate for every
twenty-one members. The General Conference of 1808
adopted a form of government or constitution, in wliich it
was declared that the General Conference shall have full
power to make rules and regulations for the church under
the following limitations and restrictions. (Then followed
six restrictive rules, comj)rising all the limitations upon
that body assend)led by delegates. For a further consider-
ation of this subject, see the paragraph on Book Concern
and power to divide the church.) Bascom v Lane, Fed.
Cas. 1080 (Cir. Ct. Dist. N. Y.). Equal lay representation
METHODIST Einscoi'AI. CIirifrTI :',:',r»
in the General Conference has Itecn a(l»)i)t(M) siiicc this (h'ci-
sion was rendered.
Anti-Slavery Control. A (■((nvcyancc <»!' land was iiKidc lo
this soeiety in 18^3!), containinji,- the n-cital that "said prem-
ises and building being princi]»ally pMrchascd ;ind procnrcd
b}'' the auti-slavery members of said rlmrcii. ilu' same arc
to be wholly under their control and dii-ectioii, and in im
case whatever are any such members of said churcli as ;irc
not believers in and praeticers of the doctrines of anti slav
ery to take any i)art or liave any ])Ower of controlling the
use of said premises and building, or in any way dis|»osing
of the same, but the same shall be and remain i'orever under
the control and direction of such members of said church as
are embraced with the feelings and o])inions of the anti
slavery society for the immediate abolition of slaveiy in
the I'nited States; and, further, that in no case is the Clcn-
eral Conference of the Methodist 10i)iscopal Church to have
any right in said premises and building, or take any control
or direction of the same." These i»rovisions, relating to the
control of the property, were held to constitute a condition,
and the subsequent action of the local society in placing
itself uinhM- the jiirisdiction of the (leneral Conferenic of
the Methodist Ejiiscopal Church, and receiving a minister in
the usual metlio<l of ai)pointment, was a breach of the cundi-
tion which entitled the grantor to reentei-. (Inild v Rich-
ards, 1 (I Gray (:Mass.) iJOO.
Baltimore Conference. By a will hearing date in ls.">| 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 <levis<'<l. They broiij^Iit an action against tlic
fiMislccs of the orijiiiial society to (h'terniine th(! tith; to the
property. In the division of the Metho<list Episcopal
Chnrch, which occurred in 1S44, tlie Baltimore Conference
adhei'ed to tiie Methodist l"l])iscopal Chnn-h, and this church
al HerryviHe remained wiili lli.il Conference in ihat church
and did not nnite in tiie movement whicii cnlminated in the
general convention which was held at Lonisville. Kentncky,
in 1845, which declared the jnrisdiction heretofore exer-
cised over tlie ('onfei-ence there assend)led as entirely dis-
solved, and established a separate ecclesiastical connection,
to be known b}^ the style and title of the Methodist Epis-
coi)al Church, South ; but the Baltimore Conference decided
in 1840 to take no part in the new movement. In 1ST(J a
joint comuiission was appointed b}' the Methodist E[)iscopal
Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to
adjust matters of controversy between the two churches.
That commission met at Cape May, New Jersey, the same
year, and awarded the property in dis])ute to tlie Methodi.st
Episcopal Church, South. In 1854 the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, was in existence as such, and well known to
the testator. It was held in this case that the i)roperty was
not devised to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, but
to another and distinct denomination of Christians. The
jiroperty was devised to the trustees of the local congrega-
tion and was not devised to either denomination as snvh,
and neither clinrch in its general ca]>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
belon<i;in<j to said chureli, as shall lium time to time be duly
authorized by the General Confeit'iicc (tl' ilw miiiislers an<l
preachers of the said Metliodist Episcopal Churcli, (ir liy liie
Annual ('onference authoi-ized by the said (Jeueral ('(nirer-
ence to ]jreach and expouud (Jod's Holy Word therein. It
was held that the deed conveyed the ]>roperjy 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«(<u'(liug
to the Methodist Episcopal DiscipliiK' foi' (he htcal society
of that denomination, by and foi- which c(»iiliiltiitioiis were
made, and which was exi)e( ted to at lend worsliip on the
]»reuiises. The nuMubers of the Methodist lOpiscop.il (liurcli
at large, not belonging to the loc;il sociely, can. in a genei-al
view, have no other use of the btcal premises hnl lliiough
the instrumentality of I he local society and lt.\ means (tf
the subordination of the local use to the laws and aulliorily
of the church at large. The local society has no aoIcc in the
selection of its ministers. A local society lias no i-ight to
be represented by delegates, eilhei- in tin- AiiMiial Coiifer-
ence or in the Genei-al Conference. Tluy had no voice in
making the rules tor the government of llie clinicli. and
none in the ai)iK)iutment or selection of the jucachi'r to whose
charge they might be commit led. The Halliniore Coiiler
ence, which iucludecl Salem, decided to remain in conne**-
tiou with the Methodist 10pisco|ial Churcii, but by .1 pro
vision in the resolutions of the (Jeueral Coufei-eiice ot IMl
local churches in the border Conferences might tor tlieni
selves determine whether to continne in connection wiili ilie
Methodist V^piscopal (Miiircli or join the .Methodist llpis
^38 tin: <m\il r.AW .\.\h riii: ciii imii
copjil Clmrcli, Soulli. Sjilnii Cliiircli \v;is licM l«» lie ;i
border socicly uikIci" llie (IcncrMl ('(mrciMMicc ic.-^cdiilion.
The society voted on the question (A' its ruturc relation to
tlie Oeneral Church, Nortli or Soutli, and iiie majority de-
cided to join the (,'hurch South. Tliis was hehl to i)lace the
local society under the jurisdiction ol the (Minrc h South, not
only as to its internal or<>;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, an<l disciidinc of tiie Methodist ICpis-
co])al Chnnh, Trinity Clinrch was the successor to the
grantees named in a (\rvA of land to the Central .Metliotlist
10j)iscoj)al CInii'cli. V'Tlie cousolidalion (»f ihe tliice clinrclies
into one was a matter of ecclesiasi ie.il l;i\\ ainl |n act ice;
;M() 'rili; ("l\ IL LAW ANh Tin; ("111 KCII
;ili(l llic (Ircisinii ul' llic (•cclcsiiisl ic;i I tiilniii:il on lliiil iiiiitlcr
is hiiwliiij; on llic civil conrls." '
Book Concern. The I?ool< Concein was establislied at a
very early <lay, by tlic trav<'lin^^ idcacliors in coniuMlion
Willi that cliui-ch. and llic i)roti1s to he derived therefrom
wei-e de\(»teil liy llifiii lo tlic relief of liieii- distressed snper-
imnieiMry ;ind worn out l>i-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 <haritahle fund,
and. a<'coi-din}^ to the <-onsl ilntion iin<ler which the endow-
nienl w.is made. als(» enlitled t(» its procee<ls. Accordiiij; to
the orijiinal conslilnlion of this fund hy the fonnd<*rs, who
had a rijiht to pres<ril>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<ii ;;n
ItV tlic spiiil. il' not Ity tlic letter of the restiietive artiele,
hihI it w;is lliei-efore liehl tli;il the i-oinphiinants were en-
tilled to their shnie of the IJook Coiicei-ii. Bascom v Lane,
Fed. ('as. No. 1(IS!>. ((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 <lnirch coiuniittee, withdrawing thein from tlie
legal tribunals of the country. "Members of tliis cbnrch
cannot go to law with each other until the matter has first
been stii-red in the church."
Consolidation. This society was by an order made by
Bisho]> 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 deterniine<l at the last mentioned Conference
(1808) to meet no longei- en nuisse, but thereafter by a dele-
gation from their own body, the provision, which they
adopted, that the General Conference should have full
powers to make rules and regulations for the church, under
the limitations and restrictions contained in the six re-
strictive articles just mentioned, amounted in substance to
an authority to the delegates in Confei-ence thereafter to
exercise all the powers (except those ju-ohibited in said
restrictive articles) that ccmld at any time have been e.ver-
cised by a full Confei-ence of all the ministers and jjreachers.
No further limitation of the powers of the (Jeneral ('onfer-
em-e having been subsequently made, it seems to me that
the Confei-ence of 1844 was clollied wilh the powei- \\Iiich
it claimed and exercised.
Division of 1844. The separation of the Meiliodisi 10])is-
copal Church into two MiMhodist P.piscopal Churches, the
one North, and the other South, of a common bonndary line,
has been the subject of mncii disc ussion, in which the wliole
community, moi-e or less, felt an interest, and was an event
that connected itself with, and formed a part of. the history
of the country, of wiii<li no well intoniietl man could be
:;ii Tin; ("i\ iL LAW AM) TMi: (III i:( II
ij;ii()i;inl, and li-oiii its noloi-it'l y coiiils will tak«i judicial
notice of it witlionl prool". Accoi-diii<; \<i llic jdaii of divi-
sion, llic local societies in Kenlncky passed to tin Methodist
ICpiscopal Clmi-cli, Sonlli, exce|tl those horderini; on the
Ohio l\ivei", which wei*e permit te(l to deteiinine the (jnestion,
\\liether they wonhl 'j^o X(»rtli or Soiilli. hy a \()te of the
i*es)(ective societies. Ilnni|iliicy \ Uuiiiside, I r.iish (.Ky.)
215.
Drew Theological Seminary. Testator made pfrpeinal prci-
vision in his will for the edncation of two yoim^' men in thi.s
institntion for the nunistry, one to go in foreign missions
aud the other to become a member of the Wilmington Con-
ference. Testator's son and son-in-law were given i»ower to
appoint young men to receive the instruction, and after the
death of each of such relatives the power of appointment
was to be vested in the Wilnnngton Annual Conference.
The bequest was sustained. It was not void for uncertainty
because the amount was not fixed. The amount needed for
this pur])ose could be ascertained from year to year, and
the trustees would always be at liberty to apjily to a court
of equity for instructions. Field v Drew Theological Semi-
nary. 41 Vvi]. :m1. (Cir. Ct. Del.)
Foreign Missionary Society, Bequest. A bequest to the
Foreign Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal
Church was held to be intended for the Missionary Society
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, there being no society
bearing the first name, and the latter having charge of the
foreign missionary ^^"ork of the clini-ch. Ke Bryson's Estate,
7 Pa. Sui>er. 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<niference
with the Metliodist Episcopal riiurch was dissolved in 182S,
and that body authorized to erect itself into an indejKMident
ecclesiastical establishment. As it resj)ecls the i»ow»'r ol'
the General Conference of 1844 in the matter of division, no
one can i)retend Inil that it ]»i-ocee<led upon the assum]ilion
of unquestioned power to ei-ecl the clinrch into two separate
ecclesiastical establishments. As a result of tlie action of
the (leneral Confereiice of 1844 authoi-izing the se|»aratiou
of the Southern (\)nferences, two distinct eccU'siastical
organizations, identically the same, have taken the place of
one, the same Discipline, faith an<l doctrine, and all united
in spreading the same gos])el and teachings througliout the
laml. IJascom v Lane. Vri\. (\is. lOSl), (Cir. Ct. Dist. X. V.i.
Illinois, Preachers' Aid Society. Treachers' Aid Socit'ty v
England, 10(1 111. 12."), sustained a grant of land to a ti'uslee
in trust for this society to be used foi- the bcnetil of snpei*-
annuatetl ministers and their families.
John Street Church, New York. Sec >\yati v Hcnson, L':J
Barb. (N. V.) '.\'2~, foi* a history of nioxcmenis in Is."*.') an<l
1850 for the sale of the -lolin Street Clnirih jiroperty, in-
;:i(; Till': cixii. \..\\y am» 'nil'] cwincw
chuliiiji scNcijil s\iils :iii<l llic siihinissioii ol' \;irioiis coiilfo-
vcrsics rclaliii^ (<> 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 <tf the corjxu-ation, institute a
proccediu*;; lor the sale of the church pi()|teily; that tiie sub-
mission to Bislio]) Sim]>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 divide<l into districts, com-
posed of the circuits and stations within their res]>ective
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, an<l tirst male snpei-intendent of Sunday
schools. A station is a single place of stated service, wliile
a circuit has several. It is to these circuits and statictns the
traveling jtreachers are assigned at every Annual Confer-
ence. In his ciicnit or stati(»n the prearliei- in tiiaige ar-
ranges or ])lans the a|»i)ointments of serviee dining the term
of his own api>ointnient. As t(> the ])articular building or
bouse in which services shall be statedly held, tiiere is
nothing definite in the IMscipline, an<l the aniliorily t)ver it
seems to be oidy inferential, arising out of the power of the
preaclief in charge to arrange the a |>|M»int nieiits ol serxiee.
which must in<ln<le places as well as times of a pjioinl men I .
'MS Till': CINIL LAW AM) Till; ("IUKCII
riiiii-fli iK)lil.V reserves ;i iMri^e slmic of control over cliiiicli
properly, as will be seen in Hie <li;i|>tei- 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<l the Rev. A. F. Waller joined it about the
same time. Waller and Brewer remained there until the
transfer of the station to Whitman in 1847. In 184-1 the
Rev. George Oary superseded Jason I^ee as superintendent
of the Oregon Mission. Ap])arently the missionary society
had become dissatisfied with the secular character and cost
of the missionary o])erations, and sent Gary here to bring
about a change in this respect. To this end, soon after his
arrival in the territory, the various mission stations, excejjt
The Dalles, and all the mission property, consisting mainly
of large herds of horses and cattle, were disposed of to mem-
bers of the mission, so that after 1844 the defendant had no
mission among the Indian tribes in Oregon, except at The
Dalles. Thereafter the labors of its faithful clerical mis-
sionaries, of whom but a few remained in the country, were
devoted to the growing white settlement in the Willamette
\'alley. In the language of one of them, "The finances of
the Oregon Mission were thus summarily brought to a clo.se,
and the mission was not only relieved of a pt)nderous load,
but assumed a decidedly spiritual character."
In July, 1847, Mr. Gary was succeeded as superintendent
of the mission by the Rev. William Roberts. Trior to this,
and in the spring of that year, Mr. Gary had disposed of
nearly all the live stock of The Dalles mis.sion station, and
was negotiating with Dr. Whitman for the transfer of the
METHODIST Kl'lSCOrAL CllLKCU ;35:{
station itself. Mi*. Roberts in contimiation of the policy
manifested by his predecessor, followed uj) tliese negotia-
tions, until in August an agreement was made for tlie
abandonment or transfer of the station to >\'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 abs<dutely and inuiuiilitiedly Mbauiloned to
Dr. Whitman, without any reservati()n or right to resume
the possession under any circumstances. At the time the
missionary society abandoned this station there were about
seventy acr(\s under some kind of inclosure. about one half
of which bail been under ctdtivatioii. There were six nioiler-
ate-sized buildings upon the premises, a dwelling, meeting-
house, schoolhouse, and storehouse, barn and w <»iksho|».
built of logs, except the dwelling, which was a tranie lilletl
in wifli adobe. Tlu'se buildings were plain an<l constructed
mostly with Indian labor, and <lid not cost to exceed .'"Jl.OOO,
at which valuation they were a Iterw ard. on .lunc HI. ISCII.
paid for by the rnite<l States, upon a claim ami estimate
of the defendant to that elVecl.
On November 20, 1847, I >r. Whitman ami others were
inur<lered at AVailalpn. I»y tiic Indians uj' that station, and
354 Tin: CINIL I.AW AND Till: ("IUKCII
this w;is followed by wli;il is known ;is tlu3 Cayuse War, in
which the jK'ople of Oregon, under Ihe j)rovisional govern-
ment, undertook to chastise the Cayuse Indians for- this
massacre. By midsniniiier of ISIS hostilities had ceased
and i»eace was established.
About December 1(5 ]*errin B. Whitman, who had re-
nuiined in charge of the station at The Dalles, being aj»i»re-
liensive of danger, left for the WiManietle ^'alley, taking with
him Mr. Alanson Hinman, whom his uncle liad sent there
from AVailatpu in October as a farmer and housekeeper.
A detachment of volunteers soon after occu])ied the j)i-em-
ises, with the permission of said Whitman, and it remained
in the possession of the troops of the ]>rovisional 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 <lirecting legal
proceedings to remove the seceding trustees. This society
was within the' limits of the Baltimore Conference. There
was no evidence that this congregation IkmI ever voted to
leave the Church North and attach it.sell lo tlie Church
South. It was held that while any nuMubers of (lie church
might leave this society and join the Church South the
action of the trustees in attempting to transfer the society
to the Southei-n denomination was invalid, aiul the local
society continued to be a i>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 superinten<l-
ence, and to the Missionary Society of tlie Meliiodisl lOpis-
copal Church, and to be othciwise disposed of .is the Ten-
nessee Annual Confei-ence may di'cin brsi in thcii- wisdom.
The testator died in IS HI. In is II the l.c'dslatiire of
.•{58 'I'm; (IN iL i>A\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<l ohjeels. The act of the
J.egislalnre of 1S41, creating the trustees of the Conference
was held unconstitutional and void. Green v Allen, 5
IIunii>. (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 coiisi<l-
ered several questions <i;rowiii<>j 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<l nienioriais relative to slavery were
presented to the General Conference of 1844, and there was
much discussion of <|nestions relating to slavery and its
possible effect on the future of the denoniinati<Mi. On tiie
5th of June fifty-two nienibers of the Genet al C(»iilefeii(e,
one from Illinois and tifty-one from the slaveholding Stales.
end)racing thirteen Animal Conferences, sidmiitted to tliat
.359
:]{\{) Tin: cis il law a\i> 'riii; <iii i;<ii
l»u(l_v a sliilciiif'iit (l('(l;iriii^ lli;it 'Mlic cniit i iiiicmI ji^itutiou
on the subject of shivery mihI aholitioii in a portion of Iho
clmrcli ; the froiiueiit action on that subject in tlie General
Conference; must pi'oduce a state of things in the South
wiiicli ren<U'rs a conliini;ince of Hie jnrisdid ion of this (len-
eral Conference ovei- these Conferences in<-onsisrent with
the success of tlie ministry in the slavelioldiu}; States." Tliis
(h't hiral ion was r(Meii'e(l 1(» a coniniillee «it nine, whicii. on
Ihe Till of June, submilled a report, wiiich Mas adopted,
relatin<5 to tlie separation of tlie Soutliern ]);irt of llie cliurcli.
The report contained resolutions in elfect sanctioning the
proposed separation and the ercM-tion of a separate orj^ani-
zation in the slaveholding States, autliorizing societies, sta-
tions, and Conferences in the Southern States to determine
by vote wliether they wouhl remain in the original church
or join the new organization, i)rt)viding for tlie status of
ministers and members in case thej' should elect to go with
the Southern church; and i)rovi<ling also for a division of
the property and funds of the Methodist Kpisco])al Church
in case the proposed separation should be effected.
A convention of delegates from the Southern Aniuml Con-
ferences was held in Louisville, Kentucky, in May, 1845,
and adopted a plan which formally constituted such Annual
Conferences a "se])arate ecclesiastical connection," under
the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
Acting on the authority conferred by the General Con-
ference of 1844, the congregation and members of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church in Maysville, Kentucky, held a meet-
ing for the purpose of determining whether they would go
with the Southern church or continue as a part of the orig-
inal Methodist Ejuscopal Church. A majority decided to
place the Church in connection with the new Southern or-
ganization. The minority determined to adhere to the
Northern church. In the foregoing case the court was
called upon to decide which part;v in the local church was
entitled to possession of the church edifice and other jirop-
erty, and which was to be deemed the true local society.
METHODIST HPlSCOl'AI. riUlJCll. SOI TU ;;(il
The court, iu its oi)iuioii, reviewed the history of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, various aspects of the shivery a}i;i-
tatiou, the action of the General Confereme of 1SI4, ami
the organization of the new Southern church, and held thai
a nuijority of the Maysville church, liaving dccKled to ])lace
the local society in connection with the new Southern orjjjan-
ization, that majority was to he deemed to the tnic local
society, and entitled to possession and control of ilic (huicli
building and ])roperty, subject to regulations prescribed or
to be prescribed by the new general organization.
The court said, among other things: "The original Meth-
odist p]piscoi)al Church has been authoritatively di\ided
into two Methodist I*4)iscoj)al Churches, the one nortli, and
the other south of a common boundary line, which, according
to the plan of sei)aratioii, limits the extent and jurisdiction
of each; each within its own limits is the lawlnl successor
and representative of the original clnii-cli, jtossessing all its
jurisdiction, and entitled to its name; neither lias any imiic
right to exceed those limits than the other."
Organization. "A convention of delegates from tifleeii
Southern Conferences assembled in 1845, renounced. Ity
solemn act, their connection with the i)reexisting organiza-
tion and jnris<liction of the Ceiieral Conference as then
constituted, and retaining the same faith and doctrine, tlic
same rules and (lis(ii)line, and the same form of const it n-
tion and government, establislied for themselves a new and
independent organization, nndt-i- ilic n.inie ol' 'Tlie Meth-
odist E])isco])al Clmicli, Sonlli,' and a lu-w <ienei-al Conlei"-
euce for that clnn<Ii." "The Southern tlinrch retaining the
same faith, doctrine, an<l discii)line. and ;is>-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<ii'('('<l npon l»y llic (Jeiiei-al ( 'onlVrence of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in IS44, it iiad tlie right to
detennine for itself its futiiie ecclesiastical i-elations l»y
electing to continue its connection with the old organiza-
tion or attach itself to the new. In 1846 the Baltimore
Conference adopte<l a resolution to a<lhere to the Methodist
Ei)iscopal Church of the United States.
In 1861 the Baltimore Conference adopted a resolution
based on the anti-slavery action of the (Jeneral Conference
held at Buffalo in 1860, by which resolution the relation of
the Annual Conference to the General Church was severed,
and the Conference declared itself separate and indepen-
dent, but still claiming to be an integral part of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church. In February, 1866, the Baltimore
Conference adopted a resolution joining the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South.
The minorit}' of the Baltimore Conference of 1861, by
which the resolution of separation had been adopted, refused
to follow the Conference in its independence, and organized,
in 1862, a new Annual Conference, known as the Baltimore
Conference; and this Conference was connected with the
general denomination, and it sent delegates to the General
Conference.
Some time after 1866 the members of Hai-niony Church,
who were present at a meeting, voted unanimously to join
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Adherents of the
Church North were either absent or did not vote. After this
action by the Harmony Church trustees were appointed by
the court and assumed the control of the church property^
admitting to the use thereof the ministers assigned by the
Conference of the Methodist Ejjiscopal Church, South, and
excluding from such use those assigned by the Conferences
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Hoskinson v I'usey,
(White V King I 32 Graft. (Va.j 428.
METHODIST lOPISCOPAL rHURCH, SOrTH :M]P,
Book Concern, Methodist Episcopal Church, Interest in, How
Adjusted. 8inith v Swormstedt, 1(> How. (U. H.) 288, in-
volved qiiestious relating to a division of the property known
as the Methodi.st Book Concern, conse<iiient npon the sejm ra-
tion of the Methodist Episcopal Church into two factions.
North and South, following; the action of the (Jeneral Con-
ference of 1844. It was hehl tliat an action niij^lit lie main-
tained for a division of tlic jtropcrly. iind tlial siidi an
action might be brought in the name of a few meinbcrs of
the denomination representing llie whole.
Bascom v Lane, Fed. Cas. No. 1089 (Cir. Ct. N. V. Dist.i
was an action based on the division of the Methodist lOjtis-
copal Church, and the std).se(iuent organization of the Metli-
odist Episcopal Church, South, for a settlement and divi-
sion authorized by Ihe resolutions of the General Conference
of 1844. See note on the division in the article on the
Methodist Episcopal Church. It was Iield tiiat the com-
])lainants were entitled to share in 1hc ])roceeds of the I>(»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<lhered to the Methodist
Episcoi)al Church, and who did not join in tlu' movenu'iit
:\{-A T\\\: r\\ \ I. LAW A \it 'I'm: ciiriit n
lor S('|i;ir;i I ion. Ilnskilisun \ I'liscs. ;',L' <1i';i||. ( \';i. i Ills.
( While V Kin;: i •
Church Edifice, Cliaiige of Site, Effect. I.jind nv;is jicijiiiifd
hv :i lociil sociclv ;is ii pljicc lor ;i lioiisc of worship, \vhi<-li
WJis ertM*te«l thereon. Allci \\;ir«l the silc \\;i.s (•h;Mi;;(Ml, :in<l
a new house of worship Iniilt in anolhei- part of the town.
Tliis change was sustained as authorized by the rules and
discipline of the denomination, which were included in the
orij^inal deed. These rules authorized the trustees of the
local church to sell its pi-opertv with the consent of the
(^uai'terly Conference. Kilpat lick v (Jraves, 51 Miss. 4:)2.
Corvallis College, Oregon. The (Jeneral Conference had
and exercised the i)ower to appoint trustees of this college.
In 1870 the Legislature of Oregon made this college the
State Agricultural College, but it continued subject to the
jurisdiction of the Methodist I'>]>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 ]tasse<l
under the jurisdiction of tiie Southern organi/ation, and
after that time its ])astors ^ei-e apitoinled by the Kentucky
Conference of the Church Sonlli. Certain i)ersons claiming
to be members and trustees of this society, and also claim-
ing to be membei's of the Methodist ]"]pisco|»al Church.
South, brought an action to secure i)ossession ol the church
I)roi)erty. The court awarded the title and jiosM-ssion of
the i)roj)eity to the congregalion com|M)sed of members ol
the Methodist Episcoi)al Church, South. Ihnnpiirey v i>urn
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<l a ciiurch editice near the land con-
veyed. The i)roperty was oc<upie<| scNcral y«'ars, but il
::(;(; 'riih: civil law am* tin; <'iiri:cii
:i|)p;ii'('iil l,v Wiis iiol |)iir('li:isc(| lor tlii> 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('<ioiii^
deed. They erected a new lioiisc ol worsliiji and orj^anized
a society in connection with the Mcihitdist IO|)iscoj>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, obtaine<l
])os.session of the parsonage ])roperty and assnmed control
of it. The trustees of the old congregation brought an
action against the seceding trustees to recover possession
of the ])arsonage property. It was held that the conveyance
of the ])arsonage i)roi)erty under the circumstances
amounted to a dedication of it to the local society for the
use of its minister. The seceders by their action in with-
drawing and organizing a new society forfeite<l tlieir inter-
est in the parsonage property, and were not entitled to any
control of it, nor to a division of the ])ro]>erty 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 r<Muaiued in the
'MH T\\\: ('i\ II. LAW AM) 'riii: ("iirK<"ii
(nislccs of (lie Mclliodist l]|»isco|t;il Clnirrli, South, jiiid
thai the withdraw a ! of iiiciiihrrs of that church did not
have the cH'cct to chanj^c the title. They cf)nl(l not carry
the title with tlieiii into another or<;ani/>ation. 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 s<ientilir information in tlie
form of books, tracts, periodicals, etc IJy tlie sixtli restric-
tive rule contained in the Discipline it was provided that
the "General Conference shall not appropriate the j)rodnce
of the publishing house [referring to this corj)oration] to
any purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling su])er-
nunierarj', sujierannuated, and worn-out ])reachers, their
wives, widows, and children."
It seems that in 181*0 about one lifty-sixth part of tlie
proceeds of the Publishing House was <lerived from the pub-
lication of secular books. All the proceeds, Irom whatever
source derived, were devoted to the objects stated in the Dis-
cipline. It was held that the publication of secular books
did not deprive the corporation of its religious character,
but that it was a religious institution, being organized as
an arm or agency of the church, and carrying forward its
work, and esi)ecially in accumulating funds for the relief
of worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children,
and that the property of the corporation was exempt from
taxation. Methodist ICpiscopal Church, South v Ilinton,
92 Tenu. 188.
METHODIST PROTESTANT C^HURC'H
General C'onfcrcnoc, when entitled lo i)ropcrty of extinct cluirc-b, 370.
Property, forfeiture, free seats, 370.
Property, secession, effect, 370.
Property, title in Irustecs, effect, 371.
General Conference, When Entitled to Property of Extinct
Church, liy I lie l.iw of the (Iciicral CoiifereiKe, the jhoikmIv
of any fliunh Avhicli should become extinct .should become
vested in the General Conference, and a church is considere<l
extinct when there are not sufticient members to fiil its
offices. The society by a vote of all except two of its mem-
bers, voted to establish an indei)endent church. It was held
that the two members who did not join tlie independent
movement constituted the cliurch, and being too few to fill
the offices, the property of the church was forfeited and be-
came vested in the General Conference. A]>iteal 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<l was
considered again in Southwick v New York (^Miristian Mis-
sionary Soc, 151 A. I>. 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 ])rovide<l for the electiou of trustees for each church,
aud uiade it their duty to hold the proi)erty of imlividual
churches iu trust for the use and benettt of the uiembers
thereof with power, wheu authorized by two thirds of the
uuile meuibers over twenty-oue years of age. to <lispose of
property so held, but ou uo other condition. It was held
that the legal title did not vest in the church as a corpora-
tion. Methodist Protestant Church v Bennett, 31) Conn. 29:3.
MINISTERS
Call, 373.
Cull, ineffective, voluntary contributions, how disposed of, 373.
Calvinisfic Baptist Societies, 374.
Changing religious belief, 374.
Contract, 374.
Contract, dissolution, 375.
Covenant, what constitutes breach, 375.
Defined, 376.
Defined, Congregational, 376.
Defined, Massachusetts, 377.
Deposed, cannot occupy church, 377.
Deposed, status, 378.
Dismissal, 378.
Dissolving relation, 379.
Ecclesiastical council, 380.
Education, 380.
Examination and license, 380.
Exclusion from church edifice, 381.
Excommunicated, when society may not employ, 386.
Excommunication, expulsion, 387.
Excommunication, 387.
Exemption from jury duty, 387.
First settled, 387.
General rights, 387.
Heresy, 388.
Intruding into church, 388.
Land gi-antcd for support. 389.
Lutheran, how chosen, 389.
Marriage ceremony, right to perform, 390.
Member of association, 392.
Obhgation, 393.
Office, not pubUc, 393.
Office not a vested property right, 393.
Ordination, 394.
Parish, 394.
Parish, incumbent's title to property, 394.
Pastoral relation, 395.
Pastor defined, 395.
372
MINISTERS 373
Pastor's ODinions, 305.
Presbyterian rule, 395.
Priest's profession his property, 396.
Protestant, 3%.
Public duty, 396.
Regularity of appointment, 396.
Relation to church, 397.
Relation to society, 397.
Reinstatement, not proper remedy, 397.
Removal, 398.
Right to occupy house of worship, 398,
Salary, actions for, 398.
►Salary, devise for, 398.
Settlement, 398.
Statedly officiates, meaning, 398.
Support, duty of church, 399.
Taxation, exemption, 399.
Tenure, 401.
Terminating relation, 402,
Call. The term "cnll" as used in the statutes of New York
is dei'ived from the constitution of the Kcformed Dulch
Church; and when it is made it must necessarily conlaiii
an offer of salary and specify the views and wishes of tlio.se
tendering it for the i)roi»osed incumbent's consideration;
and if the terms be accepted, the call becomes the contract
between the church and him. Tpon the makin<j of the con-
tract, the call is complete. Ihnnbcrt v St. Steplu'u's Churcli,
N. Y., 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) :i08.
A call signed by tliree elders and one trustee, according
to the form ]»rovid<'d by the Presbyterian (Miui-ch, was lield
to create a claim against the congregation, and the ollici-rs
signing the call were not individually lialde for Ihe salary.
It seemed that the call referred exclusively to the spiiitual
concerns of the congregation. Taddock v Brown, ('» Hill
(N. Y.) 530.
Call, Ineffective, Voluntary Contributions, How Disposed of.
Where the officers and majority of a congregalion adhere in
good faith to a jiastor who is snbst'ciucntly declare*! by a
court of equity' not to be entilled to the ollice of ]>astor, 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 an<l to
conform to the rules and <liscipline <)f said church, as then
practiced and established, under certain ju'iialties. This
was the extent of his covenant, and it did not appeal- lliat
he had failed in any ]>oint. 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'<l iiiid practiced llicrciii, at the liiiK; ol his scttlc-
iiuMil. Kcclesijistical S<»cicty of Soiilli l^irins v Hockwitli,
Kiihy (C\)nn.) J)l.
Defined. A iiiiiiister is oiu; wiio liaviii;^ liccii ordaiiMMl to
the ministry undertakes to perloi 111 certain services for
another. First Presbyterian Churcli, i'ciry v Myers, 5 OI<l.
809.
Defined, Congregational. As to wiiat constitutes a ministei-
of the Con<;re^"ational jjersuasion, see Attoi-ney (leneral ex
rel Abbot v J)nblin, .'58 N. H. 450, cited in the arti<le on Con-
gregational Cluircli.
The term "Congregational persuasion'' in a will means
the same as the term ''Congregational denomination." Both
terms refer to the Congregational polity without reference
to creed or doctrines. The meaning of the term "minister
of the Congregational persuasion," must be determined by
the court as a matter of law and uot by the testimony of
witnesses. Tliis term did not liave at the time of the trial
of this case, uor in 1817, anj- local meaning peculiar to New
Hampshire, nor any peculiar and conventional .sense in the
usage of any religious sect or jjarty. The term as used
in this will is ''broad enough to include a Unitarian min-
ister, who believes in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, one
in purpose and design, but not the same in substance, equal
in power and glory; in the divinity of Jesus Clirist in the
sense that lie is a divine person, but not in his supreme
divinity in any sense in which he can understand the terms;
in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; in the
atonement in the sense of reconciliation by Jesus Christ,
but not in the vicarious atonement; in the ]>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 inci<lent to tiie position. The tiaistees. delcnd-
ants, sustained Mr. Adams as jtastor of the church. .\ ma-
jority of the members of the congregation concinred in ilie
l)osition taken by the trustees and ^fi-. Adams.
The plaintilf, who i-epi-esented the views of the iiiiiiorily,
applied for an iiijiinclion reslraining the trustees from
allowing the cliuich to be used by Mr. Adams, it was
clainied by the ti-ustees that the action of tiu' ])resbytery
in deposing Mr. Adams was unjust foi- the reason that he
stood loyal to the faith and doctrines of the denomination.
The Dunkirk church Itelonged to the Presl)yterian Church,
or denomination, as that religious oruani/.ation is shown
to exist in this couiilry, as a sejjarale and distinct ecclesias-
;'.7.s Tin: <M\iL LAW AM) Tiii: ciirucii
tical body, with I'nitli iiiid doctrine, i-nlcs, iisajjcs, and dls-
cijdiiu; well uiMlerstood and nM-oj^ni/.cd by all its nuMnbers.
The proceedings against Mr. Adams were initiated. and con-
duete<l in full compliance with the establishe<l rnles and
nsajics of the jn-esbytery of which he was a mend>er. 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 <il) Misc. (N. Y. ) 5(), where an
injunction was granted pending the trial of the action.
In State ex rel McNeill v Bibl) Street (Miurch, 84 Ala.
23, the court refused to grant a writ of mandamus on behalf
of a minister regularly appointed to a Methodist Protestant
church, and c<>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; <iii kcii
liny (M(y. Ollit'i- IuikIs were raised by snl»s(ii|»l ion. ainl llic
parsonage was erected. The Micliigaii Animal Confei-ence
in IS!).'} apj)ointed, in the regnlar order, a jiresiding elder
and a jjastor to Zion's ('hiirch. Such presiding ehler and
j)ast()r sought to use the church edifice for the ])urpoKe of
public worship but were excluded therefrom bv trustees of
the church and their adherents in the congregation, and the
pastor was also exclude<l from the jKirsonagc. Another
l)astor, not regularly appointed, was jiermitted to use the
parsonage and to occujty the ])ulpit, and the local church
authorities threatened to withdraw the society from the
jurisdiction of the Evangelical Association and become inde-
pendent, and notified the Michigan Annual Conference
accordingly.
In an action against the trustees for thus uidawfully
excluding the i)astor and presiding elder from the right to
use the church edifice and parsonage it was held that the
local society was a voluntary association, connecting itself
with the General P]vangelical Association, and was bound
by its rules and discipline. The local society had no right
to select its o\n\ pastor, but was bound to accept the pastor
appointed by the bishop and presiding elders. The trustees
had no power to exclude the pastor and presiding elder from
the church or the pulpit, nor dei)rive them of collections and
means of support provided by the rules of the church, nor
could the trustees ]»revent the pastor from occupying the
parsonage. Fuchs v Meisel, 102 Mich. 357.
By the rules and ecclesiastical government of the Evan-
gelical Lutheran Church the right and power to remove or
suspend a pastor is vested solely in the synod ( in this case
Buffalo), and its ministry for cause, and the local churches,
their trustees and ofticers, united thereto, are expressly pro-
hibited from making such removal or suspension. In Gram
V Prussia Emigrated Evangelical Lutheran German Society,
36 N. Y. KJl, the ])laintifl'. Gram. ])ast()r of the church, was
excluded from the church edifice by the action of the trus-
tees, wliich was ralitied at the same meeting bv a vote of a
MINISTKKS nsn
majority of the members of the society, and the biiUdiii^
was closed aud the doors locked l»y the trustees. There-
upon the trustees and a majority of the members of ihe
society renounced the ecclesiastical jjjovernnient of the
Synod of Buffalo and refused to permit the i»laintitt" to
Occupy the i»nipit or to exercise the functions and dis«*liarge
the duties of pastor of the church. It was held that the
])astor was not entitled to an injunction resti-aininjii; the
local society and its trustees from employing another pastoi'.
A minister who had been appMintcd to this church was
rejected bj' the society, and he ait|»lit'«l for a mandamus to
compel the society to rescind its ivsolution refnsing to
receive him and to restore him to his oflice as minister or
pastor, with all his rights and emoluments, and to comjiel
the church and trustees to place him in charge of the church
edifice and parsonage. The ajjplication was denied on the
grounds that the church property- was vested in and subject
to the jurisdiction of the local church ; that no salary had
been agreed on and that no rents of the church had been
directed to be ai)i»lied to the payment of the pastor's salary
so as to vest in him a temporal right of which civil courts
could take jurisdiction, and on the additional ground tiiat
the questions involved in the j)astor's claim had not been
decided by any church tribunal. State ex rel McNeill v
Bild) St. dnirch, S4 Ala. '2:\.
In Brunnenmeyer v Buhre, '.V2 111. 18;>, 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<list lOpiscojial Church of Cohoc-
ton, New York, to receive a minister duly ap])ointed by the
bishop according to the laws and usages of the denomina-
tion, and to open the nieetingiiouse to him for the purpose
of conducting diviiic woishij* therein in conformity to the
tenets and disci]»liii(' of tiie r(digious denonnnation to which
he belonged and to whicli the corjioration was attached, and
that in refusing to ((Jumi the meetinghouse the trustees vio-
lated their duty, and a writ of mandamus was a proper
remedy to put the minister in jjossession of the pulpit to
which he was entitled. The trustees refused to receive a
minister a]ii)ointed by the l»isli<)]) in the usual manner, claim-
ing that in regard to receiving a itrciuhcr the society was
independent of the higher chnnli anthoritics. and that it
was optional with the society wlietlier it should receive such
nunister as the Itishdj* or the ]tresi(ling cldci- at the Animal
Conference might a|i]»oinl for them.
It was held in People v Steele, 2 Harb. ( N. Y. i :'.!»7. that
the itinerancy of tlie i)riesthood cnfoiced by the powi-r of
the episcopacy was tlie established pract ice of liiis d«'nomiiia-
tion, and that the right of the bisho]ts to appoint a preacher
for the dilferent churclies was well settled; conse<pienlly.
the refusal of the trustees to i-e* cive a preachei- ajiitoinied by
the bisho]) was an act of insubordination to the ecclesiastical
tribunals of the church, and in violation of one of the
.'{SC Tin; ("IN IL LAW A M > 'IIIK (III i;<ll
iiijiiiM-l iuiis (»r its 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<nit the c<MiseiH of tlie clinrch. A
minister so ai)poiiil('d is entitled to he ;idiiiitted to the
church edifice in oi-cler to conduct therein i-elij^ious serv-
ices according to the rules and discipline of the denomina-
tion, and a writ of mandamus was issued to compel the
trustees of tlie church to open its house of worship for this
purpose. Robinson v Cocheu, IS App. I)iv. (N. Y. i 025.
Tn Lynd v Meuzies, 83 N. J. Law, 162, it was held that the
wardens and vestrj'uien of a Protestiint Episcopal Church
could not lawfully exclude a rector from the house of wor-
ship, and the i)arochial schoolhoii.se, but that by virtue of
his office he had a right to occupy the pro|)erty of the church
in connection with the performance of his duties as rector.
A judgment for damages recovered by him in an action at
law against the wardens and vestrymen, was sustained.
Excommunicated, When Society May Not Employ. In Parish
of the Immaculate Conception v Murphy. 89 Neb. 524, it
appeared that a Roman Catholic priest was excommuni-
cated and a successor was duly appointed as rector of a local
society. A large majority of the trustees and congregation
desired to continue the services of the excommunicated
priest, but it was held that the temporalities of the .society
must be administered according to the general laws and
usages of the Roman Catholic Church, under which the
higher authorities had the right to excommunicate the priest
and appoint a successor. The court suggested that the
friends of the excommunicated ])riest might, on their own
account, em])loy such priest as their minister and attend his
ministrations, but that they could not divert the property
from the i)urpose to which it had been consecrated. It was
also held that a minority of the trustees could maintain an
action in the name of the corporation to enjoin the majority
MINISTERS .-{ST
from diverting the jdoperty to uses not sanitioned \>\ 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 <lenoiuinatiou
situated within a convenient distance of his place of icsi-
dence, was held to be a settled minister and exempt from
jury duty under tlu' Massachusetts act of 1S12, chap. 111.
sec. 2. Commonwealth v Buzzell, ItJ Pick. (Mass.) l.'):'..
First Settled. To constitute a first settled minister in a
town, so as to entitle the j»erson to the right, as usually
reserved by the A'ermont and New llampshii-e charters, for
the first settled minister, there must be a specilic engage-
ment between him and the ]»eo])le that he should remain per-
manently in the jterformance of the duties of a minisier in
said town. Charleston v Allen. (» \t. iV.\:\.
General Rights. In I^ngland, the jKirson as such has a
freehold estate in the glebe, the tithes, ami other (hies of the
jtarish. By induction he becouu's fully invested with these,
and with the right to use them and demand them ; but in this
country there are no such rights or interests into which a
:{.S8 Tin: cinil la\v and tiiI': cik kcii
(■l('r<;yiiiiiii call I>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 syno<l and the jiastor of
St. Peter's Clmrch was dissoIv('<l by (he svikmI ;ind tlie min-
ister Avasexclnded from fnrtlier service in this congregation.
Dissensions having arisen in St, I'eter's Church, an action
was instituted by one party against the other, to determine
which constituted the true congregation accoi'ding to the
original organization. The exclusion of the minister from
the synod was regular, but it had no effect on the congre-
gation of which he still continued to be pastor. Lutheran
ministers are not independent, nor are they appointed by
the congregation only. Congregations who, in connection
with their minister, are not acknowledged by some synod,
are not regarded, whatever they may call themselves, either
by Lutherans, or others well informed in sectarian distinc-
tions as Lutherans, or as having any status in that de-
nomination. St. Peter's was not independent, but acknowl-
edged synodical authority. Tliis was the fair import of its
charter, and the majority had no power to pervert the
charter and establish an independent organization. The
majority had no jiower to impose a new contract on the
minority. The court said the defendants had not seceded
from the synod, for the reason that the synod had not taken
the necessary legal stejis to establish the relation of the
defendants to the church. The bill was dismissed. Harmon
v Dreher, 1 Speer Eq. (S. C.) 87.
Marriage Ceremony, Right to Perform. T'nder the North
Carolina statute authorizing a marriage ceremony to be per-
formed by a regular minister of the gospel of eveiy denom-
ination having the "cure of souls," etc., it was suggested by
the court that the phrase "cure of souls'' did not imply the
.\il\isti;ks 391
necessity that the iiiinisier should he the iiicuinbeut of a
chureb living, or tiie pastor oi' any congii-galion in parlie-
ular, but the phrase imports that the jjersou is to be some
thing more than a minister or preacher nit-rely ; and that he
has laenlty, aeeording to the const it nt ion of his cliur«-.h. to
celebrate matrimony, and to some extent, at least, has the
power to administer the Christian sacraments as acknow 1
edged and held by his cimrch. State v liray, ;».") N. C. L'S'J.
A person ordained a deacon according to the nsages of
this denomination ( Methodist i ami commissioned by the
bishop of that chnrch to j)reach, and to administer the
ordinances of marriage, baptism, ami burial of the dead,
is an ordained minister within the Connecticut marriage
act. ^Vhere a person so ordained and commissionetl resided
constantly for many years in the town, having charge of the
Methodist chnrch therein; preachii\g to them, at their re-
quest, and statedly exercising all the jjowers ami jirivileges
authorized by his commission; and they providing Inr his
support, by voluntary contributions, during which period
he owned and considered them as his church, and they owned
and considered him as their minister, and local deacon, it
was held that smli ]»er.son was settled in the work of the
ministry within the meaning of that act. Kibbe v Ant ram.
4 Conn. 134.
A regularly ordained Bajttist minister and a Methodist
minister are aulhori/.ed to perform marriage ceriMuonies
under the Massachn.setts statute. ("oiiini(»n\\ealth v
Sj)ooner, 1 I'ick. ( Mass. i l'.",."*.
A minister ordained over an unincor|»orated religious
society composed of mend»eis belonging to dillfrenl towns
is not a stated and ordaiiu'd luinister of the gospel within
the meaning of the Elaine act of ITSII, cha|». ;'.. relative to
the solemnization of marriages. Ligtnii.i v Kn.xion. :.' Me.
102.
In Connecticut it was held that ;i ministei- «ould not per-
form a marriage cerenM)ny unless iie \\;is an ordaine<| min-
ister and .settled in the \\<»ik of liu- niiiiisliy in some place
:\\)-2 'nii; <'i\ i l law and 'I'iii: rinKni
ill llic Sliilc. Kolicrts v Shilc 'riciisnrcr, 2 Itool iComi.)
;;si.
In ojii'lier years in New Ijij^latid oidiiialioii in the 0>ngre-
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 <lej)osition from oHice for any e(( lesiastical
offense, the right to receive tlic salary will cease as the
consequence of the jiidgnHMit against him. Tlic sentence of
:;!ii 'I'm: (M\ ii. law am* 'I'iii: ciiriicii
(lie (•(•(•lcsi;isli(;il coiii-l, in :i ]»r<»|M'r' case, deprives him of
liis clerical position, and with i1 all i-i<j;lit to future salary
and einolnment. Satlerlee v M. S., 1*0 App. I). (J. 'MV.i.
Ordination. It is usual in settling; a niinister, if he is ii
novitiate, to ordain him ; if lie has been ordained, to install
him — the condition beinj^ previcmslv aj^reed uj»on. The
solemn ceremonies on such occasions seem to indicate that
the minister is wedded to the clnncli and people who have
chosen him. Other forms less inip(tsin;^ mifrht, ]>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<lanius is a legal rem('<ly
for the enforcement of a legal right. (Mting Uni(Mi ("Im. etc.,
v Sanders, 1 ITouston (Del.) 100. State ex rel v Cnnmiins.
171 Ind. 112.
Mandamus will not lie lo compel the rciiislatenu'iil of a
minister who has bciMi suspended from his office. (»n the
ground that he had no projtei- notice of trial, wlien- il ap-
pears that lie hinl achml n(»(ice <»r Hie Mine and phice of
trial, and was present willi liis connsel and p.irticip:ited
;;!)s 'iMiio CI NIL LAW AM) Till: <iiri:<'ii
tlicrtMii. Dcnipscv v Xoilh Micliif^iiii CoiifcrtMHe, Wcshivaii
Molluxlist (Nmiiectioii of America, J)8 Mich. 444.
Removal. Tlie civil courts have no jurisdiction of eccle-
siastical <()iitroversies involving no property rij^hts. This
case Involved the removal of the jiastor and appointment
of his successor under color of ecclesiastical aiithority. It
was held that the church tribunals had exclusive aulliority.
Travers v Abbey, 104 Teiin. (Klf).
Eight to Occupy House of Worship. A vacancy in the pul-
pit occurring during a recess of an Annual Conference was
filled by aj)pointment by the president of the Conference.
This appointment was sustained and the minister was held
entitled to be admitted to the church edifice for the purpose
of conducting religious services. Robinson v Cocheu, 18
App. Div. (N. Y.) .^25.
Salary, Actions for. See Actions, Minister's Salary.
Salary, Devise for. A devise in 1684 to the Netherland
Dutch Reformed Church in New York (that being the only
society of that denomination in New York at that time) for
the support and maintenance of the minister of the church
was held to be limited to that society only, and could not
be used for the payment of the salaries of other branches
of the same denomination afterward established. The devise
was for the exclusive benefit of the society named in the will.
Attorney General ex rel. Marselus v Dutch Reformed
Church, New York, 30 N. Y. 452.
Settlement. From the ancient and immemorial usage of
Congregational churches, before the parish settle a minister,
he preaches with them as a candidate for 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 minister agree in their
religious sentiments and opinions. Burr v First Parish in
Sandwich, J) Mass. Re. 270.
Statedly Officiates, Meaning. A "clergA-man who statedly
officiates" designates one who, either as regularlv inducted
MINISTERS 399
pastor or a.s stated supply, acts In superior eeclesiastical
authority. Trustees v Sturgeon, 9 l*a. St. 321.
Support, Duty of Church. That it is the duty of a relijfious
deuominatiou to provide a supi)ort lor its teachers is a fact
that is recognized with a few exceptions all over Christen-
dom. It is said, however, to be especially Itindiuj:; upon the
Catholic Church, for the reason that its priests are debarred
by its canons, and by their ordination vows, from engaging
in any secular enii»loynient, and that from this vow not even
the bi.shop can absolve them. The duty of the church to
sui)port its priests must have some qualification. The right
to support may dei)end upon the manner in which the jtriest
performs his official duties, and the nature of his walk
and conversation in life. If a priest, by reason of his equiv-
ocal conduct, becomes unfitted to perform his j)riestly func-
tions, it is difficult to see by what rule of ecclesiastical or
civil law he is entitled to a salary or support. Tuigg v Shee-
haii, 101 l»a. St. :M\:\.
Taxation, Exemption. A person elected by a Methodist
society to be one of their local preachers, and ordained as
a deacon of the Methodist lOpiscopal Church, is a minister
of the gospel within the Maine act of 1811, exemi)ting min-
isters from taxation. It is sufficient if such minister be
settled over any relijiious society, though it be composed of
members resident in several towns. It is not necessary that
such society be under any legal obligation as such to pay
him a fixed salary, l^aldwin v McCliiicli, 1 Me. 102.
In Weaver v Deveudorf, ;> 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 c<u-pora
tion, and sequestration of its juoperty except that situated
in Salt Lake City used exclusively l(»r jmblic worsliij). l>y
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<ll
(hat Tcri'ildiv. iJnt tlic cliiirlcr cvoii if iiivali*! iiiHlcr llu;
Dosercl oidiiiaiicc. hccaiiKi a lej^al corporation by the terri-
toi-ial (((iiliriiiatory ads of lsr)l and 1X55. The cliartci' was
ic'itcakMl and the cori)oratioii dissolved by the act of Coii-
jj[ress of 1 .SS7.
The court also held that upon the dissolution of the cor-
poration, which was orj;anized for relijjjious and charitabh*
jMirposes, its jiersonal pro])erty became subject to disposal
by tlie sovereign jiower. while its real estate escheated or
reverted to the original grantor or donor, except as subject
to a charitable use. In this case it was said that the grantor
of all or the principal pai't of the real estate of the Monnf)n
Church, was really the United States, from whom the prop-
erty was derived by the church, or its trustees, through the
operation of the townsite act. By the act of 1S(i2 property
so accpiired by the Mormon Church was declared forfeited
to the United States, saving existing vested rights.
It was hebl that under the circumstances the real prop-
erty held by the Mormon Church was forfeited to the United
States, and any trust estate created by the corporation in
the hands of the trustees, devolved to the United States the
same as if the property had been held by the corporation
itself. The trustee became trustee for the United States
instead of trustee for the corjjoration. The property of the
corporation was held for religious and charitable purposes,
esj)ecially for the inculcation and si)read of the doctrines
and usages of the Mormon Church, one of the distijiguishing
features of which is the practice of ])olygamy. The system
of common law and equity prevailing generally in the United
States was said to have been in force in Utah by o])eration
of every territorial statute. The law of charities was also
in force in Utah. The proceeds of the property were to be
devoted to common schools in the Territory. The right of
the government to sequestrate the property and place it in
the hands of a receiver, subject to final disposition according
to the rights of all ]iai*ties, was declared as a fundamental
principle of government in relation to corporations and
MORMONS 10!)
property iu territories. Tlic l-alc Corpoi-ation ol' the ('Imreli
of Jesus Cbrist of J.attcr 1 >: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 an<l his church re«ogni/.cd tin'
lot as church j)r()i)erty. Joseph Smith, the founder and
head of the chui'ch, its recognized ]»roi)het and seei-, himseli
came to Missouri, and in IS.'!!' held icligious services on this
site and solemnly dedicated it as the spot where the temple
was to rise and shim'.
Bishop Partridge participated in this ceremony, and on
110 tin: cinii, i,a\\' and tiii: cm !{("n
(he eve ol' the exiMiIsioii ol iiimseir mid the ]»eoj)l<' of his
church from the State by military tone at the command of
Ihe governor in 18.'50, made a d(MMl einhracing this property
to tlie minor cliildren of Oliver Cowdery, his coworker in tlie
church, and companion in miHfortune, in which lie recited
the fact "that there was money paid in my hands by Oliver
Cowdery, an eldei- in the chnrch of the Latter Day Saints.
formerly of Kirtland, Ohio, for the purpose of entering
lands in the State of Missouri, in the name and for the
benetit of said church.'' This deed was assailed on various
grounds, including the allegation that it was never deliv-
ered. It was recorded, and the delivery was ]»resunied to
have been made at the time of recording or pri<jr tiiereto.
It seems that the Cowdery children, trustees of the proi)ert3'
in the Partridge deed, died during their minority. The deed
was deemed valid. It included the Temple Lot.
In an action involving the title to the Temple Lot brought
by the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints of Jesus
Christ against the Church of Christ, to declare a trust as
to certain real estate in favor of the complainant, the de-
fendant claimed title to the i)roperty partly under a deed
from some of the heirs of Bishop I'artridge, and partly by
adverse possession. It was held that the claim of the de-
fendants was not well founded because the deed was invalid,
not having been properly executed, and being also without
consideration, and also because the claim of adverse pos-
session was not sufficiently established. The comjdainant.
the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, was held
entitled to judgment declaring its right to the property, and
removing a cloud on the title constituted by the claim of
the defendants. The court said that if the church, while
located at Nauvoo, had asserted the right of control over
Temple Lot in Independence up to 1845, its claim would
have been recognized by the ecclesiastical body and by
courts of chancery as the beneficiary of the trust in the
Partridge deed. The court suggested that the Salt Lake
Church was using its intluence in behalf of the defendants
MOKMOXS 1 1 1
(respondeuts) in this suit. Reorganiz«'<l (Mmiuli ul .Icsiis
Christ of Latter Day Saints v Church of Chiist, (id Im-iI.
Rep. y:57.
Jehovah Presbytery of Zion; Preparation, Iowa. Tliis society
was founded by Charles B. Thonii)son, who with certain
followers established a colony at l'rei)aration about IS;") on
land which was then vacant but which was taken up by the
settlers. Thompson established schools of faith and works,
and claimed to receive revelations. The settlers were re-
quired to transfer tlieir pi'oi)erty to Thompson, "chief stew-
ard of the House of Jehovah,'' and chief teacher of the Order
of Elias the proi)]iet, in Jehovah's Presbytery of Zion. Mem-
bers of the society were not only recpiired to transfer liieir
projjert}' to Tliompson but to agree to work for him and
under his direction two years, receiving therefor their
board, lodging, and clothing, without other remuneration.
This was done to fulfill an alleged law of sacrilice which
had been specially revealed to Thomjjsoii. In 1858 a dith-
culty arose between Tlnnnpson and other members of the
society growing out of his refusal to divide the property
and settle with the mend)ers, and Thompson left the com-
munity. Thompson afterward transferred to relatives and
another person property which had been obtained by
transfer from other members of that society. Plain! ilV
brought an action to recover the property transferied by
him, and it api>eared that such transfer was without con-
sideration, other than the jtromises ma<l(> 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 :iii<l wilV jillcr (NmIIi (lli;it is, in ch'riiit \ i . Two
persons wciil lliroiij^Ii (liis ccrcnioiiy, not in the i»erfoi-ni;in((!
of ii ni;in'iii<i;e contract bnt according to the tenet only,
'{'he cei-einony was performed wlien tlie woman was snppose*)
to be in Iier last illness. Fpon her unexpected recovery the
parties ajjreed to <lissolve the supposed maiital relation
hetween them, and they thereafter lived sepai'ate and apart.
Afterwai'd a formal divorce si<;ned Ity the i>arties was exe-
cuted in the manner prescribe<l by the Mormon Church,
and the marriajic was deemed diss()lve<l. Thereafter tlie
wife married again, according to the Mormon forms. The
husband did not remarry. After the death of the husband
the wife married to him as above described brought an
action for dower in his estate. It was held that the marriage
ceremony performed in this case made the parties husban«l
and wife for time as well as for eternity. The so-called
church divorce was null and void. The power to dissolve a
marriage contract was not pos.sessed by the church, but was
a function of the State. The wife was held entitled to
dower. Hilton v Roylance, 25 Utah 120.
Marriage. The sealing ordinance of the Mormon Church,
founded on the Revelation on the Eternity of the Marriage
Covenant, contained in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants
of the Mormon Church, section 132, as indicated by the doc-
trine in relation thereto, contained in such book, and as
interpreted and practiced bj' the Mormon })eo])le so far as
the history, records, and journals of such church show, is a
marriage ceremony contemplating marriage for time and
eternity, and not for either time or eternity alone. The
sealing ceremony- of the Mormon Church, whereby the con-
tracting ])arties agree and are declared by a duly authorized
church otlicial to be married for time and etei'uity, creates
a valid common law marriage between parties believing and
in good faith ])articipating therein ; the j^art of such cere-
mony referring to eternity being mere surplusage. Hilton
V Roylance, 25 Utah 129.
MOKiMON8 4i:{
Name and Succession. The idcniitv, niiiiy, ;iii<l sanicMcss
fioiii hSIO to 1844 of the Moriiioii (IiuitIi are too clear for
doubt. >.'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<li split in laclions. wliidi.
under the lead of difl'ereni lieiis, siatteieil to tliU'erent parts
of the counti'V. Among (lie "(im)rnm of Twelve," re|tresent-
ing the apostles, was oiu' Brigham ^"onng, a man of intellect-
ual power, shrewd and aggressive, if luit inidacioiis. lie
.seized the fallen reins of the presidency, and led the greater-
l»orti(m of Moinioiis out In what was Unnwn as the Salt
Lake or I'lali clnircli.
II I tin: (M\ii. \.\\y and 'imii: ciiiijf'ii
Tlu; Jiook of Docl lines aii<l Covriuiiils, page 411, rontiiiii-
ing Ji revelation to .lose|»li Smith .lanuary U), ISII, g;iv<!
unto "my servant . Joseph, to be a presiding elder over- all
my church, to l)e a translator, an<l a revelator, a Heer and
prophet. 1 give unto him for councilors, my servant Sidney
Kigdon, and my servant William Law, that these nmy con-
stitute a quorum and first presidency, to receive the oracleH
for the whole church. 1 give unto you my servant Brigliani
Young, to be a president over the Twelve, traveling council.''
So that Brigham Young was but president over the Twelve,
a traveling council. The Book clearly taught that the suc-
cession should descend lineally, and go to the first-born.
Joseph Smith, so taught, had, before his taking off, jMiblicly
ordained his son, Joseph, the present head of the complain-
ant church, his successor, and he was so anointed.
Brigham Young's assumption of this office (under the
claim of something like a transfiguration i was itself a de-
parture from the law of the church. The Book of Mormon
itself inveighed against the sin of jwlygamy. Brigham
Young taught that these denunciations of the book were
leveled at the Indians — the Lamanites. Confornmbly to
the Book of Mormon, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants
expressly declared "that we believe that one man shonhl
have but one wife, and one woman but one husband." This
declaration of the church on this subject reappeared in the
Book of Doctrine and Covenants, editions of 1S4G and lS.")r>.
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/.('<l (Imicli of .Icsus Christ
of Latter Day Saints," niul jivowcd their Mih'jiiamc to the
teachinji's of the ancient clnnch ; and tlieir epitome of fiiith
a(h)j)ted, while eontaininji; dilferences in jihraseolojjy. in its
essentials is bnt a roin-odmtion of that of the chnrch as it
existed from 18:J0 to 1844. To-ihiy (lS!»4i they are '2:>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, <!() Fed. Rep. !>;;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<lition that if the house of worship or the
mortgaged ])rcniiscs should be alienated or abandoned as a
house of woi'ship by the local society, except for the build-
ing or purchase of a better house of worship, the amount
slioiihl immediately become due and ])ayable. It was lield
that the churcli liad violated the condition by permitting the
property to be sold on an execution against it, the purchaser
having obtained i)ossession of tlie proi)erty, an.d the mort-
gagee was entitled to foreclose the mortgage. The condi-
tion in the mortgage was not void as against public policy.
Board of Cliiireh Erection Fund, General Assend)ly Presby-
terian (Miureh, United States of America v First I'resby-
terian Church, Seattle, 19 Wash. 455.
Court Order. In Planning v ^loscow Presbyterian Society,
1*7 Barb. (>.'. 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<)i<l. It was said that the pi-ojuM-ty could
be hyi)othecated only by the owner, or by some one autlntr-
ized to act for the owner. There ^^as no evidence lh.it tlie
;irchbishop had authority to hypfMhecate the propej-ty. The
archbi.shoj) did not own the property, jmd he derived no title
by the will. Levasseur v Martin, 1 1 La. Ann. «Isl
Validity, Executing without Authority. Lan<l was conveyed
to the bishoj) of the diocese, in trust foi-, ;ind for the use of,
the wardens, vestry, and congregatiitn of St. I'.iurs I'ai-jsli.
Afterward five vt'sti-yinen gave a ju'oniissory note for money
borrowed, and also for .security <'.\ecuted a mortgage on the
part of the land conveyed to the bishop. An action to fore-
close the moi-tgage was bi-ought against the bishop, church-
wardens, and othei's. and also to enforce :iii e«piitable lien
on all the real |»i-opeity conveyed to ihe bisliMp I'oi- the
amount of the note.
The mortgage was held void, :iihI ;m jiciiuii tonld nui be
418 THK CINII. LAW AND Till: ('IUKCII
iii;iiiitiiiii('(l tlicivon. Tlic society \\;is not incorporated; the
vestrymen had no authority to exec ute the mortgage, nor to
incumber tlie i)roperty witliout the consent of tlie bishop,
whicli consent had not l)e<'n given. Hill Estate Company v
Whittlesey, 21 Wash. 142.
Validity, Extent of Trustees' Authority. A meeting of the
society which was unincoi-poratcd was held sufficient uikIci"
circumstances showing that notice was given in the usual
manner. A mortgage execute*! by a majority of the trustees
to secure a loan authorized by a committee was held to be
a valid obligation against the society. Ilubbard v German
Catholic Congregation, .*>4 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 resigne<l, but there
was no order or resolution of the board directing the execu-
tion. The referee found that in executing the mortgage the
trustees acted as a board of trustees of the jdaintiff, and
that though all who signed it were not present at tlie same
time, yet that a majority of the trustees were })resent part
of the time when it was executed. The mortgage was held
to be as binding as if a formal resolution had been previously
passed. It was also held that a religious corporation may
make a purchase money mortgage without an order of the
court authorizing it. South Baptist Society. Albany v
Clapp, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 35. See also note above. Leave of
Court.
Validity, Trustees Afterward Ousted from Office. Lovett v
German Reformed Church. 12 Barb. ( N. Y. i tJT. involved the
validity of a mortgage made by trustees who were afterward
MORTOAGE lilt
ousted from ollice by the i-eveisal ol' a decree estahlishiuji
their origiual right to the ottice. The mortgage was deilared
to be a valid lien.
Validity, Trustees no Power to Mortgage Property. The
society gave a mortgage on its property to si*c\ire a preexist-
ing debt. The mortgage was foreclosed aii<l the i»roi»erty
sold. The church had elected trustees to manage its prop-
erty, but the title to the projjerty was not vested in such
trustees. The trustees could not buy or sell ciiurch prop-
erty nor could they mortgage the same. An agreement be-
tween the i)urchaser of the ])roperty at the foreclosure sale
and the church trustees, by which the ]>roperty was to be
conveyed to the church, though unauthorized, was deemed
to have been ratified by the congregation. But the contra<t
lacked mutuality, ami it was held that an action by lln'
trustees to enforce performance of the contract could nut
be maintained. Calvary Bajjtist Church v Dart, G8 S. C. 221.
MORTMAIN
Defined, 420.
Delaware, 420.
Grenada, 420.
Pennsylvania, 420.
South Carolina, 420.
Defined. The term "nioi'tiiunii" is npy^ied to denote tlie
j»oss('ssioii of lands or tenenieuls l»y any corixn-ation, sole or
agoregate, ecclesiastical or tenij)oral. These purchases hav-
ing been chiefly made by religious houses, in consequence of
which lands became perpetually inherent in one dead hand,
this has occasioned the general appellation of mortmain to
be api)lied to such alienations. Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
Delaware. The provisions of the Delaware statute relat-
ing to mortmain do not render invalid a legacy to certain
religious corporations to be paid from proceeds of the .sale
of land to be sold b}' the executor under a power conferred
by the will. American Tract Society v Purdy Executors,
3 Hon St. (Del.) 025.
Grenada. The English statute of mortmain is wholly polit-
ical. It grew out of local circumstances, and was meant to
have merely a local operation. The thing to be prevented
was a mischief existing in England, and it was by the qual-
ity and extent of the mischief as it there existed that the
propriety of legislative interference upon the subject was to
be determined. It was not extended to any other part of
the British dominions, and was, therefore, not in force in
the island of Grenada. Attorney General v Stewart. - Morv.
(Eng.) U:i.
Pennsylvania. British statutes of mortmain are not in
force in Pennsylvania. Domestic and Foreign Missionary
Society's Appeal, IM) Pa. St. 42."), 4;U.
South Carolina. British statutes of mortnmin are not in
force here. American Bil)le Society v Noble. 11 Rich. Eq.
(S. C.) 15r), 175.
420
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
Parades, 421.
Preaching on Boston Common, 421.
Parades. An ordinaiuc adoplcd by llic initlioiitics of ilie
city of Wellington, Kansas, i»iovi(lin<i that "it shall be
unlawful for any person or i)ersons, society, association or
organization, under whatsoever name, to i)arade any public
street, avenue, or alley, shouting, singing or beating drums
or tambourines, or jdaying any other musical instruments
or doing any other act or acts designed, intended or cal-
culated to attract or call together an unusual crowd or
congregation of i)eople ui)on any of the said streets, avenues
or alleys, witliout having first obtained in writing the con-
sent of the major of said city, authoi-izing such parade," was
declared to be illegal and void. It was unreasonable an«l
did not fix conditions uniformly and impartially and contra-
vened a common right. Anderson v Wellington, 40 Kan. 17:^.
Preaching on Boston Common. An oidiiiMiice of the city
of Boston, enacted under authority of the statute pi-ohibit-
ing the delivery of a sermon on the Common without tlie
permission of a specified committee was sustained in Com-
monwealth V Davis, 140 Mass. 485.
421
MUSIC
Bequest for, when invalid, 422.
Country choirs, 422.
Inst runicnt al, 422.
Organist, 422.
Bequest for, When Invalid, (lift for f)rjj}in jjallerv ;\n(\
(H-};;in llici-eiii declaiiMl invalid under statute of mortmain.
Adnam v Cole, G Beav. (Erig.) 353.
Country Choirs. Usually church music is <;ratuitous iu
small country villages or hamlets. The choir is made u]) of
amateurs, often but little instructed in the science of
melody; and this part of church service is, in such places,
rather the observance of religious duty than the exercise of
professional art and cultivated taste. The vocalist, and
those who aid with instruments, do not exi)ect or desire
pecuniary recompense. The mere fact that one sings in the
choir, or plays on an instrument as an accompaniment, on
occasions of church serevice on Sabbath days, raises no
implication of pecuniary liability, against the corporate
body. These services are presumed to be gratuitous.
Bockes, .T., in Van Buren v Kcformed Church of Ganse-
voort. X. Y.. 02 Barb. ( N. Y. ) 41)5. It was held in this case
that an action to recover compensation for services as an
organist could not be maintained without proof of an actual
eni])]oyment.
Instrumental. Singing is recognized as a part of divine
worshi]), among almost all denominations of (Christians.
Whether it should or should not be accomi)anied with in-
strumental music must be determined by those who admin-
ister the disci]dine of the church to which they belong.
Tarter v (Jibl.s. lU Md. 31':?.
Organist. In Walnut Street Pres. Ch. 3 Brewst. ( Pa. i L'77.
122
MUSIC 4L>::
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<l of (iod, in tiie bai)tisnial
covenant, and in the canonical writings of the Old and New
Testament, intcrjireted in accordance wilh the symbol ic.i I
books and confessional writings of the Church of Norw;iy.
which are the Ai)ostolic Creed ; the Nicene Creed ; the Atli.in
asian Creed; the Unaltoi-ed Ai-Ucles of tlie Aug.sbnrg Con-
fession delivered to tlie J'^mjieror Cbarlcs the ~^\h ;il Augs-
burg, 15:»0; tlie Smaller Catechism of J^nlhcr."
The constitution conljiincd rc!j,uliit ions concerning Ihc
qualilications of niinislcis and the foi-nis of public \\orslii|i.
It provided foi" a synod, conij»osed of niinislers, lucsidinn
over particuliir congregalions ;iii<I i-ei»resenl;il i\i's fioni
every congregation united willi the synod. Among Hie
powers of the sj'iiod were the lollowing: to nmUe genenil
and special rules and resolutions in all religious and eccle-
siastical matters; to decide, without fuilhei- ;i|>|>e;il, upon
all matters of the church; to select a superinleii<len1 fioni
among the clergy connected wilh the church; to select from
its members a church c<»uncil. to consist of not less than
425
ilm; Tin: (M\ il law and thio cuvuch
(wo cleric;! I and lonr lay members, which shall l)«; jn-opor-
tioiially llic same if Iho inimbcr be increased.
The constitution was submitted to the congregations and
was approved, taking effect in 1S53. No other syiuxl (H-
conference of Lutherans bearing that name has ever been
organized in the United States. A new constitution was
adopted in 1876, including a change of name to the Synod
of the Norwegian lOvangelical Lutlieran (Jhurch of America.
Fadness v Braunborg, 7'.\ Wis. 257.
Independent Society, Division of Property. This society
(Koshkonong Congregation) was organized prior to 1852, but
the case does not show the date. I'rior to May 20, 1852, the
members of this congregation living on Liberty Prairie vol-
untarily separated from Koshkonong Congregation and or-
ganized themselves into the Norwegian Evangelical Lu-
theran Church of St. Paul's on Liberty Prairie. These two
congregations were five or six miles ai)art and were served
by the some pastor until 1860. May 20, 1852, laud was con-
veyed to certain persons as trustees, in trust for the erec-
tion of a house of worship on the land, for the use of the
members of St. Paul's Church according to the rules of the
church, and according to the rules which may be adopted
from time to time by their authorized synods or conferences.
Vacancies in the oflBce of trustees were to be tilled by the
congregation. A meeting house was erected on the lot. The
two congregations of Koshkonong and Liberty Prairie acted
jointly for the most part until 1860 with an arrangement
that if either society should desire to become in<lei)endent,
the society withdrawing from the union should be entitled
to receive one half the value of the i)arsonage. The society
was incorporated in 1862. and the corporation thereupon
became vested with the legal title to the property conveyed
to the trustees as above stated.
The society was substantially independent, although sus-
taining certain relations to the synod, and while under gen-
eral rules the call of the i)astor was presumed to be for life,
a majority of the corporators had power to discharge a min-
NORWEGIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHEKAN ii'7
ister at any time. Early in tlie year 18S;] a siliism arose in
the Liberty Prairie Congregation over the doctrine of elec-
tion. The i>ast(>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 use<l for r(di<j;ions puritoscs. with a
l)rovisiou that "in case of a schism (wliich (lod forbid) the
right of possessing the common property of the congrega-
tion is to <lcvolve Tii)on a two-tliirds majority of its voting
members. The price which those who then retain the prop-
ertj^ are to pay to those who then lose their interest in it is
lo be fixed according to tlie valnation made by three men, of
whom each party chose one, and these two a third."
A controversy having arisen over the election of trustees,
it was held that this did not constitute a scliism within tlie
meaning of the term as applied in the constitution of the
society. That, although a part of the society had taken pos-
.session of the pro])erty and excluded the other part, the law
afforded an ample remedy against the wrongful trustees by
quo warranto, or otherwise in equity by injunction to pre-
vent unlawful acts, and there could be no division of the
property as contemplated by the constitution. Nelson v
Benson, 69 111. 27.
NUISANCE
Damages, 429.
Damages. First Baptist Church, Schenectady v Troy ^V:
Scheuectady R. R. Co., o Barb. (N. Y. ) 79, was an action
brought by a religious society against a railroad company
to prevent the continuance of an alleged nuisance by the
company resulting from the ringing of bells, blowing off
steam, and making other noises in the vicinity of the church
during service on the Sabbath which so annoyed and
molested the congregation worshiping there as greatly to
dei)reciate the value of the house and rendering the same
unfit for a house of religious worship. The church corj)ora-
tion was held entitled to recover damages for the alleged
disturbance of its meetings by the railroad comi>any, 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 presume<l (jualitied
as a voter and therefore (pialitied to liold office: and after
the result of the election lias been dccbiicd (he presiding
431
i:v2 tin; r\\ \ l i,.\\\ .\m» 'iiii: cm ijcii
olliccr cMiiiKit icvisc (lie result, dcchn'c lluit tlic |»('is(tii
I'U'dcd \\;is not :i <|iiiilirM'(l v(>l<*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<l ollVr
iiilci-i'ujilion diirinji' (lie (•(•Icltr.il ion of divine service. Bur-
ton V Ilrns(Mi, H) Mceson ^; Welslty ( lOhj^. I lO.").
Committee, Contract. Where ;i jiarish apjjoinled a eoiii-
niillee of (lir<'e to linild a meetinghouse a coutract luude by
one of (he nundier was not Itiinlinj;' on the parish. KM|d'er v
South I'arish, An«;nsta, 12 Mass. isr>.
Defined. In I'ennsylvania the term "|»arish" lias no esjx*-
cial lej^al siiini Ileal ion ; it is use<l merely in its <ienei-al .sjMi.se.
In l^i^lish ecclesiastical law it has been used to desi«;nate
the territoiy committed to the particular cbarge of a parson
or priest. In the al>sen('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 <d' oi)ini<»n sjtrang np it be-
came necessary to sejtarate the i)arochial from the niunicijiiil
business, and the parishes foi-nied sejtarate organizations.
Other religions societies were incorjioiated by special acts;
but many congregations remained unincorporated. Some
persons had conscientious scruples against corporations,
and others preferred to manage their religions affairs in a
different way. The act of ISll authorized unincorporated
societies to take and hold property and manage the same by
agents oi- otherwise. Silsby v Barlow, 10 Gray (Mass.) '.\2*.).
Massachusetts, History. "From the earliest settlenu'iit of
the colony the territoi-y. as fast as it was gi-anti'd ont to
actual settlei's, was divided int<> 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 <livided into two oi- moi'e territorial pai-ishes. in
which case each parish was a corporation, with its proper
i::(; Tin: <'i\ii> \..\\\ .wh 'I'lii; cm iicii
oi'f^jiiii/nl ion ;iii<l ((llii-crs." I'iii'isln's wcir r<M|iiir('(| In pi-o-
vi<lo for lilt' iiiiiiiitcniiiicc of piihlic worship ;iii<l I lie siippoi-1
of snitjililc iiiiiiisUM's jiihI religions Iciiclicrs. The |>;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<lly, and it \v;is e;n-ly fonnd tliiit nior<* than
one religious society would Ite ncccssiiry within its limits."
"Where jxdl parishes wei'c established they were uiiitVirnily
eonstitnted corporations hy sjiecial act of incorpoi-at ion ;
sucli an act was an enabling a<t, ci-eating a c()i]»orat inn jiav-
ing perjietiial succession, and capable of holding i-eal estate
to a limited amount, and in such case the fee was in the
corporation, to the use of pewholders and other members."
Attorne^-Geueral v Proprietors of Meetinghouse in Federal
Street, Boston, 3 Gray (Mass.) 1, .^5, 3S.
Meetinghouse, May Be Leased. Where a religious society
has no further use for an old meetinghouse, and the land
on which it stands abuts on a business sti-eet, it is not ultra
vires for the society to let the land to a lessee who agrees
to buy the meetinghouse, and to pay to such lessee or his
assignees on the termination of the lease a just and reason-
able sum for such buildings ami imiu'ovements as shall have
been put npon the land during the term of the lease. Holly-
wood V First Parish, Brockton, V.)'2 Mass. 2G9.
Meetinghouse, Title After Division of Town. A meeting-
house for public worship, built by a town before it is
divided into i)arishes, becomes, u]»on such division, the
exclusive property of the first i)arish ; and the use of it for
many years before the division, for town nuH'tings for muni-
cipal j»uri)Oses, gives the town iu> 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])prov<Ml or
rejected by the parish. If the parish approve, a contrart of
settlement is then nuide between them ami the minister.
Bisbee v Evans. 4 ^le. :>74.
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 connecte<l with those
objects. Bangs v Snow, 1 Mass. 181.
A i)arish may ])rovide for religious instruction by the
erection of meetinghouses and the supi)or( of ministers.
Alna, Inhabitants of, v Plummer, 3 Me. 88.
Protestant Episcopal Church, Defined. A pai-ish imlndes the
individuals who nssocjatc thcnisclvcs under the articles of
incorporation, and, in their I'diniMl applicntiou foi' ;i(hiiis-
110 'iMii: ('i\ii. LAW ANh Till': cm i:<'ii
sioii. on llicir pledge of coiiloniiily to tlic (lioccsjiii ;iinl ;i<*ii-
cinl l('<;isl;i(i()ii of llic cluircli, iirc i<M('iv(Ml into nnion with
the (lioccsan convention. Bird v St. Mark'.s (Jhurch, Water-
loo, (J2 la. 507.
Roman Catholic. Tciritorial areas descrilxMl in the nonicn-
clalnre of the Konian Catholic (Minrch as jtarishcs, are not
recognized by the law as corporate or political entities; and
if they were snch, the chni-cli could not legislate concerning
them. jVfcEntee v Bonacnni, (id Xeb. (>51.
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])<M-ty. The minister with whom llie contract was
made continued to occipy the parsonage alter the division,
serving both societies. After tlu- ministei-'s death in 1SS."»
his jtersonal i-ejtresetitatives had no title or interest in the
I)arsonage. The contract did not create the relation of land-
441
U2 Tin: ('i\ II. LAW AXi> Trii-: ciinicii
lord :iii<l tcimiil. IOjisI Norwiiy I-.iik<' Xorwcj^inii ICviiiigcl-
icjil LnllKTiiii Clmrcli v I-'roislie, o7 Minn. UT.
A minister in llic McllKxlist l^piscopiil ('lini'cli who occii-
pies llic pjirsoniij^c rnniislicd l>y 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 compose<l of several
congregations, an<l it could not be determined which congi-e-
gation was intended as a beneficiary of the trust.
Use. The manse or i)arsonage house owne<l by a religions
society stands upon a looting different froni that of a meet-
inghouse. There is no right of use in common in the par-
sonage. It is not a sacred building like a church edilice,
but is, properly sjteaking, an endowment or source of i)e-
cuniary revenue to aid in su])port of the worship in the
church property. Its use is not spiritual but temporal.
Though it is ordinarily used as a residence for the pasior,
there is nothing in its character or ownership to prevent its
being used for other j)urposes as circumstances may render
it i)rofitable or beneficial. Everett v First Presbyterian
Church, 53 N. J. P^q. 500.
PARTICULAR BAPTIST CHURCH
Particular Baptists, 444.
Particular Baptists. In 171»7 llie trustees of the town con-
\<'ve(l land to the rarticular Baptist Chureli. in ISOO there
was a union between the Particular and Separate Baptists
in Kentucky under the denomination of United Baptists.
Some thirty or thirty-tive years afterward the church
known as the Reformed Church was or«!;anized, composed
in part of persons who had seceded from the Ba])tist Churcli.
By some arrangement the new church occupied the hou.se
of worship used by the original church. A controversy arose
over the right to use the church building, the old society
claiming the exclusive right to use it, and tinalh' i)revente<l
the new society from occupying it. The old society was not
incorporated, and it was held that the title which vested
in the original trustees in the conveyance from the town did
not pass to the officers of the society, and the officers did not
have the legal title ; but as officers of the societs' they were
entitled to, maintain an action to establish the right to the
possession of the property. The change of name from Par-
ticular to the United Baptist Church was not a change in
fact in the society, which continued under the original or-
ganization, though under a change of name. The Reforme<l
(^luircli had no right to even a i)artial use of the church
Itnilding. It was an entirely distinct body of Christians.
Cahill v Bigger, S B. Mon. (Ky.) 211.
444
PARTITION
Joint church ownership, 445.
Joint Church Ownership. In Swoyer v Sehallei-, KJ I*:i. Co.
Ct. ovKJ, it was lield lliat the court had no jurisdiction to
decree partition of chnrili property' owned in coumion bv
two conffregations.
445
PEWS
Historical notr, 446.
Assossincnl for cxponsos, 447.
Chanpinn, injunction refused, 447.
Church used for general purposes, 447.
Distribution, 447.
Disturbing possession, 448.
Easement, 449.
JOnglish custom, 453.
Execution, sale, 454.
Forfeiture, 454.
Incorporeal hereditament, 456.
Indemnity for loss, 455.
Locking pew, 457.
Loose bench, 457.
Louisiana rule, 457.
Mandamus, 457.
Ma,ssachus(>tts 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<l hence the ICnglish doctrine that case only will lie for
the disturbance of the occupant. O'Hear v De Goesbriand,
.T{ Vt. r>!>:{.
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 be<Mi the
practice in various ])arts of the State, esj)ecially in Boston,
for religious societies to lend the use of their houses to the
government, for the annual election sermon, an<l to vai'ious
societies and philanthropic associations, to hold meetings,
for various ])urposes; and ui)on s\u'h occasions it has been
usual for the body or association to whom the house is lent
to control the use of the ])ews, without regai'd to the par-
ticular owners.
Distribution. In Reynolds v Monkton, 2 M. and Rob.
(lOng. ) oS4, it was held that the churchwardens h;i\(' a dis-
cretionary power to ai)|)ropriate the ]>ews 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 <liaiij;(; liis
seat may be I'ofcihly removed ri(»iii I lie seal lie is so oceiijiy
\]\rr- Sheldon v \'ail, L'S Ilun ( \. \.) '.'>~)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 <loes not give to the
owner of land any fee. The grantee is only entitled to the
use of the pew for the ]»urpose of sitting therein during
divine service. But the owner of the pew may nniinlain
case, trespass or ejectment, according to tlie circumstances,
if he is improperly disturbed in the legitimate exercise of
tno Tin: cixii. law and iiii: ciirKcii
his l«'^;il ri^lit to use liis pew lor tli:it |»in|»(»s«'. Ii;i|)tist:
(Mmnli. Hinll<n«l v Willicn'Il, :: r;iij;«' (Mi. i \. V. i lilx;.
A person may have the iiier-e possessory ri^ht in a j)e\v,
Wilkinson v Moss, 2 I^ee (Kiif;. i 117.
I'ewlioMeT's in a chur*!! hnildinjf have only a (pialitied and
iisuriucluary right in their pews, snhject to the ri}j;ht of the
reli<jious society to remodel them, and to alter the internal
structure of the huildini;, oi- enlarge or i-emove it, or sell
it in order to build anew. Sohier v Trinity Church, 10!)
Mass, 1.
A pewholder acquires only a right of occupancy for wor-
ship in connection with the services prescribed by the rules
of the church. He does not acquire an absolute title, but
his interest is subordinate to the general right of the cor-
poration to alter, repair, rebuild, or .sell the edifice. Vor-
hees V l*resbyterian Church of Amsterdam, 8 Bjirb. ( N. Y. i
135, also 17 Barb. (N. Y. ) 103.
A pewholder had only the right to occupy a pew for the
purpose of worship. The title of the property remains in
the corporation and the i)ewholder cannot compel it to
maintain divine service, nor even to open the house for that
purpose; and tlie building may be abandoned without sub-
jecting the society to any liability as against a pewholder.
Matter of Saugerties Keformed Dutch Ch., 16 Barb. (N. Y.)
239.
A pewholder does not acquire absolute title to the prop-
erty, but he acquires only the right to use the pew for the
purpose of sitting therein during services. A pew-owner has
no title to the building or any i)art of it, nor to the soil on
which it stands, and the society nuiy at their pleasure alter
the structure and may even destroy the pew. For this alter-
ation or destruction of the pew the owner has no redress
and is not entitled to any comj)ensation if the change was
made from necessity' ; but otherwise if the change was made
as a mere matter of convenience or expediency. Cooper v
Presby. Ch. of Sandy Hill, 32 Barb. (N. Y. i 222.
I'urchaser acquires only the right to use the i)ew during
PEWS 451
divine service, and does not obtain the absolute title. Hinde
V Choi'lton, 15 Law Times N. S. (Enji;. ) 472.
The right of a pew gives no right to the soil. It gives
only limited estate. The owner may use the property as a
pew but he has not an unliniitt'd absolute right. He cannot
use it lawfully lor purposes incompatible with its nature.
Heeney v St. Peter's Ch. 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 008.
The right of a pewhohler to a pew in a meetinghouse is
subordinate to the rights of the owners of the house. He
has an exclusive right to occupy his pew when the house is
used for the purposes for which it was erected, but he can-
not convert his pew to other uses not contemplated. If the
house is taken down as a nmtter of convenience or taste by
the owners thereof, the owner of the ]>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 (leeiiie<l
necessary for the purpose of rej>airin{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<l not acquire such a freehold interest in any por-
tion of the soil of the church as to entitle him to a vote for
the county, but merely an easement or qualified right to the
occupation and enjoyment of the pew for the purpose of
attending the services of the church. Brumtitt v Roberts,
L. K. 5 Com. VI. (Eng.) 224.
An absolute deed of a church pew in perpetuity is
only the conveyance of the right to the use of the pew during
divine service in the nature of a leasehold estate, and gives
the holder no claim that the relative situation of the inter-
nal parts of the church shall not be altered, nor that the
church shall remain unaltered unless damages shall be paid
or secured. Accordingly, where the church authorities added
new pews in front of the plaintiff's pew, and removed the
pulpit and chancel some sixteen feet farther off, it was held
that the trustees had power to make such an enlargement,
and the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction restrain-
ing it. Bronson v St. Peter's Church, Auburn, 7 N. Y. Leg.
Obs. 3G1.
The right of a pew-owner is a right to the use of the
pew during divine service. His right is subject to the right
of the owners of the house to take down, rebuild, or remove
the house for the purpose of more convenient worship. The
pew-owners as such do not constitute the corporation and
have no voice or vote in the management of its affairs. No
pew-owner can become a member against his consent ; and
if a member, he does not lose his property in his pew by
separating from the society. Pew-owners cannot decide
what doctrine shall be preached, except where the society is
PEWS 45:5
composed of pew-owners only. Trinitarian Congregational
Society, Francestown v Union Congregational Society,
Francestown, 61 N. H. .384.
"A pewh older, or owner, has no legal interest in the
church edifice, or in the land upon which it stands. The
title to it, and the right in the land, whatever that right
may be, is in the corporation, and the possession is in the
trustees." A pew-owner has only the right to occupy the
pew during divine worship, which is a cpialitied interest and
one necessarily limited in point of time. Abernethy v So-
ciety of the Church of the Puritans, 3 Daly, (N. Y.) 1.
A pewholder has only the right to occupy it during
divine services, and for no other purpose. This right is sub-
ordinate to the power of the corporation to remodel the
building or to sell it, on deciding to remove. Erwin v Elurd,
13 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 91.
l*roprietors Union Meetinghouse v Rowell, (»(> 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 <tf (lie chnrcli was common to all parishioners. After
the Reformation a jtraclice aro.se of as.signing particular
4M Tiir: ('i\iL I, AW ANh 'riir; (Imkcii
scjils lo iii<li\ iiliijils. 11iis ;issiLjiiiii»'iil of scjits \v;is iikmIc \)y
the ordiiijiry, by ii laciilly wliidi \v;is ;i mere lii-eiise, and
was personal to tlie licensee, and all disputes coneerning it
were deterniitied in the spiritual couits. ICvery parishioner
has a right to a seat in the }>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 <leed of the property were mentioned. It was
held that a pew-owner had the sole right to the use of his
pew on all occasions when the house was occupied, thon<,di
it be opened for i)uri)Oses different from those mentioned in
the conveyance thereof; and he had a right to exclude all
other persons from his pew on such occasions by fastening
the pew doors or otherwise, in such manner as not to inter-
rupt or annoy those who may occni>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 (•<nisl;iiit use. Hut in its luitnre
it wns a frooliold, an estate of |KMiiliai- character, held in
subordination to the corporation, who ai'e sole owners of
the soil. "The right to a pew, althonj^h everywhere in Massa-
chusetts it is repirded as property, and in even' |»art of the
state excei>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: <i\iL LAW AM) 'I'm: ciicKcrr
pliicc, aiiil Jill pulled down williniil licp ((Misciit ." Archer v
Sweotnani, Foil. (lOnj^.) IVHl
Parish Property. Pews in a cimicli Ix'loiiji to the parish
lor (lie use ol" llic iidiahilaiils, and cannot Ix* sold nor let
without a special act of Parliament. The occupier of a pew
ceasin<; to be an inhabitant of the j»arish cannot let the ])ew
with, and thus annex it to, his house, but it reverts to the
disposal of the churchwardens. Wyllie v Molt, 1 Ila;^^'.
Ecdes. (Eno.) 10.
Perpetual Lease. The clnii-cli was erected with funds raised
by subscription on the understanding that i)ews should be
held under perpetual leases reserving rent. In Foote v
West, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 544, it was held that the purchaser
from a pewholder of his right to the pew was not entitled
to a deed free from rent but that the rent followed the title
to the pew.
Pewholders' Corporate Rights. The pew-owners formed a
corporation, which, under the statute, had authority to
control the meetinghouse, but such control could be exer-
cised only at a meeting regularly' called. A justice of the
peace had no power to call such a meeting. Therefore an
increased assessment on pews ordered at such an irregular
meeting was held void. Bayberry v Mead, SO Me. 27.
Possession, Mandamus. The court refused a writ of uuin-
damus against the trustees to restore the possession of a
pew to its owner on the ground that he had a complete
remedy at law. Commonwealth v Rosseter, 2 Bin. (Pa.)
360.
Prescription. In an action for disturbing the pewholder's
possession he was required to show a ])rescriptive right, and
possession above sixty years was held an insufficient title on
which to maintain the action. Stocks v Booth, 1 D. and E.
(Fug.) 225.
A pew in the aisle of a church may be prescribed for as
appertaining to a house out of the; parish. Qujere, as to a
pew in the body of the church. Davis v Witts, Forr. ( Eng. )
14.
PEWS 401
Ou au application I'oi' a laculty to i'e])air and renew a
church a i>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 <liui<li hvnt is u very
iliHercnt kind of jiropeily Ironi a jtcw in one of llie <liurclies
of the English Establishment. On llic dcalli of tlie owner of
a pew his personal representatives succeed to Iiis title for
the i)nr]>ose of sale, lint the jx'w only is cliai-^ealde with 1h<!
rent accruing:; after his death. Where a pew was granted
subject to a yearly rent the law <loes not ini|»ly a covenant
that the executors shall pay the rent accruing after the
grantee's death. It was accordingly held that in an action
against the society for nM)ney loaned, the society could not
set off pew rent accruing after the owner's death, Chur« h
V Wells' Executors, 24 l»a. 249.
Rent, When Preferred Debt. Rent due from the testator
upon a church jiew is not a i)referred debt, under the jinni-
sions of the revised statutes unless it is rent due upon a
term of years in such pew, which belongs to the executors
or administrators as a part of the j)ersonal estate of the
testator, Johnson v Corbett, 11 Paige Ch. (N. Y. ) 26r>.
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 nee<l
not make i)ayineiit lo a jx'whohlei- for the removal of liis
l)ew.
Land was conveyed to the Bishoj) of Detroit and his snc-
cessors in office in trust lor the erection (»r a church lliereon,
to be used as a ]>lace 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 :in<l ((Hi^i-cj^iil ion in llic city, ;i(<or'(lin^ to llic rit«*s
;in<l ccrcnionlL's of s;ii<l Koninn (';itIiolic Cliuicli, :ini| lor
otlici- (I'usts tlKM'cin ('.\jh-(*ss<m1. TIk* (]o('(\ ;iIso proviflc*! Unit
in the event of a Viic;incy in the olTice f)f hislioj) li;i|»i»eninj;
between tlie (leutli of llie l»islio|» jind the ;i|»]»(»iMt nu'iit of his
suecessoi" the premises shonld vest dni'injf sn<h vjicjincy in
the jirehbisho]) of the l{oin;in Cjitholic Chnrch of which the
diocese shonld he a sulfia<;ini. Trustees of the clnireh were
afterward elected nndei- tlie statute.
lu ii controversy between the officiating^ ju-iest and the
trustees as to which had the right to rent the slips it was
held that, under the deed of trust and the constitution, laws,
and usages for the government of the Roman Catholic
Church, by which the administration of the temporalities of
the church is vested in the parish priest, the riglit to rent the
slips belonged to the priests and not to the trustees. Smith
V Bonhoof, 2 Mich. 115.
Sale of Property. Under the New York religious corpora-
tions act of 1818, notice to pewholders of an application to
sell the property of the church is not necessary. The trus-
tees have power to act. ^fatter of Second Baptist Society,
Canaan, X. Y. 20 How. Vr. (N. Y.) 82-1.
Sale. Order of court not necessai-y for a sale of pews.
Freligh v Piatt, 5 Cow. (N. Y. ) 494.
Taxation. The ])ower of the society to impose a tax on
pews was held to apply only to the purposes specified in the
deed, and a tax for any oilier ]>urpose 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 si<j;ning to an increase in
the tax. St. Paul Ch. v Ford, 'M Barb. (X. V. i l(i.
I'ewholders are liable for increased assessments on pews
for church expenses. Curry v First J'resbyterian Congre-
gation, 2 Pittsburg, (Pa.) 40.
Where a pew was, by the original deed of the j)roi)erty.
subject to taxation for general exi)enses and for repairs both
of the church and lot, and the society was afterward incor-
porated under a charter which required the assent of a ma-
jority of the pewholders for the imposition of such a tax, but
the charter contained a provision authorizing its amend-
ment in the discretion of the Legislature, juid the Legislatni-e
having afterward restored the right to inijiose a tax for
expenses and repairs, it was held that the later statute <lid
not violate the obligation of a contract, and that the society
had power to imi»ose a tax on the pews. IJailey v Trustees,
Power Street Methodist Episcopal Church, t; Khode Ishnid
401.
I'ews were sold free of rent to raise money to aid in com-
pleting the erection of a church edifice. The trustees could
not afterward without the jx'whohler's c<nisent assess the
pew for current exixMises, and could not ]»roceed against the
pewholder personally to collect an assessment. Trustees
First Presby. Cong, of Hebi-on v (^nakenbush, 10 .Tohns.
(N. Y.) 217.
Pews may be assessed for church exjjenses. Aberuethy v
Society of the Church of the Puritans, :: Daly (N. V. i 1.
Termination of Right. If the building is taken down, or is
destroyed by tire, or the pew is destroyed b\ a neccssaiy
alteration in the internal ai rangeinenl of llie cliurch. ilie
pew-owner's right is gone. Abernclhy \ Society of the
Church of the Puritans, :\ Daly (N. V. i 1.
Title. The right to a jiew granted by a < Inncii corporation
to a man and his heirs is real proj»erty, an incorporeal ease-
kk; tin: cinii. law and 1111: ciiriicii
iiicnl or iisuCi'iicliiiiry ri^Iil in biinl of ;iiiollicr. I'reHbyte-
ri;iii Cliiircli v Aiidruss, 21 N. J. Law, .'{IT).
Title, Transferable. Tlio lillc 1o a ju'w is transferable ;«k
otlu'i- real t'slalc, aii<l an assi<iinii(Mi( (»f the interest »)f the
]»e\\ -owiiei' does not transfer the title as a<;ainst the levy on
an execution aj^ainst tlie ori<::inal owner. Bar-nai-*! v
Wliipple, 2!) Vt. 4(n.
Trespass. The owner <»(' a pew may maintain tresj»ass
a<;ainsl a |>erson who disturbs him in (lie possession. Sliaw
V Heverid^e, :: Tlill (N. V.) LM;.
]^an<l was conveyed io several persons, most of ^^■llom were
nuMubers of an incoriM)i-at<Ml religious society, to the use of
such jtersons as should become jK'wludilers in the nieetinj^-
house to be erected thereon. Tlie grantees organized them-
selves a.s j)ro])rietors under an act ]troviding therefor. The
title vested in them on such organization in trust for the
])ewholders, the use shifting to those persons who thereafter-
ward became pewholders. It was also held that the incor-
porated religious society, which occupied the land by the
permission of the body of proprietors, for the i)urpose of
public worship, might maintain trespass against an individ-
ual j»roj)rietor for obstructing them in such occupation.
Second Congregational Society, North bridgewater v War-
ing, 24 Pick (Mass.) r»04.
PIOUS USES
Defined, 467.
Described, 467.
Jew.s, 468.
Land, devi.'^ed, linht of possession, 468.
Mini.sterial land, 468.
Minister's supj)ort, 468.
Missionaries, 468.
Poor, 469.
Defined. Legacies to jdon-s uses are those which ai«'
destined to some woi-k of piety, or object of charity, and
have their motive in(k']tendent of tlie consideration wliicli
the merit of the legatees niiglil jtrocure to them. In this
motive consists the distindion lieiwceu these and ordinary
legacies.
The term "jdons uses'' includes not only tlie encourage-
ment and sujjport of pious and charitable institutions but
those in aid of education and the advancement of science
and the arts.
They are viewed with special favor by the law, ami with
tlouble favor on account of their motives for sacred usages
and their advantage to the public weal. State v McDonogh
Instate, 8 La. Ann. 171, sustaining a legacy to the city of
New Orleans and the city of Baltimore of funds to be used
for tlie establishment ;iiiil sujtport of free schools in said
cities and their s\d)urbs, imluding sjK'cial ])ro\ision for reli-
gious and secular instruction of certain specitie<l clas.ses of
poor persons in the Town ol .MacDonogh, a suburb of New
Orleans.
Described. Legacies to pious uses have been known to the
civil law from the foundation of Christianity. "They are
an element in the polity of municipal adniinistJ-atious in
all countries which have ]M'ese!-\ed the lealnies and juris-
prudence of Koiiuiii ci\ ili/,;ititm."
1«i7
HIS THE CI\'II> 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 t<t lliciii. In tliis motive con-
sists the distinction between these and <>i-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 an<l
received the proceeds it was not liable to a religious society
for any part thereof. Union Baptist Society v Town of
Candia*^. 2 N. H. 20.
Minister's Support. The general words "pious u.ses'' are
not to be understood in their broadest sense, so as to author-
ize a religious society to hold lands to any use, however
foreign to the purposes of its incorporation, that religion and
charity may sanction. The support of its minister is a duty
that devolves upon every religious society, and to afford him
that support may justly be regarded as one of the objects
of its incorporation. It is, therefore, a pious use within the
meaning of the statute. Tucker v St. Clement's Church, 3
Sandf. Sup. Ct. (X. Y.) 242. atfVl. 8 N. Y. 558n.
Missionaries. The propagation of the Christian religion,
PIOUS USES 469
whether amoug our own citizens or the people of any other
nation, is an object of the hi<:;he.st concern, and cannot be
opjjosed to any general rule of law or principle of public
policy. A bequest to certain persons in trust to pay the
income to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
^Missions and their associates was held not void for uncer-
tainty. The members of the board could be ascertained,
and the Income was to be appropriated by the board for the
general purposes for which the board was established. It
was not necessarj' to ascertain or describe the particular
persons who were to receive in foreign countries the reli-
gious instruction intended by the bequest. Bartlett v King,
12 Mass. 5:57.
Poor. Tlie testator gave all his residuary estate to the in-
corporated Tresbyterian churches in the city of New
Orleans, to ''the end lliat the ]>oor 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; <iiri;<n
priest \\;is slill lisiiiji. Tlic Ic^iicy to tlic siir\ iviii;; piicsi
\\;is (lircrtcfl to Ix- piiid |(» liiiii on liis sliowiiit;- ;i future pei--
foi-uiiiMce ol' tlu' eoudit iou lo siiy masses. Tlie fund 1)0-
(pieallied to I lie pii<'st deceased fell into the residuum.
i:slate of Howard, 5 ^lisc (X. ^'. i l'!).").
Testator (lirected tliat certain real estate be converted
into money and that thi-ee fourths theiH'of he jjaid to St.
l-'rances Hospital of New ^'ork for the henelil oi the Blesw<l
\'ir^iu Mary ]*uri;alorial I-'und. The hosj)ital had no Hiicli
fun<l, and it was said tiiat tlie only use that could be made
of the bequest was for the sayini; of masses for the spirit-
ual welfare of the souls of the dead in pur<;atory. The
bequest <lid not ci-eate a trust and it was sustained. John-
ston V Hughes, 187 N. Y. UG.
Testatrix made a be(iuest for nuisses for the repose of her
soul. The trustee died before the testatrix. It was held
that the lejj^acy did not lapse, but that the court would ap-
point a |)erson to execute the trust. It was also held that
such a becpiest ^^■as not a superstitious use. but was a reli-
<;;ious use under the laws of New Jersey, and was valid under
the j)rovisions of the State and federal constitutions gnar-
auteeiny, freedom of con.science. Kerrigan v Tabb, 39 Atl.
(N. J. Ct. of Ch.) 701.
A provision in a will giving a fund to the priest who may
be pastor of the Beaver Catliolic Church to be used in say-
ing masses for the testator was sustained as a valid private
trust. Moran v :Moran, 104 la. 216.
Testatrix made a bequest to the priest of St. Mary's
Church at Lancaster, New York, to be used in saying masses
"for the re]»ose of my soul, and that of my husband, and all
my relatives and benefactors." The bequest was sustaiue<l.
It was held that the legacy to the i)riest individually did
Tu»t c()nnect it in any way with the church. I>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, ])roghe<la, at the time of his death
from time to lime forever therefrom, niton condition that
four masses each month shall be celebrate<l "foi- ilie beneiil
of my soul and tin' souls of my relatives, the jxtoi- sduls lai«'
of the parish (»f St. Peter, Drogheda. now sulVeiing in jmrga-
tory." This was held Nalid as to the < hrgymen in oflice at
the time of the death of the teslatur and to their survivors
and survivor of them, and after their de«ease the ftind
171 Tin: CINIL LAW ANh Till: ("Hi KCII
slionid l)('((»iii(' ;i |i;ir( <»r tlic I'csidniii'y cstalc. hillon v
Kcilly, 10 h-. K<|. Ke. 152.
Testator j^ave to the jiarisli jwicsl sjOO to he used in say-
iiij; masses for the testatoi-. This was held to he a dirrd
ji;ift and not a trust, and was tlierefore valid. Sherman v
l?aker, 20K. I.44(;.
In Toleman v O'Leary, 111 Ky. ."ISS, hci^uests to jnovidr
masses for the repose of the soul of the testator, and al.«<o
the soul of his mother and other relatives, were sustained.
A testatrix bequeathed a sum of money to executors to In-
used for masses for the repo.se of her soul. This was held
valid and not a superstitious use. Commissioners of Char-
itable Donations and Be(}uests v Walsh, 7 Jr. Eq. Ke. l*An.
In Bradsliaw v Jaokman, 21 L. K. Ir. 12, the court sus-
tained a bequest for masses for the eternal rej)0se of her
father and mother, brother and sisters.
Testator made a bequest to the bishop for the jjurpo.se of
umsses for the repose of testator's soul. This was not a
bequest for a charitable use under the California Civil Code
section 1313, which restricts devises or bequests for charit-
able uses. Re Lennon's Estate, 92 I*ac. 870.
Negative. The income of a trust fund was to be paid to
Roman Catholic priests forever, on condition that they say
masses for the rejjo.se of the soul of the founder. This was
held void, and the fuml was ordered paid to the found-
er's representative. Re Blundell's Trusts, :50 Beav. (Eug.)
300.
A bequest to the Ronuin Catholic Primate of Ireland and
his successors forever, upon the condition that he and they
shall celebrate twelve masses each "for the salvation of my
soul and tlie souls of my relatives" was held void.
The same testator bequeathed a fund to the clerg^•men of
each of the Friaries of St. Franci.s, St. Augustine, and St.
Dominick, in Drogheda, subject to the condition that there
shall be celebrated at each of the said friaries forty masses
''for the benefit of my soul and the benefit of the souls of
my relatives, and all the jjoor souls of the parish of St.
PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD 475
I'eter, Drogheda, remaining iu purgatory." This was also
held void. Dillon v Reilly, 10 Ir. Re. Eq. 152.
Testator made the followin;^ bequest : •'! hereby direct
that my executor hereinafter named have masses rea<l lor
the repose of my soul for which I direct him to exjiend the
sum of 1500.00.'' This bequest was held invalid. Schwartz
V Bruder, (» ]>em. ( 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 an<l the .souls
of my family, and also the souls of all others who luay be in
purgatory." This bequest was held invalid in Holland v
Alcock, 108 N. Y'. ;}12. The court sai<l : -There is no bene-
ficiary in existence, or to come into existence, who is inter-
ested in or can demand the execution of the trust." The
bequest was not a gift to the Roman Catholic Church or
churches which might be selected by the executors in which
such j)rayers were to be offered. See also ()'(^onnor v Clif-
ford, 117 X. Y. 275; (Jilman v McArdle, UU N. Y. 451.
Testator bequeathed to his executors Jii>500 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 <l<';i(l. liiTcks v W'ooHi-cv, I Cvirleis llOiiji;.) r>()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 provi<le masses for
the rejiose of the soul is not illegal. "The ads dij-ected to
be procured are, according to the faith which the (estatri.x
professed, sacrifices to God in the most proper sense, and of
the most solemn kind, on behalf of all the faithful, living
and dead, including a particular memorial of the deceased
person specified; but they are not necessarily to be offered
in the public congregation of the faithful, or in public at
all. The elements of charity in its most extensive, indeed,
in its truest sense, which they contain is piety to God.
According to the Ronuin Catliolic faith, cacli celebration of
the mass involves the most jterfect act of charity." At-
torney-General V Delaney, Ir. 10 C. L. 104, 121.
In Attorney-General v Hall, 2 Iri.sli Re. 201 (1800), con-
sidering the validity of beipu'sts to Roman Catholic ])riests
for masses in a specified Roman (\itli(»lic chui-cli Inr th*'
rei)Ose of the soul of the testator and the soul of his wife,
the court said that the belief in the ellicacy <»f prayers for
the dead is not oidy lawful but one <»l' the essential doc-
trines of a religion, (he advancement (tf which the law deems
to be charitable, and the becpiests were declared t<) be a valid
charity.
Superstitious Use. A devise for the purpose. anM»ng other
things, of estahlisliing a fuinl to be used liu- the jtei-petual
continuance of prayers for tlic soul of ilir icsiaior and llu'
souls of others, was held lo crcnie a su|K'rsi it jous nsi under
the act of 1 ICdw. (I, chap. 1 I. and was therefore invalid.
ITS Tin: ("i\ I L LAW AM» 'riii: (■iiri:(ii
At loriK'V ( !('ii('r;il \ i-'isiiiiioii^crs < \»iii|i;iiiy, l! I>c;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<i('s were held \«)i«l
hecaiise given for a superstitiojis use. Ihsith v Cliapniaii,
2 Drew, Ch. Re. (Eug.) 417.
Testatrix made becpiests to several ]uiests "that I may
have the benefit of their prayers and masses for the repose
of my soul and the soul of my deceased husband." These
legacies were held to be for a su]»erstitious use, an<l there-
for void. West v Sliutlleworth, '2 Myl. cV: K. (Kng.) 084.
Time Limit, Bequest. Testatrix bequeathed to her executor
the sum of |5,500, to be paid over by them as therein
directed ; .^500 each to the i)astors of certain Ronuin Catholic
churches therein named, in the city of Brooklyn, city of New
York, and village of Moutieello, in Sullivan County, N. Y.,
and 1-5 each to the pastors of certain other Koman Catholic
churches therein named, in the city of Brooklyn. The testa-
trix directed these i)ayments to be made for masses to be
said in each of said churches for the repose of her own soul,
and the souls of her mother, brother, and aunt. Testatrix
died within two months after making the will, leaving a
father. The bequest was sustained on the ground that the
sums payable to the pastors of the specified churches were
not bequests to corporations but were ''simply legacies to
the several persons who, when the will took effect, should be
exercising the i)astor's functions in the several designated
churches." N'anderveer v McKane, 1 1 X. Y. Supj). 808.
Testator bequeathed a fund to the i)astor or his successor,
to be used in saying masses for the repose of the soul of the
testator, his ])resent wife, and a deceased wife. This was
held to be a charitable ^ift, and the testator having died
within thirty days after the execution of the will, the gift
was held void, under the Pennsylvania statute of 1855.
O'Donnell's Estate, 200 Vi\. (r>.
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;<ii
Fourth. Tlie (Jciicnil Asst'iiil)Iy, r(nisisliiij; of (h'lcjiations
from the various j)i-('sl)\ (ciics.
It is not controverted that each of these; bodies altove the
session may, in the exercise of an ai)i)ellate or revisory
jurisdiction, review and affirm or reverse the jud'^Mnents
of the one next below it, and tliat, by a series of apjteals,
the decisions of a session may ultimately be carried be-
fore the General Assembly. ^\'atson v Avery, 2 Bush. (Ky.)
Description. The Presbyterians have a distinct directory
of church government and discipline set forth in the same
volume with their confession of faith, but separate and dis-
tinct from it. They usually worship by themselves, and
form a distinct society from the other sects. The Presby-
terians are as old as the Reformation. With the Lutherans
they separated from the Church of Rome, but they soon sep-
arated from each other. The Lutherans established the
Episcopal form of chiirch government. The discijiles of
Calvin established the Presbyterian, and it has existed ever
since on the continent. It was afterward established in
Scotland, and carried by the Scotch who immigrated in
great numbers to Ireland, and planted there. It was
brought both from Scotland and Ireland to this country,
and churches have been formed here on the model of the
church of Scotland, and professing to be governed by the
same directory. Each society or parish has its session ; a
number of parishes form a presbytery ; and larger divisions a
synod ; and the whole are united under a General Assembly.
Churches, or societies, are not independent of each other,
but connected and dependent. Muz/y v WilkiTis, Smith's
X. II. Rep. 1.
Government, Form of. The government of the Presbyterian
Church is republican in form, and the elders are simply the
representatives of the people, to be chosen by them in the
mode most approved, and in use in that congregation. Every
Presbyterian church is a law unto itself in the election of
elders and deacons, limited only to the qualilication of the
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 48:J
persons elected, who nmst hi* male ineinbei's in lull coin-
imiiiion. Dayton v ('art it, LMM; I'a. St. 1!>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 allowe<l
to settle a Presbyterian or a Congregational minister at
their election, but under a plan of government and discipline
adapted to the cii-cumstances. It was obviously a mission-
ary arrangement from the first, and they who built u]) pres-
byteries and synods on the basis of it had no reason to
expect that their structures would survive it, or that Con-
gregationalists might, by force of it, gain a foothold in the
Presbyterian Clnirch despite of Presbyterial discipline.
They embraced it with all its defeasible properties plainly
I)ut before them ; and the power which constituted it might
fairly repeal it, and dissolve the bodies that had grown out
of it, whenever the good of the churdi should seem to require
it. The General Assembly manifestly designed that local
societies so made uj) in i)art of Presbyterians and Congre-
gationalists shonld belong to some ]»resbytery as an inte-
grant i)art of it. And a delegate from such local church
to the Presbytery was given the same riglit to sit and act in
the ])resbytery as if he had been a ruling elder in the Presby-
terian Church. Commonwealth v Green. \ AVhart. (Pa.)
5:51.
Center College, Danville, Kentucky. The trustees of the col-
h'ge made a contract with the Kentucky Synod j)roviding
that whenever the synod should i)ay or cause to be paid to the
ISJ Tin: CIN'II. I-AW AXI» Tin: ("FIlHril
(•(tllofjc (nislccs (lie Slim of .S-!(»,(H)0 sucli sviiod sIkhiM have
the ri^'lil In clccl llic ciilirc hoard of Inislccs of llic collcjie,
therchy ])la(iiij; (he colh'^c iiii(h'i- (he siii»('T-vision of th(* Trcs-
byterian Clnirch. In conseqiuMue of diftereiices growing
out of tlio Civil War, the Kcnliicky Synod was divided in
ISGG, each body claiming (o be the true s^iiod, and each
claiming the right to elect the college trustees. The General
Assend)ly wliich met at Cincinnati in ISflT declared that the
sj'iiod wliich elected the appellants tr\istees was not the
lawful Synod of Kentucky', but that the other synod into
which the original synod had been divided was the true
synod. Therefore the ai»i)ellants were not the lawful trus-
tees of the college, and could not exercise any control over
its affairs. Kinkead v :M<Kee, Bush. (Ky.) 5^5.
Congregation, Authority. The authority and controlling
power of the congregation recognized in the book of govern-
ment are exemplified in the practice of these societies. The
congregation directs the trustees. The former act as the
substantial beneficial owners, the latter as the legal instru-
ments to execute their will. Worrell v First Tresby. Ch.
23 N. J. Kq. JM).
Consolidation. It was held in Stokes v Phelps Mission, 47
Hun (N. Y. ) 570, that a consolidation could not be had by
the Eighty-fourth St. Presbyterian Ch. and the Pheli)s Mis-
sion for the reason that the statute (L. 187(», Ch. 17tii so
far as it relates to consolidation, only authorizes the con-
solidation of two or more religious societies or corporations
belonging to the same church or denomination. The Phelps
Mission was undenominational.
Division of Society, Apportionment of Property. The society
was organized in 1833. In 1838, on the separation of the
I're.sbyterian Church into the New School and Old School,
the local society attached itself to the Old School and con-
tinued in this relation until 1865, when it attached itself to
the New School. A discontented minority, which preferred
the Old School, thereupon elected trustees and began pro-
ceedings to obtain possession of the church property. It
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 485
w;is licld that b^' the olianges in the rchitions of the hxal
society there was no abamlonnieiit of doctrine or faith which
the church was originally founded to support. The change
of relations of the local society was not a perversion of
church properly and the teaching of new doctrines.
The property cd' the churcii was accpiired partly under
the New School oi-gani/ation and partly under the Old
School. The court directed a division of the [uoperty among
the two parties according to the nund)er in each at the time
of the separation. Niccolls v Rugg, 47 111. 47.
Division, Powers of Presbytery. This society, composed of
about 800 members, was incorjiorated under the laws of Cali-
fornia. It owned real ])r()perty which was sold for about
$50,000. It was intended to use this fund for the purchase
of a site and the erection of a house of worship, but there
were dilferences of opinion as to the best location, a small
majority preferring one place and a large minority another.
The trustees representing the majority bought a jdece of
property, whereupon the minority petitioned the presbytery
for a division of the society, and also an ai»p()riit>uni('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 an<l
others who might join them, to be known as the Central
J'resbyterian Church, and the other to be composed of the
remaining members of the original society, and lo be known
as the Westminster Presbyterian Churcii. TIic laltcr society
was to retain the ivcords of the tirst clinifh. Tlic presby-
tery also creatcfl a commission to apporiion the iDrcgoing
fund between llie new societies, and liie fnnd was app(»r-
tioned acconling to mendtersliip. The Central Cluir«li ac-
cepted the action of the jiresbylcry and became fully organ-
ized as a Presbyterian cliurch. The \\'estminsler society
rejected the action of the i»resbytery, and the lirst church
refused to divide the fnnd willi llie new Cenlial Church.
An action was therenjion commenced on beiialf of the
Central Churcii against the tirst ciiurch to recover a portion
ISd Till'; ("l\l L LAW AM) 'I'lli; riUKCll
«»r tlic riiiiii (Iciivcd lixiii (lie sale ol llic {)ri;,Mii;il itidpcrly.
II \v;is held that tho first clnirch was iiiidor the jurisdiction
of the ])resl»ytcrv. which had 1h(! power to deal with this
society in all matters ecclesiastical, and it was nnder the
absolute dominion and control of the presbytery, and the
<lecisions an<l decrees of tlie j»i-esbytery were binding upon
the local society; that the ])r('sbylery had i)ower to dissolve
the society, and that the decree of dissolution was effective,
and binding on all judicial fi-ibunals. It was further held
that the nuMnbers of the Central Church organized on the
basis of the decree of dissolution of the first church, were
beneficiaries of the trust fund, and that their interest con-
tinued after the organization of the new society; that the
two branches into which the first church was divided became
its legal successors, and that the trust fund should be divided
according to the numerical strength of each of the new so-
cieties. Wheelock v First Presbyterian Ch., 119 Cal. 477.
Excommunication by General Assembly. Protesting against
the deliverances by the General Assembly during the Civil
War ou the subject of slavery and loyalty, a large minority
of the church iu different States issued a paper called the
"Declaration and Testimony.'' Displeased by this paper,
the General Assembly rendered au ex parte decree without
a form of trial, declariug in effect that the accused ministi'rs
slumld not be allowed to sit in any church judicatory higher
than the session, and that if they, or any of them, should
be enrolled as entitled to a seat by any presbytery, such pres-
bytery should, ipso facto, be dissolved, and the nuMubers ad-
hering to the General Assembly were thereby authorized and
directed to take charge of the Presbyteiial records, to retain
the name, and exercise all the authority and functions of the
original presbytery until the next nieeting of the General
Assembly. In Watson v Garvin, 54 Mo. '^:^'^, it was held that
the foregoing decree cut off persons included therein from
the higher judicatories of the church, but did not excom-
municate them, nor in any uiaTiner touch them as individual
nuMubers of the church or congregation.
I'KHSBYTIOKIAX ( III KCll 487
Free Portuguese Church. In IS.")! several persons resid-
ing in the Island of Madeira, constitnted a religions body
known as the Free Portuf^nese rimrcli, iinihM- the jurisdic
tion of the Free IM-eshyteriaii ("linrdi of Scot hind. Sn« li
persons, or at h'ast a pari ol' tlieni. in 1S.")|, received ilie
proi)er certilicale ol' disnnssal fr<tni tlie l"'ree Clmrcli I'resliy
tery of (Jhisjiow and came to this conntry. Tiieii- h-tter of
dismissal required that they shonhl nniic with and conic
under tlie jurisdi«tion of the I'reshyicrian Chuicli of liie
United Slates. 'JMiey went 1o Jacksonx iMe, Illinois. an<l there
assumed to be a rcliiii(Mis body nnder the name of the I'l-ee
Portuguese Church, ami determined to erect .i suitable build-
ing ill which to M'orshij). Not bein^ incorporated, the deed
of land was taken in the name (»f indi\idual members of the
church as trustees. The ])ro]>osed 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 a<lditional baptism
according to the Presbyterian ]u-actice. The Sangnmon
Presbytery, to whom the (piestion was submitted, decided
against the validity of the Koman Catholic baptism, but con-
sidered rebaptism unimportant and unnec«*ssary. A party,
led by the ]iastor who was opposed to rebaptism, held a
meeting, and by a narrow majority voted to with<lraw fi'om
the Sangamon Presbytery, .ind thereupon oi-gani/.ed a new
congregation, taking possession of the church iu-o|»erty.
The minority adhered to the pr«'sbytery, and lU'ocnred the
selection of another ]iastor. The minority commenced a
]>roceediug 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: <iii ijcii
('(•(U'siiisl icjil ri;;Iil of :i cliiiicli, or a portion ol' ;i cliuitli to
sever its connection willi the j)articulnr presbytery, witli or
without its consent, it «lo('S not follow that the majority in
so actin<2;, become entitled to the i)roiterty of the church to
the exclusion of the minority. Their rights still remain,
and should be adjusted on the principles of ecpiity. Neither
adh('riM<j; to the ])resbytery, nor withdrawinj^ from it, is an
illejjal act, and therefore did not affect the right to the
propert3\ The court directe<l that the church property be
sold, and the proceeds divided between the two factions,
according to their respective nundjers. Ferraria v Vascon-
celles. 2?> 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<lerate States. In
February, 1880, a corjioration was organized in Nortli
Carolina known as the trustees of tiie General Assendily of
the I*resbyterian Church in the United States. This society
was held to be the one intended by the testator in his will.
It was, therefore, entitled to take the legacy. Guthrie v
Guthrie, 10 S. 10. (Sup. Ct. Apj). \ix.) :V2~.
General Assembly. Described, Old School. This is the high-
est ecclesiastical tribunal in the Presbyterian Church, and
all organizations and members of the church act in subor-
dination to it. It possesses the unlimited control of super-
intending the concerns of the whole church, ajid of sup})ress-
ing schismatical contentions and disputations. It combines
within itself all the branches which constitute the elements
of a complete government, namely, executive, legislative,
and judicial. Sui»erintending the concerns of the church
and suppressing schism are certainly not judicial acts.
The General Assembly is the highest court or judicatory
known to the Presbyterian Church ; it possesses extensive
original and appellate jurisdiction, and no civil court can
revise, modify, or impair its action in a matter of purely
ecclesiastical concern. But in addition 1o this it has legis-
lative and executive capacity, and acts \jpon all subjects
coming before it, according as they belong to either or each
of those departments. It seems llial. in coiironiiity with the
theorj^ and doctrines of the church, it is tlic sinirtc and
fountain of power, and that its authoiity is iicillier dch*-
gated by nor derived from any linuian body. Slate of ,Mis-
souri ex rel Watson v Fai'ris ct al 4~i ^lo. IS!'.
General Assembly, Division, Effect on Legacy. The division
of the Presbyterian Clmrch in May, is:;s, into Obi School
and New School and the organization of a si-parate (icneral
Assembly' of each division did not atft'ct the status of the
legacy included in a will ni;itlc in No\ciiiIm r. 1S:{7, before the
division, but the bramli wliidi a\;is coiilinucd as a sue-
I'KI Tin: ("1\ IL LAW AM) Till: (III K<H
(•«'ss(»r (»r the foiiiicr siii;^l«' (iciicriil Assniildv \v;is Iicld to
be tbo ( i('ii('i;ii Assciiibly iiitiMulcd by Ibe tostiitor, who pro-
vided ill a contingeiicv that the lej^acy shoidd go to th«^
tnislces of the Oeneral Assembly. The New School General
Assembly could not lej^itimately claim the legacy. Trustees
V Shirgeon, !> 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 a<loi»tion of the federal con.stitution,
those American churches confederated under a national
head called the General Assembly, then organized by an
amended constitution for representing all the subordinate
councils and for acting as the ultimate council for revision
and advice in the ecclesiastical affairs of the aggregate<l
church; and that modified constitution, coevally and con-
currently with the political constitution of the United
States, denounced all connection between the ecclesiastical
and political governments. Gartin v Penick, 5 Bush.
(Ky.) 110.
General Assembly, Status. This is not a quasi corporation.
Such a coip(uation has capacity to sue and be sued as an
artificial ]>eison, 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 entirle<l to relief in the civil
courts, as in ordinary cases of injury resulting from the
violation of a contract, or the fundamental law of a \(»lnn-
tary association. "Watson v Avery, 2 Busli ( Ky. ) :\:V2.
Illinois Orphans' Home. Where a will created a ti-usi
for the ]»uri»ose of erecting and maintaining an orphans'
home "for the friendless poor of all denominations," and
provides that the Home shall be controlled "by the Presby-
terian Churches of Ceiitral Illinois," the ruling bodies of
these churches in the presbyteries shown to be situated near
the center of the State ha\-e jtower to control the Home, and
to select from the friendless ]»oor of all denominations those
who shall enjoy the testator's bounty. The trust was suil'i-
cieutly definite, and w'as capable of execution. Kemmerer
V Kemmerer, 2'V.\ Til. .">2T.
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 bo<ly, and the other is
provided for in the succession of the ministers, which the
presbytery alone are authoiized to ordain; that the lirst of
i!t*j 'nii; (INI I. LAW ANh 'rill'; rinKcir
fliese is ;iii iinporhml clciiiciil . iml llic l;ist is so ('ssciili:ii
lliat "williout it no J'l'OshyhMiaii cliuicli cjin )»<• s;ii(l to exist.
That all CM-clesiastical aiil lioriiies iijtoii I'rt'sbyttM-iaii
Church govcnmuMit concni- in declaring that several
churches must uuilc to loiin a i)resbytery, and that, there-
fore an ln(loi>en(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 or<linances whicli constitute tlic body
of ecclesiastical law which go^erus this denomination. Tlie
church session represents, and is chosen by and from the
local society, but it has uo authority to create and issue
rules of discipline or establish usages and customs in reli-
gious matters; in this respect it is wholly subordinate to the
presbytery, which body is vested with the functions "to
resolve questions of doctrine and discipline,'' "to ordain,
install, and remove and judge ministers" and. in general,
"to order whatever pertains to the spiritual welfare of the
churches under their care." Ishnm v Fullager, 14 Abb.
N. C. (N. Y.) 3(;:?.
Mercer Home for Disabled Clergymen of the Presbyterian
Faith. Testatrix gave land and money for the ])nrjK)sc of
establishing a home for <lisable<l clergymen of the Trt'sby-
terian faith, aud in the devise of the land ]>rohibited 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 ('linr<h. tin tall is made
by the con<i:rej;ation duly convened, and the anionnt ol coni-
l)ensation or salary is fixed by it, and inserted in the call.
But the pastoral relation can only be established with the
consent and nnder the authority and direction, of the jires-
bytery having' jurisdiction. The call made by the congrepi-
tion is submitted to the presbytery, and. if ajtiu-oved by that
body and accepted by the candidate, the ])astoral relation is
then formally constituted by installation by or nnder the
direction of the presbj'tery. West v First Presby. (Mi. of
St. I»anl, 41 Minn. 04.
In First I'resbyterian Church, Perry v Myers, 5 Okl. 809,
it was held that, according to the usage and foini of govern-
ment of the Presbyterian Church, a call made out by tlie
congregation duly convened, in which the amount of salary
is fixed and inserted in the call, does not become effective
under the rules and regulations of that church until such
call is placed in the haiuls of the minister to whom it is
addressed, and is deemed equivalent to a request of the con-
gregation and of the i)astor elected for installation as j)astor.
but the i)astoral relation can only be formally consummated
with the formal sanction of the presbytery, and the refusal
of the presbytery to jdace the call in the hands of the min-
ister, or to install him, puts an end to the civil contract.
The rides and regulations of the I*resbyterian Churcli
require that a "call" should be made out by a regularly
called meeting of the congregation, and when tlnis made out
it should be ])resented to the presbytery under whose care
the jterson called shall be, and if the ]U'esbyt(My think it
e.\]»edient to present the call to him, it may accordingly pre-
riiESBYTKKlAX ( UUKCH 495
sent it, and no iiiiiiistcM- (tr caiididiiti' sluiU icceivo a call Imt
through the hands of tlie presbytery. A ciill not dclivcrcil
to the pastor is not binding on the clnucli.
The mode of obtaining a j)astor is jtointcd out in the l.'.ili
chapter of tlie form of government. H the chnrch is satis-
fied with the ministration of any licentiate, they pre,sent
him with a call, in which they promise him, among other
things, "all proper supi)ort, enconragement, and obe<lience
in the l^ord." This, if he consent to acce[»t, is presented to
the i>resbytery 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 han<ls of the
presbytery; and if the presbytery approve it, his installation
follows upon his professing, among other things, his ajtpro-
bation of the form of government and discipline of the Pres-
byterian Church, and ])romising to subject himself to his
brethi-en in the Lord, and the organization of the clmrdi is
complete. Wilson v Pres. Ch. of John's Island, 2 Kich. \a[.
(S. C.) 11)2.
In Presbyterian societies the pastoral relation is estab-
lished and discontinued not by the trustees or by the chnrch
but by the congregation and the j)astor, under the sancti()n
of the presbytery. The call proceeds from the congrega-
tion, contains the agreement to pay the salary, and is snb
scribed by their elders and deacons, or by tlieir trustees, or
by a select committee, as the congregation shall ai)i»oint.
It is i)resented to the minister only thi'ongh the presl)yterv.
and will not be elfectuated witlntnl its ;,]»|»ruval. \\'on.'ll
V First i'res. Cli.. 2:'. X. J. Va\. !M;.
Minister, Presbytery's Power of Appointment. The pastor of
the church having died, the session appointed a successor
for six months. Before the expiration of that time the pres-
bytery, with which the local .society was connected, removed
the pastor so appointed, and another temporary pastor was
apj)ointed. A few days later the congregation held a regu-
lar meeting and voted to direct the session to employ for one
.1!m; Tin: cin ii. law and tiii: ciujrch
year IIh' lirsl IciiiporaiT jiaslor scIccIimI by il. Tlio iiilnislcr
so appointcMl took jjossessioii of llie pai'soiiag(? and o((ui»ic(l
the i)iil|)it about six inontbs, wbeii the pn^sbytery again
assumed control and assumed the right to till the pulpit.
The pi-esl)vtei-y furthei- assumed to discijdiiu' the members
of tlie session, ami susjuMided all of tliem except one. The
congregation ])rotested against tlie action of the i)resbyterj%
and voted to allow the first temjtorary minister to occupy
the parsoimge for a si)ecified time without charge, and to
pay his salary.
It was held that the presbytery had no jurisdiction to
assume control of the temporal affairs of the local society;
that the trustees were bound to obey the order of the congre-
gation relative to the occupancy' of the parsonage, and that
the minister who was placed in possession of the parsonage
by direction of the congregation was entitled to retain it
during the contract period. Only members of the congrega-
tion could nuiiutain an action against tlie trustees. Everett
V First Presbyterian Church, 5:j N. J. Eq. 500.
Missionary House of Rest. Testatrix made provision in her
will for the erection of a building to be used as a temporary
resting place for missionary workers to be called ''The
House of Rest.'' The property was to be transferred by the
executors to the Women's Occidental Board of ^Missions,
with the executive committee of the Women's Presbyterian
Mission Society of the Los Angeles Presbytery as trustees
and managers thereof. The gift was sustained to the extent
of one third of the estate, that being the amount available
for charitable purposes as limited by the statute. Re Pea-
body's Estate, 154 Cal. 17:{.
Missions. Testator, after various bequests and devises to
Presbyterian institutions for aiding the Presbyterian
Church, provided that the residue should be divided eqmilly
between the Board of Foreign and the Board of Home Mis-
sions, but did not specifically designate such boards as Pres-
byterian. It was held that the testator evidently intended
to make these boards in the Presbvterian Church the ob-
rKESBYTICKIAN ClIUKCH 497
jects of liis bouiily, and (licy weie lit'ld eiititlt'd to llic ley;-
acy. Gilmer v Stone, llM) I'. S. r).S(;.
A bequest in aid of niissioiiarie.s in India, to be expended
under tlie direction of the (Jenei-al Assenddy's Boa id of
Missions of tlie Presbyterian < liurch, was hebl voi*! for
uncertainty. The beneliciaries were not named and conbl
not be clearly ascertained. Board of Fon'i<^ii Missions of
the Presbyterian (Muirch v McMaster, I'Vd. Cases No. l."»s«i
(Cir. (^t. Md.).
Testator bequeathed the icsidne ol his esialc to home
missions, foreign missions, and the American llilde Society.
The missionary beijuesls were held to iiave been intended
for the Home and Foreij;ii Missions of the Southern I'resby-
terian (Miurch, e.Kce])ting- a specified sum which was to be
invested, and the interest paid on the salary of the pastor
of the Southern Presbyterian Church at Onterville, West
Virginia. All the bequests were held void for uncertainty.
Pack V Shanklin, 4:', W. Va. n04.
Testator bequeathed a fund to the Board of Trustees of
the Reformed I'resbyterian Church of Alleglieny, Pennsyl-
vania ; to the Board of Trustees of the United I'resbyteriau
Church of Pittsburgh, J'ennsylvania, ami to the Board of
Trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Stockton,
California, to be divided ecpujlly between them, shai-e and
share alike, and to be u.sed for missionary jtuiposes, the sann'
to be equally divided between foreign and domestic missions.
The be(piests were sustained, subject to the limitations
as to amount contained in section l.')P5 of the Civil Code of
California, which restricted becpiests to chaiitalth- institu-
tions in excess of one third of the estate. Kc Hewitt's
Estate, (U Cal. 'Mil
Old and New School; Division of 1838. in is.'.s occnrred ilie
well-known schism, by which the I'resbyterian Church was
divided into two schools, commonly known by the names of
the Old and New Sdiools. This was etl'ected by the seces-
sion of a minority from the (Jeuei-al Assendily of tiie rnil»'<l
States. The nnijority which remained, known as the Obi
IKS Tin; <'I\ I L LAW ANh 'I'lli: riHKCII
S(li(»(»l, w.is (I(mI;ii-c(| l»y tin- jinli(i;il ;i ill lioli t ics n\' 1 'ciili^yl-
v;iiii;i lo 1m' tlic true corporate (JeiiciMl Asscmldy. wliirh IkmI
Ix'cii before cic.ilcd ]>y 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. !:<i. ( S. (\) lf)2.
Old School Assembly, Claims Bequest. Tesljitor, who dietl
in IS(>;!, IkmiikmiIkmI sever;il portions of his resi<|ii;iiy esl:i<e
to the (Jeneral Assembly <»!' the rresbyteri;in ('hiir(h in the
Confederate States of America, or General Assembly nf ihe
Presbyterian Chnrch, South, explaining that he meant by
such General Assembly "the Old School I'resbyterian
Church in the South," and "should any part thereof reunite
with the Northern church, T mean the i)art which shall
remain as a sei)arate body in the South." The bequests were
claimed by the General Assembly of the I'resbyterian
Church in the United States, which was incorporated by the
Legislature of Tennessee in 18()2. This corporation was
held entitled to the foregoing bequests. Frierson v General
Assembly of Presbyterian Church, 7 Ileisk. (Tenn.) CS.'J.
Old School, General Assembly, Political Deliverances. From
the commencement of the late war of rebellion, and during
its i»revalence, the General Assembly (Old School) at its
annual meetings made deliverances on the subject of slav-
ery and loyalty, declaring the obligations of the churdi in
this regard. A large minority of the church in ditferent
States considered these deliverances of the Genei-al As-
senddy unconstitutional; that is to say, that the church, as
a church, according to its written Confession of Faith ami
Foi'ui of Government, had no authority to make <leliverances
on purely political and civil matters. This niinority i»ro-
tested against these deliverances, and issued a paper called
the "Declaration and Testimony." inveighing against the
conduct of the majority. This paper gave great offense to
the majority, and they took stej's for ]mnishing the otfenders.
which resulted in an ex parte decree rendered by the Gen-
PKESBYTKKIAN CHURCH 4iM)
eral Asscnihiy. willioiil llic Toiiii (tl liiiil. ilcclMi-iii^ in cllcct
tlial tlie jiccnscd iniiiistcrs should not he allowed to sit in
any <lnu(li jinlicatoi-y higher than the session, and that if
they, or any of tlieni. should be enrolled ns «'ntilled to a seat
by any j»resbylery, sn(h jtresbylery should. ij>so 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 an<l functions of the original |)resbytery
uutil the next meeting of the General Assend>ly. 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 <lirect vote of the congregation, com|)osed ♦)!' those who
are authorized by the laws of the church to particijjate in
such meetings. Myers v First Presbyterian Church, Perry,
5 Okl. SOI).
Organization and Form of Government. The I'rcsityicrian
Church consists of all those persons in every nation, logethei"
with their children, who make profession of the holy religi«»n
of Christ, and of submission to his laws. "A particular
church consists of a nund>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 <liscipline in con-
junction with the i)astors (tv ministers. The pastor and rul-
ing elders com])ose what is called tin- church session. This
session is charged with maintaining the spii-itual govern-
ment of the congregation, for which (hey have the pow ci" to
.-(M) Tiir: CI NIL \..\\y .\m> 'riii; ciiiimii
iiKluirc iiil«» tin* kiiowicdm' :iii<l ( Mii-isl i;iii coimIiicI of the
iiioinbcrs, to <"iill bcfoi-c tli«Mii (illfiidcrs, lu icccivc iimmiiIkts
into tlie cliurcli, to adiiioiiisli. lu iclmkc, lo siis|)<'ii(l or
exclude from the sacraments tliosc wIhi iuc loiind to deserve
censure. Tlie pastors and tlic elders, lln* lallci- representing
the congregation, are the ollicial <f(»v(M-iiin«; Itody of tlu? j)ar-
ticular church in the adtninislr;i(ion of its nllnirs. Dciidcr-
ick V Lnnipson, 11 Ileisk. (Tciin.i ."il'.'I.
Pastor, Terminating Relation. Alter some twenty-six years
of service as pastor nejjotiations were initiated to terminate
tlie pastoral relation resnltinj^ in an a<;reement between a
committee of the ]»'-e.sbytery and the committee of the elders
and trustees, which was ratitied by the congregation, by
which agreement the pastor was to resign and receive a
credit of .^2,000 on a bond and mortgage given by him to the
society growing out of a purchase by him of the parsonage
property. An action was commenced in the name of the
society to recover the amount due on tlie bond and mort-
gage, ignoring the alleged credit, whereupon the pastor insti-
tuted a proceeding to restrain a society from collecting the
bond and mortgage, for a judgment establishing the credit
of |2,000, and for the cancellatiou of the bond and mortgage.
The validity of the contract was sustained and the minister
was held entitled to the relief sought by him. Worrell v
First Presby. Ch., 23 N. J. Eq. 90.
Pennsylvania, English Congregation. Land was eonveyed
by .lolin IVnii, -Ir., and .iolni I'eini (ITS.")) to certain i)ersons
for and on behalf of a religious society known as the lOnglish
rresbyterian Congregation in trust for a site tor a liou.se of
worship and a burial place, for the use of such society, to be
under the control, management, and regulation of .such
society and its successors, and not for any other use or pur-
pose. The society was incorj)orated in ISl."). A division
having occurred in the society about 1S;58, a minority
brought an action to oust the majority from the manage-
ment and control of the property. It was held that when
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the
PKESBYTKKIAX CHURCH 501
United States wus divideil tlif po-siiiis roiniMtsin;; ilic ma-
jority of this cougregation did not forfeit their intei-ests in
the trust by refusing to acknowledge the authority of either
of the eonrticting jvidieatories. It was hehl that no partic-
ular Presbyterian connection was jirescribed by the louiid-
ers, or established by the charter of the society; and thai
if such connection had been jirescribed, there lias been no
adhevsiou by a connection essentially different, and iliat i In-
breaking up of the original Presbyterian confedcniiicMi lias
released this cougregation from the duly of adhering to any
particular i)art of it in exclusion of another. Therefore,
when the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Uhurch in
the United States was divided into two distinct fragments,
each declaring itself to be the true General Assend)ly, the
persons composing the majority of this congregation did
not forfeit their interest in the trust by refusing to acknowl-
edge the authority of either of the conflicting judicatories.
Presbyterian Uong. v Johnston, 1 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 0.
Political Deliverances, No Effect on Local Property. Tin-
society (at St. Charles, Mo.) was organized in 1818, and
afterward acquired ])roperty which was to be u.sed for reli-
gious purposes in connection with the Presbyterian Church.
The local society, after the division of the Presbyterian
Church in 1838 into Old School and New School, remaine<l
connected with the Old School Assend)ly. The society was
connected with the St. Louis Presbytery. The Gcnj-ral
Assembly' sought to dissolve that presbytery on account td"
its adhesion to the jjrotest made by the minority of the gen-
eral church against the ])olitical dcllNcranccs of tin- Gcnt'ial
Assembly during the Civil War. This suit in\(»l\('(l local
property, the plaintiiVs claiming siu-h only because of the
position assumed by the defendants in connection with sn<h
protest, which it was claimed had resulted in their excom-
munication. The court held that the action ol (he (it-neral
Assembly had no effect on the status of tlic local proitcrly
nor of the congregation, and consi-qui-nlly that the th-fend-
ants could not be excluded from the po.s.sessiou and control
.-.(I'j 'v\\\: <'i\ iL LAW AXh n'lii: (in i;rii
of ill)' loc.il clinrcli |»ro|»('it \ . \\';its<»ii v (Jwrviii, ."»! .M<».
Presbytery, Membership. A I'rcshytci-ljm coiijrrc^iiitioii
(I(M's nut sch'cl its (Iclcjfatcs lo llic Iii^'licst courts of tli<'
clinirli |»i<t vv n;i(;i. The pastor is not strictly the represeii-
tiilivc of his church, exc('i)t in so \'av as lie may jii<lge it
proper so to act, I'oi- he is not a prcsltyter by virtue of his
office as pastor of a particular cliar^c, l)ut hy virtue <»f his
ordination to the <;(»siiel ministry; he is as much entitled to
iiis seat in the presbytery without having a charge as when
he has one.
So the lay rei)resentative, who must he an elder, is selected
hy the session. But as this session, an inferior church judi-
catory, is composed of elders elected for life or during good
lichavior. it follows that the congregation has no voice in the
selection of such rei)resentative, and that he may or may
not, according to circumstances, represent the sentiment of
the church. Obviously, therefore, the congregation is power-
less and i)assive in the hands of its church courts and cannot
be justly charged with the acts of its delegates, in either the
jtresbytcry or synod, because in these bodies alone resides
the i)ower to call such representatives to an account for any
unlawful or contumacious acts, which they may commit in
their rejiresentative cai»acity. McA\iley's Appeal, 77 Pa. 307.
Presbytery of New York, Powers. The trustees of the l*res-
bytery of New York constitute an ecclesiastical governing
bo«ly having control over the several I'resbyterian churches
in the County of New York. As such it assumed to dissolve
the \Yestminster Prebysterian Church of AVest Twenty-
third Street. Its decree of dissolution could extend no
further than the ecclesiastical or spiritual side of the organ-
ization attempted to be dissolved, for the Religions Corpora-
tions Law confers no power ui>on such a governing body, or
anybody el.se, to dis.solve a religions corporation, considere<l
as a legal entity, in the County of New York.
The law of the state of New York ]>rescribing, 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 <leclaration of the General Assembly. Watson v Avery,
2 Bush. (Ky.) '^:i2.
Scotch Presbyterian Church. Property was conveyed to the
society by a deed which provided, among other things, that
the society should always be known as the Scotch Presby-
I'Ki:sbvti:kia-\ ciiLitcii 505
terian Cliurcli, that iustruineiita! iiiusu- should not be used
in its service, and that if the properly should be sold the
proceeds were to be devoted to the same religious purposes,
by the same organization and under like conditions. On the
sale of the property the Presbytery of Jersey City assumed
to direct the disposition of the proceeds, but instead of
establishing a new church with the same restrictions the
presbytery divided the proceeds between three other Pres-
byterian churches in Jersey City, in all of which instru-
mental music was used. In an action by the representatives
of the original grantor of the land against the presbytery to
prevent the consummation of its plan to divide the proceeds
of the sale among certain churches, the court of chancery
granted an injunction against the presbytery, but the judg-
ment was reversed on appeal. MacKenzie v Trustees of
Presbytery of Jersej^ Citj', 67 N. J. l^q. 052.
Scotland. "Before the Keformation the whole territory in
Scotland was divided into parishes; and since the firm estab-
lishment of the I'resbyterian Church as the established reli-
gion of Scotland a lot of land is set apart in each parish
for a church edifice, and probably for a manse or parsonage
house and other parish purposes, and this land is specially
and inalienably appropriated by law to the support of public
worship conformable to tlie faith, discipline, and practice
of the Presbyterian Church." The Presbyterian Church of
Scotland never did, as a hierarchy or ecclesiastical judica-
tory', take any jurisdiction of the I*resbyterian churches in
this country. The church in Scotland was divided into
parishes, having its Kirk session, a number of jKirishes to-
gether forming a i)resbytery, several presbyteries forming a
synod, and over the whole church is an Assembly formed by
delegates from all the synods. Attorncy-Cieneral v Pro]>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<ig;iting this plan.
r>(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<Ml I»y tlie i)rcsl)yteri«*s. 15y
o|)('ralioii <»r (lie abioj^alion of lliis Plan of TTnifni the Synod
of Wcslcin Kesrrve was declared to be no lonj^er a part of
the ]M'esl»y(erian Church, and it was also declared that the
Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, havinj; been forine<l
on the basis of tin' IMaii of Union, were out of ecclesiastical
connection witii I he IMesbyterian Church, an«l were not in
■form or in act an integral part of the chiiidi. The res<»lu-
tions of excision contained the (lualitication tlial ll was not
the intention of the General Assembly to attect in any way
the ministerial standing of any member of either of said
synods, nor to disturb the i)astoral relation in any church,
nor to interfere with the duties or relations of private
Christians in their respective congregations. Local churches
continuing to be strictly Presbyterian might, on applica-
tion, be admitted to presbyteries conveniently situated, and
in any of the exscinded synods presbyteries continuing to
be strictly Presbyterian were directly to apply to the next
General Assembly, which was authorized to make such
disposition of their cases as the Assembly might de-
termine.
Commissioners from the four exscinded synods presented
themselves for membershii) in the General Assend)ly of IS^iS
and demanded to be enrolled by the clerks. This demand was
refused. This xVssembly m('t in the Seventh I'resbyterian
Church at IMiiladelphia in May, 18:}8. By a law of the
church the moderator of the Assembh' of 1837 was author-
ized to ])reside at the opening of the next succeeding As-
sembly and until a successor was chosen. The moderator
of the Assembly of 1837 assumed the duties of that office at
the oi)ening of the Assend)ly in 1838. The clerks reported
the names of commissioners holding regular commissions,
and also reported the names of commissioners whose elec-
tions were claimed to be irregular on account of the relations
of their synods as a result of tlie action of the Assembly of
18:',7.
I'RESBYTERIAN CHURCH 507
The moderator announced that conunissioners whose
names had been enrolled would be considered members of
the Assembly, and that other persons claiminij seats should
then present their commissions for examination. Comnns-
sioners representing the presbyteries connected with the
exscinded synods then attempted to organize the General
Assembly by the election of a temporary moderator, ignoring
the moderator of 18.'{7, who was then presiding in the new
Assembly. The motion to elect another moderator was jmt
by the member who made it, from his place, the regular
moderator still retaining his seat, though not acting. The
motion for the election of a temporary moderator was de-
clared carried. Clerks were also elected, a motion for their
election being put by the newly elected temporary moder-
ator standing in the aisle. The persons sympathizing witli
this movement then elected a regular moderator. Tlie body
so assuming to be organized as a General Assembly then
withdrew to the First Presbyterian Church and held ses-
sions there. The General Assembly as organized by tlie
moderator of 1837 continued its sessions in tlie Seventh
Church.
The Assembly which adjourned to the First Church
elected trustees under the act of I'ennsylvania of 1790, incor-
porating the trustees of the Presbyterian Church. The
trustees there elected i)rocured a writ of quo warranio
against the trustees hobling office under an election by
former regular General Assend)lies.
In Commonwealth v Green, 4 ^^'hal•t. (Ta.i ~>:',\. 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(|neste<l to
resign by the presbytery having jurisdiction, bn( at the siig
508 Till'; ciN ih LAW A.\i» 'riii: <iii kcii
j^cslioii nl' llic |trcsl»\ Iciy he ((Hi t iiinol I') sctnc tlic chuicli
;i lew moil I lis longer ;is :i supply. TlM'i'ciipon lie was elected
as a staled supply lor two years. TIk; (piestion luivinj;
arisen as to (he lej^ality of the vote i)y wliicli tlie j»astor was
eiii])loyed, the matter was sulniiillcd lo llie presliytery, which
lield (hat some persons having lieen denied 1lie rif^ht to vote
at this election, the election was invalid, and the pres]>ytery
expresse<l the opinion that the fnrther emi)loyment of the
l)astor was nnwise and i-ecommended that another j)astor be
chosen.
The party sui)iK)rtin*j the pastor tiled a jnotest with the
jiresbytery and declared its intention to withdraw from ItH
connection with that body. The j)resl)ytery therenjion de-
i laicd that the j)astor's party had seceded, and that the
remaining mend)ers of the chnrcli constituted the local
society and were entitled to adnnnister its aflairs. Subse-
quently the jtastor's party held meetings, elected trustees,
and reemployed the pastor. But it was held that this action
was irregular and illegal, for the reason that this party had
withdrawn and seceded from the organization and could
not thereafter exercise powers of control over the property.
This action of the i)resbytery is binding on the civil courts.
Gaff v Greer, 88 Ind. 122.
The minority, consisting of a part of the ruling elders, the
minister, and others, seceded from the church. They were
held not entitled to any jiart of the church property. By
seceding they could not take with them any ]iart of the
property which belonged to the corporation or church. The
situation was not changed by the fact that the seceders were
numerically a majority of the corporation, nor that they
remain in possession. Ha\ing sei>arated 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 <lnr-
ing the vacancy of the [)astoi'ate and to deci<k> upon the
qualifications of any pastor who is called temporarily to
officiate in jniblic woisliip. It also has the right to <leter-
mine upon the character and quality- of all services held in
the church, as to whether they are, or are not, religious and
s|)iritual according to the tenets of the Presbyterian Clmrch.
The session has no power to enforce any of its judgments
510 Till'] ('l\IL LAW AM) THIO CHI I{<'I1
('xc('j>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 sprea<ling of
the gos])el of Jesus Christ here and elsewhere, and for the
support of ]»ious young men who may need assistance while
l»rejiaring for the gosi)el ministry', in such wajs as said
synod may consider will best advance the kingdom of
Christ"; and at the end of fifty years the devised real estate
was to be sold by the executors and the proceeds appro-
priated to the above purposes in such manner as the synod
or General Assembly might direct. The Secession Church
referred to was interchangeably called the Associate Church,
and the Associate I'resbj^terian Church. The synod was its
highest bod}-. It did not then have a General Assembly.
In 1782 a number of the membership of this church in this
country withdrew and entered into a union with some of
the reformed Presbyterians in the United States, which
were a part of another fraction of the said Established
Church, which during the Revolution of 1688 would not act
therewith, and were commonly known as Covenanters, and
afterward in 1710, as Kefornied l*resbyterians, under the
name of the Associate Reformed Church, with which those
who continued to adhere to the Associate or Seceder Church
and the Associate Reformed Church formed a union in 1858^
under the name of United Presbyterian Church. In 1853
the synod of the Associate Presbyterian Church was incor-
porated in l*ennsylvania. The above bequest was paid to
this synod until its incorporation, and afterward to its
treasurer until the commencement of this proceeding.
In October, 1858, after the above mentioned union, result-
ing in the formation of the United Presbyterian Church, cer-
tain ministers and elders met at Canonsburg, Pennsylvania,
l»KEic?BVTi:RlAN CHUKCH 513
and organized au Associate Synod of Noitli Aniei-icu. The
new organization elected trustees, and claimed that the be-
quest under the foregoing will should be paid to them. It
was held that the trust was properly payable to the original
society, namely, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian,
which had gone into the union, forming the United Presby-
terian Church, and that the new organization formed in
]858, had no interest in the trust. Ramsey Appeal, 88 Pa.
St. 00.
Synod, Powers. A Presbyterian synod has power to erect
a presbytery, but no power to dissolve one without its con-
sent. Neither has a synod power to appoint a commission
to receive the submission of a j)resbyter3-, which has been on
trial before the synod, to restore or dissolve the presbytery
as the commissioners may think proper. This is a delegation
»)f judicial itower, not warranted by anj' known rules of dis-
cijiline in the Associate Church. Smith v Nelson, 18 Vt. 511.
Trustees. The trustees obviously hold possession for the
use of the persons who by the constitution, usages, and laws
of the Presbj'terian body are entitled to that use. They are
liable to removal by the congregation for whom they hold
this trust, and others may be substituted in their i)laces.
They have no personal ownership or right beyond this, and
are subject in their official relations to tlio property to the
control of the session of the church, ^^'atson v Jones, 13
Wall. (U. S.) (ill).
Unconstitutional Deliverance on Political Questions. The
Presbyterian Cliuicli lias always been considcT'cd, an<l no
doubt is, one of the orthodox Protestant cliui-ches, and as
such forming a jtart of the s[»iritual kingdom of ChrisI >i]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 <tf
a republic or subjects of monarchy or empire their civil
allegiance was due to their respective governments. But the
kingdom of Christ is wholly independent of civil govern-
ments. As the Presbyterian Church is a part of this
r.i I tin: <"i\ii- law ani> tiii: cm kcii
s|iiritu.il kiii^<l<)iii, it liinl ii<» ii;;lil ;is siidi to iiilcircrc in
(•i\il iii;it (ci-s. Hnl (lie rr('shyt<M-i;iM Clinrcli ;ils<» li.is ;i
\v?-ill«'ii coiislihiticm wliicli llicii* ('(•(•leMiasli<:il jiiiliciiloii*--;
liiivc no aiitliorit.v to violate They are as imicii hoiiinl hv
llic provisions of lliis const ihitioii as tin; snprcnie law of
(he (lini'cli as llie Slale and fcdeial j^ovcninHMits an; l)y
their respective constitutions. The written constitution of
the Presbyterian Chui-ch contains this section : "IV. Synods
and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that
which is ecclesiastical, and are not to internie<ldle with civil
affairs which concern the coninionwealth, unless by way of
humble petition in cases extraordinary; or by way of advice
for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto require<l
by the civil magistrate." Church and state may cooperate
in the advancement of objects common to both, but each of
them must be careful to act within its own sphere, the one
never intermeddling with the affairs that properly belong to
the province of the other. It was held that the deliverances
of the General Assend)ly, Old School, during the Civil War,
on the subjects of slavery and loyalty were prohibited by its
constitution and were therefore nullities so far as ])roperty
rights were concei'ued. Watson v Garvin, 54 ^[o. ^53.
Westminster College. The synod of the Presbyterian
Church in Missouri was given the care and control of the
college and the a])pointment of the trustees. It was held
that the cori)oration established for purely academic pur-
poses, for education in literature, in the arts and sciences,
is in no sense a religions corporation, even though it be
given into the care and under the management of a religious
bodj". And an act creating such a corporation was not
obnoxious to the provision of the constitution of Missouri
that no religious corporation should ever be established in
the State. The property of the corporation was exemi)t
from taxation. State ex rel Morris v Board of Trustees of
Westminster College, 175 Mo. 52.
PRIMITIVE BAPTIST CHURCH
Described, 515.
Described. This church is an indepeudeut cougregatioiial
church. Discipline is administered by the body of the con-
gregation. It has no body of canon law ])re.scribing pro-
cedure in such cases. No written rules prescribe notice or
require a trial. A majority of those members voting when
the church sits in conference determines the result ui)on
any motion or resolution disciplining a member. Nance v
Bushby, 91 Tenn. 305.
516
PRIMITIVE METHODIST CHURCH
Organization and form of novcrnnient, 516.
Adherence lo fundamental principiles, 517.
Diversion of property, limited, 517.
Organization and Form of Government. In Cape v IMy-
nuMitli Congregational Church, 1:50 Wis. 174, the court said
the rdniitive Methodist Church belonged in the third class
of religious cori)orations described by Mr. Justice Miller
in Watson v Jones, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 079, namely, "Where
the religious corporation or ecclesiastical body holding the
property is but a subordinate member of some general
church organization in which there are superior ecclesias-
tical tribunals with a general and ultinuite power of con-
trol, more or less complete, in some supreme judicatory,
over the whole membership of that general organization."
The Primitive Methodist churches in several of the
Western States were consolidated into what was called a
General Conference, knowm as the Western Conference,
under the discipline of which there was primarily the society
or congregation as a unit, having ])Ower to own property,
and, by certain prescribed officers, to manage the ordinary
daily affairs. Next in ascendency a few neighboring soci-
eties were organized into a circuit or charge, often, though
perhaps not always, served by a single pastor or minister.
Local churches sometimes grouped in circuits were under
t"he general jurisdiction of Quarterly Conferences, C()mi)Osed
of pastors, officers, and representatives of the local societies.
Above this Conference there was an Annual Conference
composed of certain general officers, and also ministers in
full connection, and lay delegates for each one hundred
members of a local society. The Annual Conferences had
general supervision and jurisdiction of local societies.
510
PKIMITIVK Mi:Tli()l)l«T CHUKCH 517
Adherence to Fundamental Principles. Several pervious
associated themselves together for the worship of God and
to hear the truths of the gospel expounded, with the exclu-
sive reservation that they were to hear these tiuths ex-
pounded agreeably to the doctrines of their own sect. The
as.sociates also intended to purchase a lot and erecl a build-
ing thereon for worslii]), the expense of whicli was to be
provided by contributions. One of the deeds authorized the
grantor during his natural life to appoint a minister to
the church. In one of the deeds a clau.se was inserted ]M()-
viding that ministei-s appointed to the society should not
preach any other doctrine than that contained in the late
Rev. John Wesley's Notes upon the New Testament and four
volumes of his Sermons as essential to salvation. It ^^;ls
held that this provision of the deed was violated l)y thi'
appointment of an Episcopalian as minister. Cond>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 <lenominati(»n under the
name of the Plymouth Congregational Churdi. A contro-
versy arose between the two societies relating to tlie iliunli
property.
By a rule of the Primitive Methodist Church, all |)r(»p('rty
is held subject to the uses of each .society wlien not incon-
sistent with the dis(i]»Iine and usages of tlie Primitive
Methodist Church, and in case a local society should <-ease
to exist, or exist contrary to the usages and disciidine of
the Primitive Methodist Church, then its i»ro|)erty sho\d<l
pass to the Conference trustees, to be held for the benefit
of anj'' organized Primitive Methodist Society, in tlie j>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 <lii('(iioii ol" (lie AiiiiikiI < 'oiild'enco. 'I'liis \\;is
lu'ld lo rcsliici llic use of llic pi-upcrly in (picstioii to a
society siilijcct lo llic (liscipliiic :iii<l siippoi-t in;; the <loc-
li-ineol'tlic I'riiiiil ive Mcllioflist (Iciioiiiiiui t i(tii. Tlic I)o<l<4e-
ville society, with three others, const jIhIcmI ;i ciicnit. which
Wiis uiuler the ^enei'sil snpei-vision of ;i (^niirterly ('(»nfei--
ence of various represen In lives aini olticeis of the local
cluii-ches. The i-ei»n<liation by the I'riniitive Methodist So-
ciety of its sul)niission to the Annual Conference, ami set-
ting itself njt as the snprenie authority over its own affairs
and over its nienihei-s in matters religious and secular, was a
departure from the use ami i)urpose for which the ])artial
possession in tliis property was originally conferred on the
society, ami to which use such i>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 Le<iislature to a convey-
ance to a religious society, which sanction had not been
obtained, Dickerson v Kirk, 105 Md. 60S.
Wliere a religious society had had uninterrupted j)os.ses-
sion of land in conlioversy for thirty years or more, using
it as its own, it wonbl be jiresunied, in the al)sence of an
existing deed to the land, that ])laintilV's entry \vas under a
]Mircliase, an<l that its grantor ]ia<l a lawful right to convey.
Penny v Central Coal and Coke Company, 138 Fed. (Ark.i
709.
While a religions corporation cannot by mere rescdution
divest itself of the title to real estate, a seitaration of a
cliurch into two societies and the transfer l>y 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 K<ll
]>i()|i('rl_v (»((ii|»i<'<l l»y tlic iiillcr will ;il 1<msI I;i\ llir i'i»niul;i-
lion (»r ;i li^lil lu luhcrsc |Miss<'ssinii, :iii<l if tlic new scxicly
;irt<'rw;ir(l Imm-oiiics iinorpoiiitcd, this ii<lv<'rs(; possession
coiiliiiiM's ill IJM' coi-iKH-jilioii lliiis loriii('<l, ;iii(l Ili(> 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 ]>rocee<ls as
the statute requires. Bowen v Irish Presbyterian Congre-
gation, X. Y., « Bosw. (N. Y.) 245. See also Muck v Hitcli-
cock. 140 A. I). (X. Y.) 32o as to ]»reliminary contract of
I)urchase and its elfect.
Dedication. Diversion. A i)erson owning property in his
own right may dedicate such pro])erty, by way of trust, to
supi)ort and pi-opagate any detinite doctrines and princi])les,
])rovided it does not violate any law of morality and sulli-
ciently exi)resses in the instrument by which the dedication
is made the objeit of the trust. In such cases it is the duty
rR()IM:KTV T)!'::
of the courts to see that the j)ioi)eity so dedicated is not
diverted from the trust attaching to it, and so long as there
are persons in interest, standing in such a relation to the
property as that they have a riglit to direct its control, they
may prevent the diversion of the property to any use differ-
ent from that inten<k'd by the donor. If such trust is con-
veyed to a religious denomination or congregation, it is not
in the power of a majority of that denomination or congre-
gation, however large the majority may be, by reason of a
change of religious views, to carry the property thus dedi-
cated to the supi)ort of a new and different doctrine.
Where it is alleged, in a case properly pending, tliat j)rop-
erty thus dedicated is being diverted from the use intended
by the donor by teaching a doctrine different from that con-
temjdated at the time the donation was made, however deli-
cate and difficult it may be, it is the duty of the court to
inquire whether the party accused of violating the trust is
teaching a doctrine so far at variance with that intended
as to defeat the objects of the trust, and if tlie charge is
found true, to make such orders in tlie i)remises as will
secure a faithful execution of the trust confided. Land) v
Cain, 120 Ind. 4S(;.
Dedication. In Atkin.son v liell, IS Tex. 474. the court
sustained a parol (le<lication to an unincorporated Melliod
ist Society of land on which a church was afterwai'd erected
and occupie<l by the society many years.
Dedication to Religious Uses. That i)roperty may be dedi-
cated to i>ublic 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 <n-g;iiii/,;i( ion iiinst be used I'm-
r.L'i tin; ('I\il law and tiii: ciii kcii
llie plllpusc lo wliicli it is dcvdlcd, :iii<l w licic the (iiiilrol-
liiijj; aullioril y of llic (ir<;aniz;ili(tii iwlicllicr il h«' a majority
of the coil jfrejiii lion of tliosc clnii-clics Iiaviii;; a (•oii<;r('<;a-
tioiial form of jjovenimciit, or the lii^ilicst coml of a cliurch
in those churclies which liave <litfer(Mit tiiltniials, with
ai»i>('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 <li;irii('(| uilli :i IimisI to wpply it to
llic uses lor which it w;is iiccjiiii'cd, iind not to inconsistent
ones. Miiiicii v IOvanj^('lic;il (!retMl f'oiij^rcgation, Mil-
waukee, i:;--' Wis. (mO.
Tlie New York act of 1875, chai). 7JI, provides that the
Id-opertv and revenues of every corporation formed under
section three of the act of 18Ki, shall be applied by the trus-
tees for the benefit of such corpoi-ation accordinj; to the dis-
cipline, rules, and usajifes of the denomination to which the
church, the members of the corporation, belong, and for-
bids the diverting:; of the same to any other pur])ose. These
provisions distinctly recognize the denominational char-
acter of the corporations referrefl to, and the existence of
a church as an organized body, to which any such corpora-
tion may belong, to whose uses its temjtoralities may be
devoted, and for any diversion or attempted diversion for
which from such uses an ample remedy is given in a coui-t
of equity. A remedy under this statute may be invoked by
any member of the corporation and against the trustees of
the corporation. The act of 1S7.~) applies to section six as
well as under section three of the act of ISlo. First He-
formed Presbyterian Church v Bowden, 14 Abb. N. C.
(N. Y.) 85<;.
"Where a church is endowed with i)roi>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 <livision resulted in the
exclusion of tliis ])astor and some members from the society.
Thereafter each party, namel.y, those who had joined in the
exclusion, and tho.se wlio were excluded, claimed tl-.e ]»os-
sessioii of the iu-oi)erty, and the riglit to control it. The
party which expelled the defendants kept possession of the
property, and refused to allow its use by the excluded p"r-
sons, and for this purpose kept the building locked. Mem-
bers of the excluded party obtained entrance through a
window, and, opening the door, jtermitted other members
of that part}^ to enter, and religious services were held
therein. The party which had exercised the power of expul-
sion was entitled to the possession of the property, and the
persons excluded had no right In' mere acts of trespass to
obtain possession of the property and assume to manage and
control it. The majority party were re])resented by deacons
who were the trustees of this society, and had charge of its
ju'opei'ty and records. Fulbright v Higgenbotliam, 133 Mo.
()(;8.
A division occurring among the members of the church, it
was lield that the faction which adhered to the general faith
and doctrine of the denomination was entitled to continue
in possession and control of the church property. Smith et
al V Pedigo et al 145 Ind. 392.
Execution. A church and the lot upon which it is erected
are private proj)erty, and subject to levy and sale in the
PROPERTY 529
same manner as otliei- private piopeity. Presbyterian Con-
gregation, I*]rie V Colt's executors, 2 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 75.
Gospel and School Lots. In New llanii)sliire lots reserved
for the snpitoit of the ministry and for scliools were, except
as to a lot set apart for the tirst minister, deemed the prop-
erty of the town, and when sncli lots were sold the proceeds
belonged to the town and not to its inhabitants. It was,
therefore, hehl that a religions society organized after the
resei-vation of tlie lots conld not legally claim a division of
the proceeds derived from llie sale of land reserved for the
.supi)ort of the iiiinislry, or any ]>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 <lischarge of theii* diities, snb-
ject to the control of an ecclesiastical judicatory. The
pro])erty b(dougs to the society or congregation so long as
the cor]»oration exists, and when it ceases to exist the projt-
erty belongs to the donors or their heirs — and this conclu-
sively distinguishes this pro|)erty from |>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; <iii i:( II
ii;il ioimlit y lire <'iilitl('(| to siicii use dT llic rliiinli |iin|MM'ty
williniil ;i|i|ili(;il i(ni to tiic <((r|i(ir;i Ic lioiinl (if tnislceH by
any (H"<;;iiiiz('(l |K)rli(iii of (Ih* corpoinlc slo( klioldfi-s or iiiem-
bors. l'('l«'i'son v Clii-isliniison, IS S. I). 470.
A <1c'(m1 w:is iikkIc to tiiistecs "for (he use of the I'resby-
tci'ijin iunl LntluM-iiii (•oii<:;i-('^ii(ions respect ively, as at ]»res-
eiit oi-<^ani/.(Ml, etc., but if eillicr coiij^i-ejiatioii deem it con-
(liicivi^ to their interests, the jiroperty be e(|nital)ly divichMl
by a eoniiiiittee of itnpai-tial persons sehn-ted by both con-
gregations." One congi-egation, having taken exclusive pos-
session of the property, hehl that it was a dispute and divi-
sion between members of an unincorporated society in rela-
tion to tlieir T'ights and i)i-ivileges, and not merely as tenents
in common of real estate, and equity had jurisdiction to
restore those excluded to their riglits. Kisor Appeal, (il*
Pa. 428.
Land was conveyed to the trustees of the Missionary Baj)-
tist Society witli a ])roviso that the land was to be used for
church purposes, but was to be controlled by the trustees of
the Baptist Society to be used by such Baptist Society or
by any other Protestant denomination to preach in w'hen
not used by said missionary Baptist ; to be used for moral
lectures when not used for religious work. Sunday school
was to be conducted before or after preaching. This lan-
guage was construed to give to the Baptist Church the first
right to use the property for all religious purposes, but that
when it was not being so used by the Baptists, and was idle,
it could be used lor any religious rite by any other Protes-
tant denomination. It appeared that the house of worship
was erected from contiibutions made by members of several
denominations and by persons not connected with any
denomination. Sharjj v Benton, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 876, hold-
ing that the Christian Church was entitled to use the house
for its regular service, when the house was not otherwise
occupied.
Land was conveyed for church purposes on the exi)ress
condition that the church to be situated on the land was to
PROPERTY 531
be open at all times, when not nsed by the Baptist de-
nomination, to all evangelical orders of Christians. The
snbscription list npon which was raised the money to erect
the bnilding, provided that "said house when completed
should be free for the use of all evangelical orders of Chris-
tians when not used by the Baptists." After several years
of such general use the Baptists sought to prevent the use
of the building by another order. It was held that the
Baptists had the i)reference, but that when the building
was not in use by them it might be used by other evangel-
ical denominations, and an i)ijunction was granted restrain-
ing the Bai)tists from interfering with the use of the build-
ing by the Methodists and evangelical order claiming the
right to use the building when it was not in use by the
Baptists. Tomlin v Blunt, 'M 111. App. 2:^4.
Lay Control, Pennsylvania Rule. The Pennsylvania act of
April 20, 1855, required that "all property which the cor-
poration shall in any way acquire shall be taken, held, and
enure, subject to the control and disposition of the lay
members of the society, or of such officers thereof as shall
be com))Osed of a majority of lay mend)ers, citizens of l*enn-
sylvania, having a controlling })ower;" and this provision
was to be included in the charter. In Alexander Presby-
terian Church, Philadelphia, oO Pa. St. 154, the proposed
charter was rejected because it did not contain this provi-
sion. See also Re St. Paul's Church, 30 Pa. St. 152.
By the Pennsylvania act of 1855 all chnrch cliailers were
recpiired to contain a clanse snbjectiiig all (he clmrcli prop-
erty to the control of the lay niciubers of the ((trjxtralion or
church, thi'ongh constituted oliicers, a )iiajorily of whom
shall be citizens of Pennsylvania. Cushman v Church of
Good Shepherd, 188 Pa. St. 438.
Limitation of Amount, Right to Excess. In Hanson v Little
Sisters of the Pool-, Til Md. i:!l. it was held tli:it the (piestion
as to the capacity of the society to take property in excess
of the amount |»rescribed by its charter could not be raise<l
collaterally, nor in a [»roceediug i'ov the construction of a
5:{2 Tin: cin il i>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 <hurch, which had been excluded there-
i'l'oni, to j)r('\<'iit the occui)ancy of the church by the minority
and any interference with the occupancy and t-njoyment of
the church by the majority. The majority was entitled to
hold and use the property.
The society in 1827 received a conveyance of land in
trust for the use of the society and occupied the house of
worship erected on such land. In l&ll certain members of
the society were expelled by the majority. The expelled
members and other persons organized a new society. After-
ward this new society took possession of the original house
of worship and used it in defiance of the majority. The
nuijority party souglit an injunction restraining the mi-
nority from attemi)ting to use and control the church, and
it was held that the expelled members had no right to the
property. Shannon v Frost, 42 Ky. 253.
Where proi)erty is held by such voluntaiy religious asso-
ciations or cor])()rations, absolutely and without any limi-
tation, a majt)rity may dispose of, retain, or occupy and
manage it as they please, admitting the minority to the
same benefits as themselves. McBride v Porter, 17 la. 204.
When two factions in the same congregation disagree as
to which is entitled to the control of the church property,
and both sides profess adherence to the same faith and prac-
tice, the right must depend ujton the will of the majority,
unless there be shown some law, regulation, rule, or practice
of the church determining otherwise. Nance v Bushby. 91
Tenn. 303.
I PROPERTY 533
Member's Right, ^^'lu'^<' ;i (oiivcyiuiie of a lot of grouinl
is made to certain iiMlividiial iiicmbers of a religious body,
who have no coiporate existence, in trust, to them and
their successors in oitice, for church pur^toses, all the mem-
bers of the body become bene^ciaries in such property in an
equal degree, notwillistanding some of them may have con-
tributed a larger sum thau others toward the conmion enter-
prise. Ferraria v Vascon cellos, 23 111. 456, 31 111. 1.
Wheu mendiersliip ceases the beueficial interest in the
property terminates. It is only as a constituent element of
the aggregated body or church that any persou could acquire
or hold as a beneficiary any interest in 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<l in the oi-iirinal trustees. The fact
r.:;i tim: <'i\ i l law and 'imii; riii i;rii
lliiil tlic .McllMxIisI i;pisc(»|.,il ("liiircli (>[ tlic Ciiitcd States
\v;is (Ii\i<lc<l ill ISI I. ;iii)l tli.il ;i jciit of il \v;is erected into
a (leiioiiiiiialioM known as llie Melluxlist lOjiiscopal rimrcli,
Sonlli. \\Iiicli inclnded i\w, property in (piestion, did not
allec't tlie title of the trnstees. Malone et al Tnistet'H v La-
(Toix, 111 Ala. (US.
Minority's Right, in St. Andrews Cli. v Sclian<;linessy, fi.'i
Nelt. 71)1', it was held tliat niider the Nehi-aska lUdifjioii.s
Coi-poi-ation act a minority of tlie inenil)ers could not law-
fully retain jjossession of the cori)oration ]»roperty, as
ap;ainst the corporation its<df, for the pui pose of conipellinj^
the coi'poration to recoj;iii/e their ii<;hts as nieinbers.
Mob, Destruction by, Action for Damages. I*ro[»erty of the
societ}^ consisting of buildings and personal estate, was
destroyed by a mob in May, 1844. In an action against the
county to recover the value of the i)roperty, it was held that
proof of the value of each item of property was not neces-
sary, but a general estimate might be submitted to the jury,
and that the society was entitled to recover the fair value of
the property destroyed. Brothers of the Order of Hermits
of St. Augustine v Phihidelphia County, 4 Clark (Pa.) 124;
Brightly N. P. 11(>.
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<tn
Beth Klohim v Central Presbyterian Cliuich. 10 Abb. Pr.
N. S. (N. Y.) 484.
In Wheaton v (iates, IS N. Y. :)U7}, an oi-der of the ccuinty
court directing the tiiistees to distribute the procee<ls of
r);is 'riii; cisii. law am> '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. ]\Ia<lison Ave. Bapt. Ch. v Oliver St.
Bapt. C^li. 7;{ X. Y. 82. See also 40 N. Y. 131.
On an application for the sale of chnrrh property it was
held that a ]>reliminary aj^i-eement with a i»rospective ])nr-
chaser need not have been ma<le, nor need a new site have
been definitely determined. The conrt might make a condi-
tional order for a sale, snbject to its ap]>roval. 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 <letermining whether such ]»recedent
permission of the ])resbytery could be recpiired under the
act of 1875, chai>. 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<jcee(ls
to I)c invested in other ])ropei'ly to be used for the same i)ur-
|K)se by the local society. Be Sellers Cliaj)el Metli. Church,
i:;!> 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; <iii i:(II
;is ;i iM'ccssjiry (•<»iis<'(|iiciic(', (Iccidcs llic (•(■clcsiiist ical irl.i-
tioiis :iim1 coimccl ions of llic socictv ;iii(l tin* cliiiriKlcc oT
IIh* i-('liji;i<)us views, opinions, iind doctrines incnicwfcd Irom
its pulpit. The dccfl did not (!<•( hire the ecclesiaKt it;il con-
iiection of the society ;it tlie time of its date, or uj)on its
face seek professedly to jn'ijietuate its connection with any
ecclesiastical judicatory. The ;iction of the society and its
minister in obtaining- conn<Mtion witli lh«- Kocliester City
Presbytery of tlie Ohl Scliool I'resbyterian Chui-ch in the
United States, and thus, in elfect, severing its relations witli
the United Presbyterian (Mnirch, was not any abuse of tiu;
trust, nor did it involve any special departure in things
fundamental in respect to the spiritual concerns and wor-
shij> 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 <tf the trustees aj»p<>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
<i;r(iiiii(l :iii<l lmil(linj<; hcloii^inj^ lo Hk; clinrcli; ami if the
Inislccs close I he (loor of the cliuicli against tlje minister
and congiejijaf ion, arul lliey bi'eak and enter the clnirch by
force, an indidnicnl, a I I he instance of the trustees, will lie
afjainst (hem, lor such foi-cible entry. The Peo])1e v Runkle,
!) .lohns. fX. Y. ) 1 IT.
Unconditional Gift. A person who gives property to a
local religions society witliont attaching any conditions to
the gift must be jiresnnuMl to have mad(? it in contempla-
tion of the law of the church by which, u])on abandonment
or dissolution of the local society, its property would [»ass
to the governing body of the denomination. Heisler v ^leth-
odist Protestant Church of Mapleton, 147 N. W. (Iowa)
750.
Unincorporated Society. Where property is conveyed to
an unincorporated religious society and the society after-
ward becomes incorjjorated, the corporation becomes the
owner of the projterty so conveyed. Baptist Church, Hart-
ford V Witherell, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 29G.
Where a grant is made to individuals for the use of a
church which at the tiuie of the grant is not incorporated
as such the persons to whom the grant is made stand seized
to the use; and when the church afterward acquired a legal
capacity to take and hold real estate the statute executes
the possession to the use, and the estate vests. Reformed
Protestmit Dutch Ch. v Veeder, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 497.
Vestry Room. The aj)])ropriation of a part of the conse-
crated ground of a church was authorized for a vestry room
in (\\mi)bell v Paddington, 24 Eng. Law & Eq. Pep. 597.
PROTESTANT
Augsburg Confession, 545.
Congregation, 546.
Fink's Asylum, 546.
Heidelberg Catechism, 546.
Vital principle, 547.
Augsburg Confession. In consequence of the i>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(li<e. In this llicy all agree<l,
though they ditlered widely in many of their views of doc-
trine and of church ]>olity.
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<ii
(»r twciity-oiK^ articles, which cinhraccd (iicir views of (Miris-
liai) doctrines jih taught in tho Bible; while the Hecond part
consiste<l of seven articles, consisting of points of ditfer-
ence between themselves and tiie Honian Catholics. A man
cannot be a Protestant without lirKt being a ChrlHtian. Hale
V Everett, r,:>, 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<an
bislioj) of tills (h'noiiiiiiatioii. Bartlett v Hijikins, 7(» Mtl. ">.
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, <li;i|(. Jlil), ])i-(>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 a<j;ain in 1S88. These statutes
resulted in the creation of a corporation known as "The
Trustees for the Management and Care of the Fund for the
sup])ort of the Bisho]) under the Directions of the Conven-
tion of the Church of the Diocese." The testatrix, by a will
made in 1895, devised a stone house owned and occupied l)y
her in New Hartford to the "Corj)oration of the Diocese of
Central New York," to be used as the bishop's residenc<* of
said diocese. In Kingsbury v Brandegee. 113 Api». Div.
(N. Y.) ()0(J, the devise was sustained on the ground that the
testatrix intended to give the property to the trustees of
the Diocese of Central New l^ork, the later corporation as
above indicated.
Curate. Tlie curate is ex officio a member of the board of
wardens, having one vote lilce any other member. Wardens
of the Church of St. Louis v Blanc, 8 Rob. (La.) 52.
Described. The I'rotestaut Episco})al Church in United
States is an organized body of Christian people, and in its
ecclesiastical organization it has a constitution, canons,
rules, and regulations for its government. It is divide<l
into dioceses, each designated by an api)ropriate name, and
having greater or less territorial extent. East Carolina
Diocese v Trustees North Carolina Diocese, 102 N. Car. 442.
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society. Testatrix, a resi-
dent of Maryland, made a gift to this society, with a request
that the fund be used for domestic missions. The mission-
ary society was incorporated in New York for the purpose
PROTESTANT i:i'IS('( )1'AL ('11IK<1I "A
of couducliiij; general iiiissioiiary opt'ialioiis in all lauds,
and had power to take gifts aud bequests lor liu' ohji'cts
above stated. Its work was divi<lo(l into two classes —
domestic and foreign missions. Bequests for domestic mis-
sions are used for that purpose only ; bequests without speri-
tication are divided e(iually between the two, d(»iii(*siic and
foreign. The bequest was Iield valid. Domestic and l\>rciun
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 ])resi<ling and returning ollicer, and his
certificate of election is j)resumi)tive evidence that the ])er-
sons named therein were duly elected; and if the certificate
is attacked, it must be shown that the certificate was erro-
neous and that persons other than those mentioned in llu-
certificate were elected. People v La Coste, 37 N. Y. 1!>2.
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 depen<l oti (he re.i;u-
larity of the election of the vestry. The (u-dei- ot the vestry
that the minister be inducted into (he ]>arisli 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 compose<l of the clergy and the
laity. The snj)reme govei'uing body is (lie (Jeneial <'on-
ven(ion, comjiosed of represen(a(ives of both < lei-^y Mn<l
:>r,'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<t lln- ;illiiii-s of
tlic cliniili ;iinl i(s iiiciiibers, as jirescrilMMl in tlic (•<(iistitu-
li<Mi (licicor; I lie Icgislalivo will of tlic convJMilioii is cx-
])i-('sse(l ill the form of canons of tlic clinrc-li, clian^jt^'able
fi-om time to time, as the General ('oiiNcniion may dcter-
mine. The clnirch is divided into dioceses, tlie <i;ovenrni<;
body of eacli of wliicli is a diocesan convenlion, presidcil over
by a ))islio]» of the diocese, who is, besides being jiresidciit of
the convention, clothed witli certain other ])Owers as the
head of the diocese. Satterlee v U. S., IM) Apj). 1). (\ :\U:',.
Government Ownership Disapproved. The cliuich Ix'tian
|»roceedin<»s for the sale of a large tract of land owned by it.
Snch sale was resisted by the overseers of tlie ])Oor, who
claimed the right to the property under an early Virginia
statute. The court ordered a sale of the itropei-ty, holding,
among other things, that the corporation had the title, and
the land was not subject to anj^ claim by the overseers of the
jx.or. Terrctt v Taylor, Cranch (U. S.) 43.
Griswold College. About ISOi; the bishop of tlie Iowa
Diocese formed a ]dan of erecting, on land belonging to
Griswold College ])ro])erty, a church edifue to be called the
"■Bishoi)'s Church." The college ant hoii ties transfi'i-red the
title to land for the ])urpose of the new church, on condition
that the i)roperty should be held by the bisho]i and his suc-
cessors in trust for the j)urpose aforesaid. The erection of
the church edifice was begun by the bishop, and was carried
forward as rapidly as funds would permit. The bishojt had
charge of the enterprise, and collected nearly, if not all, the
funds. Subscriptions being inadequate, the bishop bor-
rowed money on his individual credit for the juirpose of
carrying on the enterprise. The total expenditure was
about 170.000, and the amount received by the bishop was
$00,000. He advanced, or used -<^10,000 from his own funds.
About the time the church edifice was completed and con-
secrated the bishop died. His administrator brought an
action to recover the >?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(*<l f(ir
llic |iiii|)(»s(' <»!' (Mcrtiii^ :iii ll|HS(()|>;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 indicate<l, and would receive no patron a jj;('. Testatrix
had Ji right to <levote her |)r(»perty to this ]>urj»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 rejecte<l
because it contained a provision prohibiting the disi)osition
of its j)roperty without the consent of the Convention. The
clerical members of the Convention could jjrevent the alien-
ation of pro])erty, and the charier was, therefore, held re-
j)ugnant to the provisions of Ihe Pennsylvania act of April
20, 1855, which veste<l the control of projierty in the lay
members of the local society. Ke St. Paul's Church. Chest
nut Hill, :U) Pa. St. 152.
Philadelphia Episcopal Academy. This inslitnti(Mi, incoi-
porated by a sj>ecial 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': <i\il law and 'iiii; <n( i:( ii
r.iilli. Tilt- iiisl il III ion \\:is lirld In Itc :i |)iilili(- (-li:irity, :iim]
I IkmcIoic cxciiiiil hoiii l;i\;ilioii. Ilpiscopiil A<"i<l('niy v
I'liil;i(lcl|ilii;i, ir.O l';i. ,",(;:».
Philadelphia Orphan Asylum. 'rrsl;il rix pidN idrd lur- tlie
csliildisliiiit'iil (»r iiii ;is_\liiiii lor llic iii;i iiitciiaiicc iiiid cdii-
calioii ol' white rciniilc oi|»h;iiis hctwetMi tiic ;i<:;<'s of four and
eight years, who should cither liave been I>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 <lisinisse<l oi- removed without his owu consent,
except by the bishop of the diocese. The rector did not re-
sign. He was hold to have been regularly employed, and
the preliminary injunction restraining him from further
performance of the duties of rector was held to have been
improperly granted. Youngs v Ransom, IM Barb. (N. Y.) 40.
Rector, Cannot Be Excluded from Property. The rector is a
member of the vestry and by the law of the State, as well as
tlie law of the clinrch, is entitled to the possession and con-
trol of the church ])roperty according to the rules of the
church for the purposes prescril)ed by the law of the church
and to be used according to its rules and discipline. The
vestry cannot remove him from office. Ackley v Irwin, 71
Misc. (N. Y.) 2.']9.
Rector, Title of Local Society. The parish, or congregation
was incorporated in 1S55, under the laws of Illinois, and tlie
trustees were aj)pointe(l. A contract had already been made
for the j)nrchase of a lot on which to erect a house of wor-
ship and parsonage. This jiroperty was conveyed to the
trustees of Christ Church in 1S()2. The deed contained no
declaration of trust. The majority of the congregation NNcre
classed as Low Church, and the bishop of tlie diocese be-
longed to the school known as High Church. In view of
these dilferences, the local society desire<l to hold the projt-
erty strictly for the use and benefit of the parish or con-
gregation, free from the interference and control of the
bishop, and the incorporation of the parish or congregation
and the ai^pointment of trustees, and the conveyance to tlicm
so far as any ])articular ])urpose or object was shown to
have been thereby intended, were to attain tliis end. An
injunction was sought for the purpose of preventing the
rector from occupying the i)arsonage, from using the house
of worship, and fi'om paying liim for services as rector from
the funds of the church.
It was held that if ]>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'; <iiii;("ii
to (illiciulc :is rcclui-. It \\;is jillcjicfl tlinl tlic rcciov liiid
l)(»(*ii (1(»|k)S(m1 from (he iiiinishv of llic Prolcslaiit Ej)lHc<jpal
(^liurch by the i»rofK'r clmicli jn<li<;iloi-v. hccnnse of iion-
I'onfonnlly with eert;iiii of its Iciu'ts. XolwillistJUMliiij^
tills alleged deposition, the rector was coiitiimed by the
oflicers of the society, who were sustained by nearly all of
the congi'egation. It was held that in the absence of any
trust in the conveyance of ]»roj)e!ty to the society, the trus-
tees did not hold it for any church in general, nor for the
benefit of any j)eculiar doctrines or tenets of faith and prac-
tice in religious matters, but solely for the society or con-
gregation whose officers they were, and they were not, in the
discharge of their duties, subject to the control of any eccle-
siastical judicatory. "Christ Church was organized as a
parish of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and it is liable
to the Discipline of that church. But that does not affect
property' rights acquired and held for the use of the parish
or congregation as a cori)orate body, as distinct from the
Protestant Episcopal Church in general. This property
and its use belong to the i)arish or congregation, and there is
no sufficient reason for taking it from them and giving it to
the church at large for the benefit of others." The injunc-
tion was denied. Calkins v Cheney, 02 111. 4^Ct'A.
Rector, Casting Vote. By the charter of this society
(Church of the lOvangelist) the vestry was composed of the
rector and twelve vestrymen. A vacancy having occurred, a
meeting was held, attended by the rector and eleven vestry-
men. Six of the vestrymen voted for one candidate, and the
other five, with the rector, voted for another candidate. The
rector then voted to dissolve the tie, thus voting twice. It
was held that he had a riglit to vote once, but could not
again vote to dissolve a tie, and therefore that the vestry-
man claiming to have been elected by the rector's two votes
was not legally chosen. Neilson's Ajjpeal. 105 Pa. 180; see
as to New York rule, subtitle below. Vestry, casting vote.
Rector, Charges Against. A rector was charged with nou-
confoniiitv to the doctrines of the church, intentional omis-
I'KOTKSTANT KI'lSiMH'AL CHURC^H 559
sious ill tlie iiiiiii.slralioii ol' its ordinances, and an allcmpt
was made to organize a conrt, composed of his brother
clerjiymen, for liis trial. Jle ai»j)eali'd lo the civil court,
and alleged, as the chief reason for interposition, the want
of authority in the spiritual court to try him, and the mis-
construction of the canons. The ecclesiastical conrt deter-
mined that it had jurisdiction. The civil court declined to
restrain the ecclesiastical court from continuing the trial of
the rector. Chase v dieiiey, 5S 111. 50!).
Kector, Changing Diocese, Effect. The society made a con-
tract with Mr. Brock way b}' which he was to become the
rector of the church at a stijnilated salary. This church
was in the Central ]S'ew York Diocese, and Mr. Brockway
was a minister in the Western New York Diocese. By the
law of the denomination a minister moving from one dio-
cese to another could not gain a canonical residence in the
latter diocese except by the approval of the bishop of that
diocese. In this case the bishop of Central New York re-
fused to api^rove Mr. Brockway's transfer, and after he had
officiated several months as rector the bishop served on him
an order of inhibition jirohibiting him from further service
in the Central New York Diocese. The local society and
Mr. Brockway joined in an action against the bi.shop of
Central New Y^ork to comi)el him to give a certificate of
transfer, and for a judgment declaring the onler of inhibi-
tion null and void, and restraining the bishop from inter-
fering with the carrying out of the contract between the
church and Mr. Brockway. It was held that the bishop had
jurisdiction to make the order, and lliat the court had no
right to consider the merits and determine whether there
was just cause for the order. Kector Saint James Church
V Huntington, 82 Ilun. (N. Y.) 125.
Rector, Defined. A rector, as the word is understood by
the canons of the I'rotestant Episco|>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; ('n<japement between the elerjiyman aiul the
vestry as two j»i'in(i|»als, is considered i is to eeas(?. Jjird
V St. Mai-k's Chnrcli of Wjiterloo, (iL* la. .")(;".
Rector, Dissolving- Relation. Jiy a canon of tiie I'rotestant
I'4»iscoi»al Chuich a reclor canonically (dected !ind in charj^e,
cannot resign Iiis parish wilhoul the ((nisent of the jiarish
or its vestry, nor can snch i-ector he lemovetl tiier(drom by
the parish or vestry, against liis will, exce])t npoii the dis-
solution of his i)astoral connection in the manner and by the
authority designated by otlier canons.
In ]8!)0 the rector was chosen by the local society and
entered on tlie dnti<'s of his office. In ISJJ:', in consequence
of dissensions in the society, the bislioj* ina<le an order ter-
minating the pastoral rcdation of the rector, and directing
the local society to |)ay him the amount of his salary then
uni)aid. The pastoral ndation was dissolved n])on the peti-
tion of the officers of the society. The court held that the
order of the bishop was not sufficient under the law of the
church to dissolve the i>astoral 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 ma<le, or shall hereafter make, pro-
vision by canon upon the subject, or in any diocese with
whose laws or charters it may intei-fere. No canon on this
subject had been adopted in Maryland, but the statute of
1798, continuing in substance the act of 177!). chap. 9, rela-
tive to the Protestant Episco]ial Church, provided that the
vestr}' of the local church should have the power to call
a rector and make contracts in relation thereto, including
the term of service an<l the severance of the i)astoral rela-
tions. The general church canon on this subject was, there-
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL OHrR(^H 5<;i
lore, held iiol apjilicMlde in iIjc .Mainland diorcse. iJurtleU
V Hipkins, 76 Md. 5.
By its admission into the diocese of Iowa the parish of
St. Mark's became a part of the church in the United States
aud amenable to its caucus. One of the canons is that the
rector cannot be removed by the vestry a<!,ainst his will.
These canons were declared to be a part of the contract of
employment. The vestry could not, by reduciug the rector's
salary without his consent, coinj)el liim to accept a dissolu-
tion of the pastoral relation. In this case the rector was
held entitled to recover the full amount of the stipulated
salary less the amount received during the current year.
The contract could not be modified by the church without
the rector's consent. Bird v St. Mark's Church, Waterloo,
62 la. 567. In this case it was also held that by the canons
of the church a rector canonically elected aud in charge,
or an instituted minister, may not resign his parish without
the consent of said jtarish or its vestry, if the vestry be
authorized to act in the premises, nor may such rector or
minister be removed therefrom by said parish or vestiy
against his will excex)t that the pastoral relation nuiy be
dissolved when the parties cannot agree resj)e(ting the
separation, by the bishop acting with the advice and con-
sent of the standing committee of the diocese or missionary
jurisdiction.
Rector, Election, Sufficiency. This cluucli was subject to
the canons and laws of Ihe Protestant I'jinscojial Church
of the United States and Diocese of California. The society
was not incorjjoraled, hut had been a mission under the
direct supervision of the bishojt, with a minister in charge.
On the 2!)th of May, 1SS2, the nnssion was organized as a
parish. Vestrymen were elected and assunuMl the duties of
their otlice. They elected a rector, but did not give the bishop
any notice of su<]i an election, and no appointment was nuule
by him. Afterward, at the meeting of the vestry, the rector-
shij) was declared vacant, and notice thereof was given to
the rector ]»reviously elected, and to the l)ish(»]i. The hisliop
r)(;2 'I'm; cixil law and 'I'iii: rmiicii
;i|t|t(»iiil('(| jiiiotlicr rrclor l<» sii|i|»ly the |»l;i((' until :i ro-tor
\v;is circled.
On llic l*!Mli of .Inly, ISS:;. the im'wIv ii|»|)«)iMtc(| rector was
exjiectcd to lake cliarj^e of the service at llu; rej^nlar hour,
I 1 (('clock A. M. Ahont U o'clock a. m. of the same day the
former rector, so chosen l»y the vcsti-y, entei-ed the <-hnrch
and commenced to hold service, and <-ontinned such sei'vice
nnlil after the honi' of eleven o'clock, and after the arrival
of the newly appointed rector. The rector so in charjie of
the irre«;ular service gave notice that on the next day, -Inly
;U), an election would be held for the j»ni]tose <»f ch(»(»sin*; five
vestrymen. At the hour ajtpointed for the nieetinj; on the
evening of July .'JO, the church was locked, and thereupon
several persons met at the house of one of the ])arishioners,
ami held an election, choosing five vestrymen, as recjuiretl l»y
the notice. The notice of election, the meeting on the ;50ih,
and the election of vestrymen were held to be irregular and
invalid. Dahl v I'alache, CS Tal. 248.
Rector, Exclusion from Church. The vestry assumed au-
thority to exclude the rector from office and prevent him
from occupying the church edifice and parish building.
Such exclusion was wrongful, and the rector was held en-
titled to the use and control of the property according to
the canons of the church. In this right he was sustained
not only by the civil court but also by the judgment of a
properly constituted ecclesiastical tribunal. Ackley v Ir-
win, 71 Misc. (N. Y. I 2:?9.
Rector, Exclusion, When Unlawful. In 18G1 the plaintilf
was called to be rector of this society, and continued in
that office until 18(17, when on the next Sunday after Kaster
the church was closed against him, and he was also excluded
from the parochial schoolhouse. This expulsion was by the
wardens and vestrymen. The rector brought an action
against them for damages, and recovered judgment. It was
held that the plaintiff, by his official connection with the
society, acquired all the customary powers and ])rivileges
pertaining to the rectorshij), inclu<ling the right to occupy
I'KOTKSTANT E1'1SC01»AL CHUKCll :,(};]
the house of wdisIu]* and the parochial sclioolhou.se lor the
jjiirpose ol" i)ei-t()i-iuiiig the I'uiictions rehitive to his ultice,
and his exclusion therefrom was unhiwful. JiVnd v Menzies,
3o N. J. Law, loL'.
Rector, How Called. The churchwardens and vestrymen
have the exclusive power of calling and inducting a minister.
The persons qualilied to vote for the churchwardens and
vestrymen have no such right. Humbert v St. Stejdien's
Church, N. Y. 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.j 308.
The vestry has the power to appoint and remove Ihc
rector; the congregation has no power of renutval. Stuhlts
V Vestry of St. John's Ch. OG Md. 2G7.
The provision of the New York religious societies act of
1813, section 8, which provides for fixing the salary of a
minister by a vote of the congregation, does not apply to
Protestant Episcojjal churches. A call to a parish and its
acceptance and consequent entry upon the duties of the
office of its minister, are all whicli we have in this country
resend)ling the ])resentafion. admission, and induciion of
the English Church, and neitlier these terms nor the cere-
monies indicated are known to our law as a])i)licable to any
of our churches. The congregation, in tlie manner indicated
by the law of the land, and in case of Episcopal churches by
their vestry, call a clergyman to exercise his functions in
tlieir parish and fix his compensation. TI\e term "institu-
tion" in English ecclesiastical law is applied to the investi-
ture of tlie s|tiiitual as induction is to that of the temporal
j)art of the henelice. There is no such tiling known to our
law as institution oi- induction, and ilie ecclesiastical law
of the mother country is no part ol' ilic law under which we
live. Youngs v Kansom, 31 liarli. i N. V. i 4!l.
Rector, Legacy for Support Sustained. A devise to the so-
ciety for the j>urpose 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'(tvi<l(M| hy tlu; con-
;,M'('jfali()n. "IMiis docs not involve; any (|n('s1ifni of title to
tlic projicrly, Itnl the rector ninst of necessity liave tiie right
to partake in such nse of the property as the confjrej^ation
has. AA'hatever jdace tlie congregation provi(h* for the ptir-
j)Ose of public worshi]) in the jtarish, into such place tlie
rector, by virtue of his office, has tlie ri*!;ht to enter in order
to conduct such worship. Lynd v ^lenzies, 3.1 N. J. Law.
1()2.
Rector, Tenure of Office. The vestry adopted a resolution
that the rector be elected ]»ernianently to the rectorsliijt of
the church. It was held that tlie word ^'permanently" meant
for an indefinite period, and that it was intended that the
rector should hold the oflice until one or the other of the con-
tracting parties should desire to terminate the connection.
I'erry v Wheeler, 75 Ky. 541.
The rule or regimen of the Ei)isco]>al 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 an<l llie erection of a clnnc li tliert'on.
The act was a])plied for by a majority of the society, and
accepted by it. In an action to restrain the saU? it was held
that the Ix^gislature had power to i)ass the act, notwith-
standing the fact that the conveyance of the land provided
for a perpetual use thereof, and the church to be erected
thereon, for religious pur})Oses. Xor was the title of the
society alTected by the jjrovision in the canons of the Protes-
tant Episcopal Church that the consent of the bishop and
the standing committee should be obtained for removing,
taking down, or otherwise disj)osing of a church. Titles to
projjerty must be determined by the laws of the common-
wealth. The canons are nmtters of discipline and cannot be
enforced by legal i)rocess. Sohier v Trinity Church, 10!)
Mass. 1.
Sale of Church Property. Sale of church site, consent of
bishop and standing committee must be shown. Lane v Cal-
vary Church of Summit, N. J., 51) N. .1. Eq. 401).
Trinity Church, Charter. This society was incorpoialed
while New York was a jjrovince of Gi-eat Britain and the
charter incorporated "all persons inhabiting or to inhabit
the city of New York, and in communion with the I'rotes-
tant Church of lOngland." "The Protestant Episcojial Church
was the established church of the mother country; an«l the
crown, in its generosity to the Episcopalians in the city of
New York, naturally sought to i»hice Trinity (Munch on a
footing as similar to that of the Church of lOnjiland as b)cal
circumstances would permit." Groesbeeck v Dunsrondt, 41
How. I'r. (X. Y.I :!()2.
Trinity Church, Charter Superior. In Burke v Kector, etc.,
of Trinity Church, (13 Misc. (N. Y.) 43 aflirmed i;;l' App.
Div. (N. Y.) 1):;0, it was held that Trinity Clinrch, having
been chartered by the I']nglish crown in HiliT, was not sub-
:)<;<; 'riii; cixil law and tiii: ciukc ii
jt'cl lo the piovisicdis of the rclij^idus coiiioia I i<»iis hiw oT
.New ^'(t^U so far ;is such |»i'(»\isi<)iis ;irc iiicoiisislciit with
(tr in (l('r(»;^;il ion of llic (h.ii'tcr rij^lils and privilc^ics of that
corpoi-at ion.
Trinity Church, St. John's Chapel. Trinity Church was
incorj)oratt'(l by Ihe British crown in KJOT. The jiai-ish of
Trinity Church cinhraccs the entire borough of Manhattan,
an<l includes Trinity Church and nine chapels, witii one
rector, and several vicars, curates, and assistants. The
vestry is tlie governing body of tliis church, and necessarily
exercises all the corporate powers. The vesti-j' have the
supervision and control and are the sole managers of the
cori>oration 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('<l on the nuiiii
qiiesdoii, tliiis cicjiliiitf ;i tic. mikI tlici-ciipon dccl.ifcd Hk;
niolion lost. It Wiis held (ii;it niid<'r the statulf; tlic jn-csid-
iiiji olliccr iiii<;ht Jij^aiii vote and dissolve the tie, and that his
announcement that the motion was lost was equivalent to
the oastinj; vote in the negative. People v (^'Imrcli of Atone-
ment, 48 IJail). (N. V.) cm.
Note: The foregoing case was decided under a statute
(laws of ISK), (^hap. (50, sec. 1) which exi)ress]y j)rovided
that the ju-esiding officer, at a meeting of the vestry or trus-
tees, should have "the casting vote." Section 42 of the
revised Religious Corjjorations Law of 190!>, 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 <iMn<li edifice to anotlu-r
town, and include the memorial windows in the new b\iibl-
ing'. The pi'oposition to cliange the location of the house
of worship was approved, the court observing that ''we must
assume that both tlie corporation an<l the contributors mach'
the condition subject to (lie law of the chnrcli that if the
congregation became depleted in numbers an<l substance by
reason of death an<l removals or shifting of jtopulation, this
particular church might be dispose<l of, and all the associa-
tions connected with it should, as nearly as possible, be
transferred to a successor wisely located in a new field.
Vestry, Promissory Notes. At a i)arish meeting of an Epis-
copal church, the vestry submitted a report that it had ar-
ranged to purchase lots for the church and rectory, and
that the Church Association of Michigan had signified its
willingness to advance a certain amount, provided the prop-
erty should be deeded to the association in trust for the
parish, and that interest at seven per cent should be paid
on the money advanced, and the principal should be paid in
oue-huudred-dollar installments. The meeting authorized
the vestry to carry out the arrangement. It was held that
the vestry was authorized to give notes for the amount
secured. Miller v Childs, 120 Mich. G30.
Virginia, Early Church. At a very early period the reli-
gious establishment of England seems to have been adopted
in the colony of Virginia, and, of course, the common law
upon that subject, so far as it was ai>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 <Iinr( li
lands, and the building of a dwelling house for tlie minister;
for the making of assessments and taxes for tliese and other
parochial purposes; for the appointment of ( hiiic liwai-deus
to keei) the church in repair, and to provide books, orna-
ments, etc.; and, lastly, for the election of a vestry of twelve
persons by the parishioners, whose duty it was, by these ami
subsequent statutes, among other tilings, to make and pro-
l)ortion levies an<l assessments, and to purchase glebes and
erect dwelling houses for the ministers in each respective
parish. It is conceded that, after the Revolution, the Ejiis-
copal Church no longer i-etained its chnracteT' as an exclu-
sive religious establishment. And there v.iu Ik* no doubt
that it was com])etent to the jteoplc mikI to the Legislature
to dej)rive it of its sujteriority over other religious sects, and
to withhold from it any support 1»\ public tnxniioii. T( rrett
V Taylor, Cranch iV. S. ) ID.
Virginia, Education Society, ri-oleslant i:piscop;il f^du-
cation Society v Clnircliiiiiiirs Kep's 80 \'a. 71S. susinincd
a be<piest to tlie Protcstnnt ilpiscopiil Edm-ation Society of
\'irgiiiia, such be(piesl to i)e used exclusively for ediicaling
571' Tin: CIS II. LAW .\M> 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 <leterniine and
prescribe what services shall be held in a church and in what
manner and by wliom they shall be performed. Burke v
Rector, etc., of Trinity Church, G3 Misc. (N. Y.) 43.
QUO WARRANTO
Trustees, 574.
Vestrymen, 574.
Trustees. In au action of ejectment by one set of trustees
against another set, both cbiiniing to have been regnhirly
elected an«l entitled to the pos.session of the property, it was
hehl that the titJe to the office of tnistees could not be <leter-
mined in that action, but that the question could only be
determined by quo warranto instituted by the attorney gen-
eral. Concord Society, Strykersville v Stanton, 38 Hun
(K Y.) 1.
In an action by the society to recover possession of real
j)roj)erty, the defendants attacked the title of the trustees
of the i)laintitf and alleged that they, the defendants, were
the true trustees. The court said the question could not be
tried collaterally, but only by quo warranto.- First Presby-
terian Society, Gallipolis v Smithers, 12 Ohio St. 248.
Quo warranto was held the proper remedy to test the title
to the office of trustees of the society. Commonwealth ex
rel Gordon v Graham, (54 Pa. St. 339; see also Schilstra v
Van Den Heuvel, 82 N. J. Eq. (U2.
Vestrymen. This writ is available to try the title to the
office of vestrymen in the Protestant Episcopal Church.
State V Stewart, 6 Houst. (Del.) 359.
574
REFORMED CHURCH
Description, 575.
Diversion of property, 576.
Division of society, effect, 570.
Legacy, limitation, 570.
Succession to Calvinist Society, 570.
Successor to Reformed Dutch Church, 570.
Trust, intention of testatrix, 577.
Description, 1< seems tliat the peculiar docti'iiies repre-
sented originally by the Calvinist society of the last century,
and embodied in the Heidelberg Conlessioii, have been held
under ditt'erent names by the Keformed Church in this coun-
try for more than a century. Those names have been
affected by various cii-cumstances, as the natioinility of the
mendiers and the location of the churches. Among these
designations were "High Dutch," "German Presbyterians,"
and "Sacramentarians."' So, under the general denomina-
tion Calvinists, was included the term "German Calvinists";
and the opinion was expressed by one witness that the Re-
formed Church of the Ignited States is the oidy historical
successor of the church intended by the name of the Calvin-
ist Society.
A distinctive feature in the belief of the religionists
known as the Keformed Church, represented under these
different denominational titles, is their adhesion to the
tenets of the Heidelberg Confession, unembarrassed by other
distinguishing points of doctrine which are held by otluM-
religious bodies having a Calvinist ic origin. It was said
that the dogmas of that confession coiistit ut<' the <reed of
the Keformed Cluirch essentially as they were maintained by
the Calvinistic Society during the last century, ever since
their first ])romulgation by tlie Calvinist brancli of the re-
formers. Kbbinghaus V Killian, 1 Mackey (D. of C. i li17.
575
r.7(; THI-; cinii. f.aw and riii; ciii immi
Diversion of Property. An jiclion li.v tlic oii^rinal society
.i^.iinsl ;i scccditiff pni'ly wliicli IkkI soiiL,dit to estnblisli a
society adhering to the doctrines of the Lutheran Cliurch to
prevent the diversion of the property and the appropriation
of it by the Lutherans was sustained, in Baker v Ducker, 70
Cai. :5<;r>.
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)arate<l, so far as absolute authority is concerned, from
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Holland, and establisluMl a
general system of church judicatories in this country.
Each separate church is governed by a consistory c<nn-
posed of the minister, elders, and deacons, froni which an
appeal lies to the classis, a body consisting <tf rei>resent: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 chui<h, or its members or olliccrs. can
lawfully withdi-aw Ironi the connection; also. ]>ast(»is and
nnnisters of the several churches are provided and arc
T'e<inii'ed to be appi'oved by the classis to whicli the jiartic-
nlar chnrch is sidtjed. .Miller v (Jable, 2 henio ( .\. V.i r.l2.
-.so Tiir: ("i\iL LAW AM» Till: <iii i;* n
Classis of 1822. In OcIoIxt, ISL'L', Icii i.crhoiis— live iiiiii-
istei's and live elders and deacons — met and oi};aniz('<l tli«Mn-
selves into an ecclesiastical i>ody, 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<l
that such atteni]»t<'<l change was void.
Congregation, Right to Withdraw. In I'ulis v Isernian, 71
N. .1. Law 40S, it was held that each particular congrega-
tion had the riglit to withdraw from the classis and synod
with which it had been connected and become inch'iieiKh'iit.
without loss of ecclesiastical or civil function.
Consistory, General Power. The Consistory of the Reformed
Dutch Ch. of I'rattsville v lirandow, 52 Barb. (N. Y. ) 22S,
sustained the validity of a bequest of this society against
the objection that a consistory was not authorized lo con
trol the bequest, it being claimed that the board of trustees
j)ossessed this power. The will expressly gave the bequest
to the consistory to be used as they might deem best.
Division of Society, Adverse Possession. The High Dutch
Reformed Church at Schoharie ivceived in 1S;!.~> 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<i('s wri'c coiivcyrd to tliciii ill lln'ir coritol*:! tr
iiiiiiic. Tlic ollicrrs of llic socicly look pdsscssioii of the
property, iiiid icMcivcd ;iimI used tli<* I'ciits and profits. Later
there was a division in llic society, resultin*; in the election
of two sets of ollicers, each claiming to be tlie tru(; legal
incnnibents, and entitled to hohl the proj)erty. lioth partie.s
admit that the premises belong to the corporation. Both
admit that the minister, elders, and deacons, for the time
being of the KefornuMl Dntch (Jhurch in the lOnglish neigh-
borhood, are entitled to the possession. The case involve*!
the question as to which of these ](ersons weie the trustees.
The action was brought by the trustees out of possession.
This congregation was originally attached to the Classis
of ITackensack. On a division of that classis in 1800 the
congregation was placed under the supervision of the Classis
of Bergen. By the incorporating act the ministers, elders,
and deacons became in fact the trustees of the society, and
the act did not require an election of trustees as such. In
1S24 a part of the congregation withdrew and dissolved the
relations of the society with the Classis of Bergen, denying
the authority of the Classis of Bergen, and of the General
Synod, because those bodies had departed from the doctrine
and standards of the Reformed Dutch Church. The with-
drawal in 182J: included the minister, elders, and deacons.
The remaining members of the local society continued as
members of the congregation in the English neighborhood.
Their standing in the church was not affected by the with-
drawal of the officers. The seceding ])ortion of the congre-
gation attached itself to the recently organized classis of
the True Keformed Dutch Church in America, but that
church or organization was not a Reformed Dutch Church,
and, therefore, the withdrawing ministers, elders, and dea-
cons, who attached themselves to this new organization,
known as the Classis of 1S22, ceased to be members of the
ancient Reformed Dutch Church.
On the 18th of February, 182+, the Classis of Bergen sus-
pended the minister of this society, and declared vacant llu'
REFOJ{Mi:i) DLTCII CHT'KCH oS.i
seats of the elders ami deacons as iikmiiIkm>< «>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<h classis within <('i*tain bounds of the whole country. In
these assemblies, or judicatories, it is pi-ovided that e<-clesi-
astical nuitters only shall be transacted, and thai a greater
asseiubly shall take cognizance of those things alone which
could not be determined in a less, or that appertain to the
."isi 'nil; ('i\iL LAW AM> 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
afterwar<l conveyed to the society as suclu All the pastors
of the church were of the Dutch denomination and members
of the Philadelphia Classis. Tt was held that the situation
constituted a trust which could not be violated by trans-
ki:f(>jlmi: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<l
])roceedings of the Reformed Dutch Churcli an<l of tlie True
Refoi-med Dutch Clnircli, it appears that tlie foi-mation of a
new congregation or consistoiy or church judit atoi y in con-
iKMtion with and subordinate to that cliurth is to be made
with tlie consent and by the authority of the proper eccle-
siastical assemblj'. A portion of the mendjers of the church,
nv converts professing its faith, cannot by tlieir own act and
without the sanction ])rescribed by tlie constitution, form a
new consistory, classis, or synod within the plan of tlic
church. Den ex dem. Day v Bolton, 12 X. .1. J.. 20(;.
Taxation of Parsonage. The society owned a parsonage
which was erected from contrilnilions derived from various
sources. These contributions did not constitute an endow-
ment or a fund within the meaning of the statute which
exempts from taxation such a IniHl nv endow iiu-nt. The ])ar-
sonage was, therefore, held to be subject to taxation. Stale.
Fii-st Reformed Dnicli Church v Lyon, :{2 N. .1. Law :UH).
Theological Seminary, Legacy Sustained. A betpiest in aid
of the theological seminai'v at New IJrnnsw iek. to be a|>|>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<l maintain the system of relij^ions piiii
ciples declared and exliibited by the Rel'ormed IMesbyteiiaii
Synod of North America, "ol' whicli the Reverend Doctors
\\'ylie and Crawford are now olliciating ministers." The
ciinrcli ])roperty whicli was the subject of controversy in
this action was conveyed to the corporation in March, isr»(>,
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 claim<Ml the in-operty on the
ground that they constituted the real I'il'ih Kcldnned
Church. It was alleged that the defendant, constituting
the majority, had withdrawn from the IJeformed I'resby
terian Church of North America, and Irnni the juris<liction
of the General Synod.
Tn June, 1S<I8, the Keforined I'resbyterv (»!' IMiiladelphia
sus]>emled 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 asserte<l its
continued inend)ership in llic Keloriiwd I'lcsbylciian
Church. The pi-otest of the I'"'irs( I'resbytery of IMiibnIelphi.i
was ]>resented to the synod a( its next meeting in May, ISCi'.i,
ami the syno<l thereniion adoplecl icsolutions declaring the
ollicers and members of the presbytery to be withoni (lie
jurisdiction of the (Jeneral Synod, and |)lai ing scxci-al con-
587
5M.S Till-: CI NIL LAW AM» '11 1 1! (Ill KCII
j;i'i'j^;il ions, iiiclinliii;^ llic I'^iflli Kdoniicij, iiiMJcr the jiiris-
(liclioii <»!" tlic S<M(»ii(l ricsbytciy of I'liilii(l('l|>lii;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 declare<l
the true Fillli Keformed Church, entitled to all the rights
and i)rivileges accorded to the society under the rules of
the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the control and
management of the property under the original conveyance
thereof. McAuley's Appeal, 77 I'a. 397. See also Kerr's
Appeal, 89 I'a. 97.
RELIGION
Defined, 589.
Children, education, 590.
Chuich and state, 590.
Constitution of the United States, 591.
Duty of state, 592.
English toleration acts, 592.
Freedom, 592.
Girard College case, 59;i.
Government not to teach, 595.
Importance to society, 595.
Legislative regulation, 595.
Ohio, 595.
Rational piety, 59G.
Restraining interference, 596.
Defined. The teiiii "religion" has reference to one's views
of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations tlicy
ini]»ose of reverence for his being ami <liaratler, and of obe-
dience to liis will. It is often confonnded with the cnltns or
form of worship of a ]»articnlar sect, bnt is disliiignisliabh'
from the latter. With man's relations to his Maker aii<l
the obligations he nuiy think they imjiose, and the manner
in which an expression shall be made by him of liis belief
on those snbjects, no intei'ference can bi' pei-mitted, ]»fo
vi<led always the laws of soci<'ty, designed to .secnre its
peace and prosperity, and the mor;ils of its people, are not
interfered with. Davis v IJeason, VV.i U. S. 'MVA.
In all Christian connti-ies the word "religicm" is oidi
narily understood to mean some system of faith and practice
resting on the idea of the existence of one (Jod. the Creator
and Knler, to whom his creatiires owe obedience and Iov»'.
Religion comprehends all systems of beli( I in the existence
of beings snperior to and ca]»able of exei-cising an inllnence
for good or evil upon the Iinman race, and all fornts of wor-
589
niM) Tin: ('i\iL LAW AM) 'I'm: ciirKcii
ship (»r service iiiteinled |(» inlliieiice of {^ivc lioiioi- to such
siiperioi- |Kt\vers. II is in this sense ol' the word that we
speak of the i'elij;ion of the North American Indian, the reli-
gion of the fire worshipers, or the ancient Ej^ptians. A
IxMpiest in aid of any snch system would, therefore, he a
hecpiest for a religious use within the meaning of the Penn-
sylvania act of 1855. Knight's Estate, 159 I'a. 500.
Religion is that sense of Deity, that re\erence for the
Creator, which is im])lanted in the minds of rational beings.
It is seated in the heart and is conversant with the inward
princijdes and temper of the mind. It must be the result of
personal conviction. It is a concern between every man
and his Maker. Public instruction in religion and morality,
within the meaning of our constitution and laws, is to
every purpose a civil and not a spiritual institution. Mu/zy
v Wilkins, Snnth's N. H. Rep. 1.
Children, Education. In Re Jacquet, 40 Misc. (N. Y. i 575.
82 N. Y. S. i)8(), it was held that where a father and mother
are Catholics their children, when committed to the care of
a guardian, must be brought uj) as Catholics.
Church and State. At the time of the emigration of the
Pilgrims, not only in the country whence they came but iu
all Christendom, religion was an engine of state, and the
support and protection of the latter was deemed indispens-
able to the preservation and maintenance of the former.
This alliance had existed for ages, and the light of inspira-
tion alone could have taught them at once that its dissolu-
tion, so far from endangering or destroying the Christian
religion, would i)romote its purity and increase and per-
petuate its beneficial influence. In the early periods of
our history we find that the government maintained a super-
intendence over the ecclesiastical affairs of the common-
wealth, and instances are numerous in which the governor
and magistrates were appealed to and lent their aid in the
settlement of religious controversies. The leading prin-
ciple in the religious system of the colony is the compulsory
support of public worship and the liability' of every inhab-
KELIGION 5!H
itaut to coutribiile toward its iiiaiiitenaiice. This principle'
runs through all the legislation upon the subject, both
under the colonial and i)rovincial governments, it was
incorporated into our constitution and is now an operative
provision of it. To the practical operation of this principle
man}- exceptions have been made, but it never has been
abandoned. It is now a prominent feature of our parochial
laws.
The original mode of siijtporting public worsliij) was by
the several towns; and towns were established lirst along
with a view of ])arochial duties as to the management of
municipal atfairs. lOach town was required to be provided
with a minister, and every inhabitant was liable to be
taxed for his supi)ort. And not only in the settlement
of ministers but in all elections and other civil matters the
right of snttrage was confined to church mend)ers in full
communion. Each town was required to provide houses
of public worship, and individuals were prohibited from
erecting such houses without the consent of the town. For
about a century all the inhabitants were required to pay
ministerial taxes, ami in the early days every inhabilatit
was required to attend public worship on Sundays, and on
fast and thaidvsgiving days, and was subject to a j)enalty
for neglect. Oakcs v llill, 10 Tirk. (Mass. i ;!.'«.
Constitution of the United States. The first amendment to
the constitution, in declaring that Congress shall make no
law resjtecting the establishineni of icliuioii. (H foibid-
ding the free exercise thereof, was inleiulcd to allow every
one un<ler the jurisdiction of the TnitcMl St.ites to entertain
such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the
duties they imi)ose as may be aj)proved by his judgment and
conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of
worship as he nuiy think i)roper, not injurious to the e(pnil
rights of others, ami to ]>rohibit 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<loption of
the amendment in ((nest ion. Davis v Jieason, I."'.'' U. S. AX).
Duty of State. The dnty of the state with resjiect to reli-
gion — its wlwde dnty — is to ])rotect every religions deii<»m
illation in the ]»eaceal)le enjoyment of its own mode of ]»iil)lie
worshi}). This duly is not due alone to the ditlerent denom-
inations of the ('hristian religion, Init is due to every reli-
gions body, organization, or society whose members are
accnstomed to come together for the purpose of worship-
ing the Sujjrenie Being. State v Scheve, 65 Neb. 853.
English Toleration Acts. "As a consequence of the Protes-
tant Episcopalian religion being the state church in the
reigns of Elizabeth and George I, and also of the then exist-
ing laws in relation to the exercise of other religions, it is
probable that the only trusts, which by reason of their ob-
ject being the advancement of religion would have been
recognized as charitable at the time of the statutes in ques-
tion, were trusts for the advancement of that particular
religion. Nevertheless, it is clear that the religious services,
the public celebration of which involved the public benefit
contemplated by later statutes, must now be taken to in-
clude the religious services of, at least, any denomination of
(Christians, because when from time to time the passing of
the various toleration acts rendered lawful the exerci.se of
religions other than that of the Established Church, trusts
for the advancement of the Roman Catholic religion, of the
religion of Trotestant dissenters, and even of that of the
Jews were held charitable within the meaning of the Sta-
tute." Attorney (Jeneral v Hall. 2 Irish Re. 21)1. '^01 (1806).
Freedom. That .society, or, which is the same thing, that
the civil magistrate should ever undertake to prescribe to
men what they shall believe and what they shall not believe
is a thing so ab.surd that we should hardly believe it upon
RELIGION 5»:5
less evidence than that of experience. Oi)inions ai-e iKtt tlir
proper objects of iuinian authority. The niiiul c»f in;iii was
not intended l)y its wise Creator to be snbjecled to the con-
trol of finite limited beings like itself. Free(h)m of thought
is the prerogative of human kind, a quality inherent in tlie
very nature of a tliinking being, a jtrivilege >\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 niin<ls of
the scholars the ]»nrest i)rincii)les of morality, so that, on
their entrance into active life, they may, fi-oni inclination
and habit, evince benevolence toward theii' fellow creattires
and a love of truth, sobriety, and indnsliy. adojiling at the
r>i)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<l Stales ('ircuit Court to liav(* llu; will declared void
as to the residuaiy estate, partly on the ground of an ullei^ed
lack of capacity of the city to take the projierty and ])artly
because the alle<i;ed trust was voi<l for uncertainty. The
complainants objected among other things that the founda-
tion of tlie college ui)on the principles and exclusions pic
scribed by the testator in the foregoing e.xtract from his
will was derogatorj' and hostile to the Christian religion,
and so was void, as being against the common law and
jtublic policy of rennsylvania ; and this for two reasons:
tirst, because of the exclusion of all ecclesiastics, missiona-
ries, and ministers of any sect from holding or exercising
any station or duty in the college, or even visiting the same;
and, secondly, because it limited the instruction to be given
to the scholars to i)ure morality, and general benevolence,
and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, thereby exclud-
ing, by implication, all instruction in the Christian religion.
Judge Story, speaking for the Supreme Court in Vidal v
Girard's Executors, 2 How. (U. S. ) 127, said that Mr. Girard
did not say that Christianity should not be taught in the
college. But that no ecclesiastic of any sect should hold or
exercise any station or d\ity in the college. Judge Story
suggested that laymen might instruct in the general prin-
ciples of Christianity, as well as ecclesiastics, and that there
was no restriction as to the religious opinions of the instruc-
tors and oflScers. The Judge further suggested that **tlie
Bible, especially the New Testament, without note or com-
ment might be read and taught as a divine revelation in the
college, its general precepts expounded, its evidences ex-
plained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcate*!."
The court thought that Mr. Girard intended to exchnle sec-
tarians and sectarianism from the college, leaving the in-
structors and officers free to teach the purest morality, the
love of truth, sobriety, and industry by all apitropriate
KELKJION 595
means; and, of course, includinjj the best, the sniest, and
the most impressive. It was held that there was nothing in
the foregoing restriction inconsistent with the Thristian
religion. The will was sustained.
Government Not to Teach. The suggestion that it is the
duty of government to teach religion has no basis whatever
in the constitution or laws of this State ( Xebi-aska ) nor in
the history of our people. The teaching of religion would
mean teaching the system of faith and woi-shij) of one or
more of the religious sects; it would mean sectarianism in
the public schools. State v Scheve, 65 Neb. 853.
Importance to Society. Keligion is of the utmost import-
ance to every coniniunity. The history of the i)ast fur-
nishes abundant evidence of the truth of this jiroposition.
It is the basis of civilization. ^Vere it not, we should be iT\
a state of moral daikness and degradation, such as usually
attend the most barbarous and savage states. It is to the
influence of it that Ave stand indebted for all that social
order and happiness which jtrevails among us. It is by the
force of religion more than by that of oui- munici])al I'cgula-
tions, or our boasted sense of honor, that we are k('|)t within
the line of moral rectitude, and constrained to administer
to the welfare and comfort of each other. In short, we owe
to it all that we enjoy, eithei- of civil or religious liberty.
Conimonwealth v I)u])uy, I'riglitly N. \*. { Pa. I 41.
Legislative Regulation. Altliongli it may be Inie that "r«'li-
gion can be directed otdy by reason and conviction, not by
force or violence,'' and that "all men are ecpially entitliMl to
the fi-eci exercise of religion accttrding to llie dictates of con-
science," as tlie bill of i-iglils of N'irginia dcclai-cs, y<'t it is
<liflticult to perceive how it follows as a conse(|neiice that the
Legislature may not enact laws more elVect nally lomnhlrall
sects to accomplish the gi-eat objects of religion by giving
them corporate rights for the nianagcment of Iheii- propei-ty,
and the regulation of their tenipor;il ;is well as spirit nal con-
cerns. Terrett v Taylor, 1) ('ranch (T. S. i i:'..
Ohio. Keliirion bv the consliliilion is declared |o lie t'ssen-
him; tin: cinil law .wh tiii: cm imii
tial to |;«)o(l ^(tvciiiiiiciit. I^cliuioii, t liciclort', is regarded
by the conHtitutioii as good. It simply gives the state no
l><)\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<iual before the
law, and all declared to be good, and no preference can be
given by law to either. Humphreys v Little Sisters of the
Poor, 7 Ohio Dec. 194.
Rational Piety. The obligation to support rational piety
is common to all nations, because it is the firmest support
of lawful authority, and the highest pledge of the people's
safety. Beam v First Methodist l']i)iscopal Church, Lan-
caster, Pa., 3 Pa. L. J. Kep. 343.
Restraining Interference. "Individual conscience may not
be enforced, but men of every opinion and creed may be
restrained from acts which interfere with Christian wor-
ship, and which tend to revile religion and bring it into con-
tempt." Lindeumuller v I'eople, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 548.
RELIGIOUS BELIEF
No excuse for neglecting parental duty, 597.
No Excuse for Neglecting Parental Duty. State v Cheuo-
weth, l(i:i Iiid. !M, contains an interostiii<; review of En<;lisli
an*! Ainevican cases bearing on the ellVcl of i'cli<^i()ns bclid'
as a defense in a jjiosccution for neglecting;; parental <luty by
refusing to provide medical aid to children.
597
RETJCIIOUS CORPORATIONS
AnicrnliriK cliarkT, '>'.•'.).
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;e<l
n|M>n 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. ;iii<l cntithMl to ;i share
ill the control ol" it, is tiic coiifracl hy wliich llicv arc l)oim'l.
Tnistet's, I'^asl Xoi-way Lake Noiwejiiaii lOvaiij^clical Lu-
theran Clnirili ^: oliicis \ llalvorson, 42 Minn. .")():;.
Contract, Excursion. l''or Ihc piiipose ol" raisinj; money to
apply on a (■liiiich debt the society chartered a steamer for
an exenrsion. It was held that the church couM not enpjge
ill a <j;eneral business enterjirise, but that it was limited to
the work of preaching-, teaching;, ministering to spiritual
edification, and promoting works of mercy and benevolence.
A steamboat com|»any refused to perform the contract, and
there was no excursion, and the church was compelled to
refund money to the ticket holders. In an action by the
church against the company for damages, it was held that
the contract was illegal, and beyond the power of the reli-
gious society, and that the only amount recoverable of the
steandioat company was the amount paid as hire for the
ves.sel with interest. The church could not recover damages
for losses by reason of the failure of the excursion. Harri-
man v First Bryan Baptist rhurch, G'A Oa. 18(;.
Corporate Acts. Whei-e the exercise of corporate acts is
vested in a select body, an act done by the persons coin-
])osing that body, in a meeting of all the corporators, is not
a valid corporate act. Landers v Frank St. Church, Koch-
ester, 97 N. Y. 11!», also 114 N. Y. G2G.
Corporator's Right, How Acquired or Lost. A right as .i
corporator in a religiou.s society is obtained by stated at-
tendance on divine worship therein, and contributing to its
support by renting a jiew or by some other mode usual in
the congregation.
Such a right cannot be derived by descent from the found-
ers of the society, or from the former contributors to, or
worshipers in, the same.
The association between a religious imorporation and its
(•(U'porators is voluntary on the part of the latter, and is
dissolved bv their withdra\\ing from attendance on its wor-
RELIGIOUS COKl'OKATiONS fiOX
.ship, omitting to contribute to its support, and uniting iu
the establishment of another like incorporation. Cara-
mej'er v United (lerman Lutheran (Miurclies, '2 Sandf. Ch.
(N. Y.) 20S.
Debts, Members Not Personally Liable. A member of an
incorporated (Inncli is under no legal obligation to pay its
debts, and his only moral obligation is to contribute of his
means and of his influence to the extent of his ability to meet
the ju.st demands u])on that organization so long as he is a
mend)er of it. "He wlio gives credit to a cliurcb organiza-
tion knows that tlie only source to which he is entitled to
look for payment is the })roj)erty or assets of which the cor-
poration is owner, and to the voluntary olferings or gifts of
the members and friends who m;iy be moved or persuaded
to contribute to tliat pui'i»ose." Allen v Xorlli Des ^loines
Methodist ICj)iscopal riiurcli, 127 la. IMl.
It was held in Richardson v Butterfield, GO Mass. 11)1, that
the mend»ers were not individujilly liable on a judgment and
execution ;igainst the cor])oration.
Debt, Ratification. Several i>ersons 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 a<jreenM'n( t(» convey, its snl)se(|nent in-
corpoiation (Mititled if to a de<'d. hnf llie vendoi- haviiij^
t'\|ieiided a lai^e snin of money in the erection of fhe church
in addition to his sui>scrijitioii, 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, an<l administer the
trust vested in the former corporation. Cong, of Roman
Catholic Churdi v Texas R. Co., 41 Fed. 5(i4.
Dissolution, State Law Superior to Church Law. In the
Matter of the petition of the Third Methodist Episcopal Ch.
in the city of Brooklyn, G7 Hun (N. Y.) 8(), an order dis-
solving the corjjoratiou was sustained, although not made
in accordance with tlie oldigation of the Discipline of the
Methodist E])iscopal Church. "No church Discipline can
supersede the law of the State."
Diversion of Trust. A religious corporation htdding prop-
erty charged with a trust for certain purjjoses can no more
divert it to other and inconsistent uses, even by due corjx)-
rate action, than can any other trustee. When such use is
for the promotion of the doctrines and discii)line of some
particular denomination, courts will i)revent diversion to
the support of a ditl'erent and inconsistent one, if even a
single individual legally interested objects. Cape v IMy-
month Congregational Cluirch. \'M) \Yis. 171. See also
Martin v l>oar«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, an<l
j)roperty of the corporation were impressed with the trust,
and the court said it was not lawful to diveit these funds
from the objects for which they were contributed and use
them in the ])ayment of damages for a personal injury re-
ceived by a stranger at the hands of au agent not shown
to be unworthy or unfit for the purposes for which he was
emjdoyed. Funds contributed for a public charity cannot
VMS Tin: <'l\ IL LAW AM* Till; (III |;(|I
he nsfil loi- the |(;i\iiiciil nl' i l;i iiiii^n-s lor injuries resulting
Irmii lilt' iic.uliticiicc or niiscninlm t ol the iii;iii;ij^ers, agents,
or ('iiii>I(»y('<'s of llic coriMMMlioii oi- persons eli;ir^e(l with
tlie <lnly of jidiiiinisleriiij;; Hie Irnsl. Haas v Missionary
Sociel.v of (lie MosI Holy Kedeenicr, Misc. (X. Y.) 281;
see also McDonald v Massachusetts General Hosjiital, 120
Mass. i:;2.
Liability for Injuries to Employee. In Bruce v Central
MelliodisI l':|.isco|)al Clnireh, 1 17 Mich. 2:50, it was held that
Ihe chui-«-h was liable to an einplovee of a contractor, en-
gaged in decorating the clmitli building, for injuries sus-
tained by reason of the breaking of defective scalTolding
furnished by the agents of the church; and the fact that
the society administered a charitable trust for the benetit
of its members and others did not exempt it from liability
for the acts of its agents.
Majority, When Action Binding on Minority. The acts of
the majority of a corjioration are, as a general rule, binding
on the minority. But such acts to be so binding must be
conformable to the cliartei' of the corporation, or they
are of no effect against a dissenting minority. The charter
of every coi-poration is its constitution, which protects the
rights of all the corporators, majority and minority. Act-
ing within the charter, the corporation majority is sov-
ereign ; but seeking to transcend it. the majority become
powerless. Langolf v Seiberlitch, 2 Parson Eq. Cas. (Pa.)
04.
Majority's Right. A majority of the members of an unin-
corporated society became incorporated on the ord of Sep-
tember. ISol. The minority became incorporated in Novem-
ber. lS:n. It was held that the corporation composed of
the majority became the real corporation and succeeded to
the jirojierty rights of the unincori>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 an<l taking care of property. The rules of the
church as to the discii)llne of members have no relation to
the corporate property or corporate matters. Sale v IMrst
Regular Ra]»tist (Miurch, Mason City. (;2 la. 2(5.
Organization. Notice. The minister refu.sed to read a notice
RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS 611
of a meeting for llic iiu-()i])<)i-atioii of the society, and the
notice was tlierenjton i-ea<l by one of llie jiKMiibers at tlic close
of a regular service, after the benediction, and before the
congregation had dispersed. This was held to be a sufticient
notice of the meeting, as the statute did not re()uire a notice
to be given by a particular officer or person. AVest Kosh-
kououg Cong. V Otteson, 80 Wis. 62.
Pew-Owners. Under the Maine revised statutes of ISTI.
chap. 1-, pew-owners of a meetinghouse were authorized to
form a corporation, and such corporation might control the
meetinghouse. ]Mayberry v Mead, 80 Me. 27.
Presumption. A religious society that in good faith has
exercised corporate powers for ten years must be treated as
a legal incoi'poration, even though the proceedings taken to
incorporate it were in themselves fatally defective. Uirst
Congregational Church, Ionia v Webber, 54 Mich. 571.
Promissory Note. A ]»r()missory note jiurjtorting to be
made by the corporation and signed by its ])resident, secre-
tary and treasurer was held not enforcible (against the cor-
])orati()n) without jti'oof that the note was nmde by author-
ity of the corporation. Trustees have no ]>ower 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<ling the statutory limit. Such a (piestion
cannot be raised collaterally, and I lie huideii of |»roof as to
(;iL' Tin: ri\ 11, LAW ANh Tin; ciiiucii
llir iiiiiiMiiil of |iio|icrl y ;ilic;i(Iy ;ic(|iii I'(m| i>< 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 <lone ()j)eidy and witJi due knowledge of the character of
the body, but such a body could not be i)ernutted to appro-
priate the name, and with it the appearance of regularity
which belongs to the duly established organization. The
name proposed attaches to and covers the doctrine, disci-
pline, and usages of the general church with which it is
associated. Tu the use of that name the body wliich had an
unqualitied right to it was entitled to i)rotection against its
usurpation by others who have no such right, and who only
seek to employ it for ])urj»oses of deception. The ajjplica-
tiou for a charter was refused. Re Charter Church of
Mother of God, Czenstochowa, 5 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 128.
Status. Religions societies are, in this State and nation,
civil bodies politic, and unlike the ecclesiastical corpora-
tions of England, which are composed only of clericals, such
as archbishops, deans, monks and abbots, and amenable
only to si)iritnal courts. Klix v St. Stanislaus Church,
137 Mo. App. 347.
Status, As Compared with English Parson. A religions cor-
poration in this country stands in the place of the i)arson
in England, who, as a corporation sole, holds the legal title
to the estates of tlie cluirch. Kut those societies could n<>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<l may. therefore,
maintain an action to recover the possession of the church
l)ropeity fiom whicli they have been evicted by the members
of the society. Members of the society cannot forcibly
take i)os.session of the church building of the corporation
and hold and conti-ol it in oi>])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, un<lcr the New Y^ork statute, con-
sists not of the trustees alone but of the members of the
society. The society itself is incorj)orated, and its mem-
bers are the corjxn-ators. The relation of the trustees to the
society is not th:!t of a private trustee to the cestui (|\u'
trust, but they are its ollicers, with the jxjwers of the ollicers
of other corporations. Such societies do not belong to the
class of ecclesiastical corporations in the sense of the Eng-
lish law, but are to be regarde<l as civil coi'porations gov-
erned by the rules of the common law. l)ell))ort Parish v
Tooker, 2J) Barb. ( X. Y. ) 25(i.
As to who ai-e cor|M)rators, see Burrell v Associate Re-
formed Church, Seneca, 44 liarb. ( N. Y. ) 2S2. holding that
the corporation consists of all of llic iiKMubcis of ilic society
entitled to vote in the election (tt liiistees.
The trustees, deacons, clmichwardeiis, or other similar
Chi 'I'm: ('i\ iL LAW .wh 'riii: ciii i:* ii
( (Hirers of ;i II iiiiim iii|n»i;i led cliiircli. i I' <i I i/,fiis of I lie I iii led
SIjiIcs. jirc :i corjionit inn for llic |iiii)H)S(' ol" Inking itiid lioM-
in;^ ill sncccssioii jill ic:il :iii)l p<'is<»ii;il cslMtc <ii\<Mi lo their
(Iinreli. Jiojin v (Mii-isi i;iii (liiireli, Soiilli I);iiil>iii 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<l not the coii-
•^rcj^atiou constitute tlie coipornle l»(»dy. Alrir;iii Meihotlist
r.rlhel ChuiTh. T>,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<l in
some matter of religious faith or church polity, could suc-
cessfully appeal to the secular courts for redress, and have
these courts determine that one faction of a religious or-
ganization was orthodox, an<l living and acting in conform-
ity with the organic creed of Die church, and another faction
was violating and disregarding such organic law. Wehmer
V Fokenga, 57 Neb. 510.
Civil Courts. Freedom of religious profession and wor-
shij) cannot be maintained, if the civil courts trench upon
the domain of the church, construe its canons and rules,
dictate its disciidine, and regulate its trials. Chase v
Cheney, 5S 111. 509.
Compulsory Church Attendance. Testatrix bequeathed to
a son a sum of money to be jtaid in installments, on condi-
tion that he regularly attend a sjjecitied church "when not
sick in bed, or prevented by accident or other unavoidable
occurrence." It was held that this bequest did not violah?
the provision of the Wisconsin constitulion securing reli-
gious toleration. The provision in the will was not against
public policy. Testatrix had a right to impose such a con
dition in connection with the bequest. Re Paulson Will,
127 Wis. 612.
<;lm> '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 Snii<l;iy, Inil ex('ni|i( in;:; fioni the
oi)ei';ilion of the ordinnnce jtersons who kej)t Satni-day as
the Sabbath, was invalid. Shrevepoit v Levy, 2<» La. Ann.
071.
Limitation. Tieli^ions liberty does not inclnde tiie rij^ht
to inti-odnee ami earry (Mit every scheme or i)nrpo.se whieh
persons see fit to claim as part of their religious system.
While thei-e is no legal antliority to constrain belief, no one
can lawfully sti-etch his own liberty of action so as to inter-
fere with that of his neighbois, or violate peace and good
order. Matter of Frazee, (\:\ Mich. :3D0.
By the constitutional provision guaranteeing religious
freedom, unlimited freedom of conscience and religious
belief and profession is secured to every person, but it
affords no justification for acts or practices in religious
services which disturb the public peace, or disturb others
in their religious worship; and a statute prohibiting acts
having a tendency to endanger the public peace, or to dis-
tract the attention and interrupt the quiet of others, is not
in conflict with this constitutional i)rovision, although the
l)rohibited acts nmy form a part of the services of religious
worship. Religious liberty, as recognized and secured by
the constitution, does not mean a license to engage in acts
having a tendency to disturb the public peace under the
form of religious worship, nor does it include the right to
disregard those regulations which the Legislature have
deemed reasonably necessaiy for the security of jjublic
order. A reasonable measure of prevention to avoid dis-
turbance is not an infringement of constitutional rights.
State V White, 04 N. H. -18, holding that beating a drum in
a compact part of the town without the command of an
authorized military oflicer, as required by law, could not
be justified by the claim that the act was done in accordance
RKlJdlorS FREEDOM »;i>l
with the defeudanls' sense of religious duty aud in worship-
ing God aeeordiiig to llie <lietates of their own consciences,
and that the}' were not disturbing the public peace or the
religious worship of others.
Louisiana. In the treaty of cession ( ISOoi tlie First Con-
sul (Napoleon Bonaparte j of the French Republic exacted
a stipulation iu favor of the inhabitants of the ceded terri-
tory, that they should be incorporate<l into the Union, and
admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of
the federal coustitutiou, to an eujoynient of all the rights,
advantages and immunities of citizens of tiie United States,
and that iu the meantime they should be maintained and pro-
tected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, aud
the religion which they jjrofessed. This stii)ulation was
personal to every iidiabitant of the country in relation to
his property aud the religion he might i)rofess. He was
solemnly guaranteed the free enjoyment of his religious
opinions, whatever they might be. It was not a stii)ulatiou
in favor of any particular church or religious establish-
ment, but a full guai-anty to every inhabitant of the cede<l
ju-ovince that he should not be molested on account of his
religious belief or form of worship. No nmn can be molested,
so long as he demeans himself in an orderly and peaceable
manner, on account of his mode of worship, his religious
ojjinions and ])rofession, and the religious functions he nuiy
choose to perform, according to the rites, doctrine, and dis-
cipline of the church or sect to which he may belong, au<l
this absolute immunity e.xtends to all religions and to every
sect. Wardens of the Church of St. I^ouis v Blanc, 8 Rob.
Re. (La. I 52.
Massachusetts. Tlie Declaration of Rights in the Consti-
tution of Massachusetts was intended: "1. To establish, at
all events, libeity of conscience and clioice of the mode of
worshi]*. 2. To assert the right of the State, in its i)olitical
cajiacity, to reipiire and enforce the public worshij) of (Jod.
3. To deny the right of establishing any hierarchy, or any
power in the State itself, to require conformity to any
cl'l: Tin: cin il law and tiii: cim i;<"Ii
erred «»i- roriiiiihiiy ol' w oi-sliip." A<limis \ Houc, 11 Mass.
Memorials. IT jjioiis |»ei-s()iis elioose. as an ineideiit of their
Ii(nis«' of worship, so to const met, or (h'eorale it UH to con-
timially call to mind deet'ased pei-sons noted for piety or
(h'volion, il in no way I i'ans<;resses their fi-anehise. Cush-
nian v Chnrtli (tf (lood Siieplierd, 188 I'a. S|. i:{8.
Minor Children. 1 1 is the parent's duty, as well as his
rijiht, to j;ive his ehildicn moral and i-elijiions inslrnetion.
This i)arental authority, however, is always lor tlie j^uod of
the ehildreii, and therefore is not absolute in all thin;^ oi-
des]K)tic. It must at all times be exercised in subservience
to the laws aiul to the rights of others. He dare not enforce
it to commit acts of i<lolatrv or blaspluniy. lie dare not
force it to abandon the paths of innocence and viitue. an<l
comi)el it to wor.ship at a temple dedicated to vice, corrnp
tion, and abomination. Against any .such i)arental control
our constitution and laws would at once interjiose their
authority and wrest the child from the dangei-s of such false
teachings and from the inllnence of such uidioly ojiinions
and i)ractices. All parental authority must, in every well-
regulated. Christian community, be subject to its institu-
tions and its laws. Parental authority is human authority.
No lawmaking ]>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<jn.
The law not only tolerates the privilege, but it jirotects
every one iu the enjoyment of it. The people are entitled as
an incident to such right to form as.sociations, adopt creeds,
organize churches, and establish seminaries of learning for
the advancement of tlieir peculiar tenets of faith, and to ac-
quire i)roperty an<l erect buildings to aid them iu accom-
l)lishing that end. Liggett v Ladd. 17 Ore. 89.
Pennsylvania. Under the Pennsylvania constitution all
men have a natural and indefeasible right to worshij) Al-
mighty God according to the dictates of their own con-
science, and no human authority can in any case whatever
control or interfere with the rights of conscience. This law
was not intended to exempt any religious society from the
respect that is due to the organization and moral and
social order of the State, from necessity of holding its land
under the State, and according to its laws. But it does
mean, that for its own internal order, and for the mode in
which it fulfills its functions, it is to be a law unto it self.
or have its law within itself, provided it kwp within the
bounds of social order and morality. McCiinnis v Watson,
41 l»a. St. 9.
Polygamy. Bigamy and i)olygamy are ( liim-s by the laws
of all civilized and Christ ian countries, by the laws of the
United States, and of Idaho, where the ca.se arose. To call
their advocacy a tenet of religion is to oHVmkI the cnuiuKiii
sense of mankind. However free the exercise (»l reliuion
<;lm tup: ('I\il law and tiii: ciii i^cii
may Ix'. il must be suhordinale lo the; criiiiinal laws of the
country, pusHed with reference to actioiiH regarded by iH't\-
eral consent as properly the subjects of punitive lej^islation.
The statutes of tlie territory of Idaho excluding,' from th<'
right of sulfra^e bigamists and j)olyganiists, and any persons
advocating plural mari-iages, were sustained as a valid
exercise of legislative j)ower. Davis v Beason, i:i."> 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 <lay, and from the contro-
versies which exist between the dififerent sects. Individ-
uals are excited to search the Scriptures for themselves,
and rival sects are more emulous to cultivate and dis])lay the
virtue of the Christian character. Commonwealth v Bat-
chelder, Thac. Cr. Cas. (Mass.) 101.
United States. Each individual within the jurisdiction
of the United States, whether he be within the limits of a
State or elsewhere, has a right to determine for himself all
those questions which relate to his relation to the Creator
of the Universe. No civil authority can coerce him to
accept any religious doctrine or teaching, or restrain him
from associating him.self with -auy class or organization
which promulgates religious teaching. Whether he shall
adoi)t any religious views, or, if so. what shall be the char-
acter of these views, and the pei'sons with whom he .shall
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 025
associate in carrying out the particular views, are all ques-
tions addressed to his indivi<lual couscieuce, which no hu-
man authority' has the right, even in the slightest way, to
interfere with, so long as his practices in carrying out his
peculiar views are not inconsistent with the peace and good
order of society. Mack v Kinie, 129 Ga. 1.
For a sketch of the origin and adoption of the First
Amendment to the constitution of the riiitcd States, see
Reynolds v U. S., 1)8 U. S. 145.
Virginia. Consistent with the constitution of N'irginia the
Legislature could not create or continue a religious estab-
lishment which sliould liave exclusive rights and prerog-
atives, or compel the citizens to worslii]) niuler a stipulated
form or discipline, or to pay taxes to those whose creed
they could not conscientiously believe. But the free exer-
cise of religion cannot be justh' deemed to be restrained by
aiding with equal attention the votaries of every sect to per-
form their own religious duties, or by establishing funds
for the support of ministers, for public chai-ities, for the
endowment of churches, or for the sepulture of the dead.
And that these j)urposes coiild be better secured and cher-
ished b}' corporate powers cannot be doubted by any person
who has attended to the diflficulties which surround all vol-
untary associiitions. Terrett v Taylor, !) ('ranch ( T. S. ) 4:5.
Voluntary Basis. Undei- our form and theory of govern-
ment every ecclesiastical system rests on the voluntary prin-
ci])le, and the sui)i»ort and maintenance of churches depend
on voluntary contributions. No ecclesiastical organization
in this country possesses legal capacity unless incorporated,
or unless it is ac(|nired by a conveyance of jn-operty in trust
for tlie use ami benetil of the cliui-ch. The fourth section of
the Alabama declaration of lights provides "that no one shall
be compelled by law to attend any i)lace of worsliij), nor to
pa}' any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing
any place of worshij), or for sustaining any minister or min-
istry." State ex rel McNeill v Hibb St. (Miunli, St Ala. '2'.].
See also article on Kcli^ions Toleration.
RELIGIOUS GARB
Now York, 626.
I'cniisylvania, 020.
New York. In ( )'( 'oniini- v llciidi-ick, ISl X. Y. 421, tlie
court sust;»in«'<l llic \;ili(lily of jin oi-der iujkIc l»y tin- New
York Sl;i1(' Sn|i(Miiil('ii(h'iit ol" IMiblie Instriitlioii pioliihit-
\u*i Ic.ulicr.s Iroiii wojiriii*; :i distiiutive reli<;i()»i.s <i;;irh while
cnjiJijitMl in tiic work of teacliinji; in a j)iiblic school. Two
Icachcr.s aHcctcd by this order were members of the Sister-
hood of St. Jos('|»h. and they continued to wear the reli<;ious
<>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<ihouse in Federal Street, ;^> 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<l in the control
and management of its affairs, of all religious judicatories;
it is a creature of the State, subject to such control as its
own laws may impose; and none of the provisions of the act
are intended to disturb, interfere with, or regulate the ac-
tions and powers of the numerous voluntary religious or-
ganizations which exist among the peojjle; but such bodies
are recognized as existing, and are considered entirely spir-
itual associations, distinct and separate from the bo<ly
politic. Thus, in mere membershij) the same persons may
be a religious sitciety, holding to pe<'uliar religious notions,
having their own cree<ls and forms of worship, and at the
(i:\'2 Tin; ri\iL i,.\w a.\i> 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('(|nirin<i; lli«' Inistccs to iidniiiiislci- the property ac-
coidiii;;' to the rnh's and |)isci|dine of tlie (h-iioniination,
and prohibit in<;' a divei-sion of the pro|iei-ty, did not aflect
the natni'e of the tith' vested in the corpoi-ation, hnt tliey
ndated wliolly to tlie offlcors of tlie corporation. The chuich
or con^rej;at ion to whieli the coiiioration l>elon^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<l society is con-
nected. Hale V Everett, 5.? X. II. 1.
Congregational, Division, Effect. If the princij)le of govern-
ment in snch cases is that the majority rnles, then the
numei-ical majority of members mnst control the right to
the use of the property. If there be within the congrega-
tion officers in whom are vested the ])owers of such control,
then those who adhere to the acknowledged organism by
which the body is governed are entitled to the use of the
pro])erty. The mimu-ity in choosing to separate themselves
into a distinct body, and refusing to recognize the authority
of the goviM-ning body, can claim no rights in the property
from the fact that thev had once been mend)ers of the
RELIGIOUS SOCIIOTIKS 633
church or coii^i-cgatioii. This niliiig admits of no iii(j[uify
into the existing religious opinions of tiiose who comprise
the legal or regular organization ; for, if such were jx-r-
luitted, a very small minority, without any olhcers of the
churcli among them, might be found to be the only faithful
supporters of the religious dogmas of the founders of the
church. There being no such trust imposed ujjon the prop-
erty w Iicn jMiichased or given, the court will not imply one
for the purpose of ex])elling from its use those who by regu-
lar succession and order constitute the church, because
they may have changed in some respect their views of reli-
gious tiutli. Watson V Jones, 13 Wall. (U. S. ) ('.70.
Connectional Relations. The American Trimitive Meth-
odist Society, located at Paterson, New Jersey, was not
congregatioual in its form of government, but was affiliated
with the Annual Conference of the Primitive Methodist
Church. The local (hui-ch had no v.rilleu constitution, and
none was needed to establish its connection with the gen-
eral church. American Primitive Society v Pilling, -1 Zab.
(N. J.) 633.
Consolidation. Corporations cannot consolidate without
legislative authority. An agreement of consolidation signe(l
by the presidents of two corporations, incorporated under
different acts, one, i-eligious, organized under 2 K. L. 1813,
chap. 60, and the other benevolent, organized under laws of
1848, chap. 319, and also signed by the secretary of the
alleged consolidated corjtoi'ation, there being no assent of
the supreme court to the consolidation, nor any conlirma-
tion by the trustees of one of the c()T])oi'ations, is of no
effect, and the corporations remain in being. Chevr.i P.nai
Israel Aushe Vanove und Motal v Chevra Bikur Ciiolim
Aushe Rodof Sholem, 24 Misc. (N. Y. ) 180.
The X. Y. act of IS":* chaj). 176, which among other things
authorized the consolidation of two or more religions so-
cieties or corporations Itelonging to the same clinnh or de-
nomination did not ])ermit the consolidation of two corpct-
rations. one of which was Presbvlerian and the other umle-
(i:ti r\]\: cixii. law ani> tiii; cm ncii
ii()iiiin:iti()ii:il. Sl(»l<cs v riicljis .Missi(»ii, 17 lliiii ( N. \.)
HTO ; scr ;ilso Kc MctlKnlist lljiiscctp;!! Socicly v TciTy, HI
Ilim (N. V.) 1(11.
Constitution. A (••tiislit ulictii l'<»i- ;i voliiiitiifv society may
he |tr(»p('i-. ;is :im ()i-<;;miz;it ion. hut it has none of tlie pow-
ers or i-('(|nisites ol' a const itnt ion in jiolilical l»o<li(*s, wliicli
cnianah's li-oni a liij^licr power llian llie Lej^islatnre. and
always is sn|»|»os<'(l lo l»e enacted liy a power sujterior to
tlie Lejfislatnre, and is nnclian^cahle (.\c<')it hy the body
wliicli estaldislied it; but that body can chanjic it at jtleas-
ure. Smith v \«ds(»n. IS \'t. ."ill.
Contract. The society was nnim oi'porated. In New Khen-
ezer Association v (ii'css Lnmlier Company, 81) (la. 125, it
was held that with a hnildinjjf committee of tlie society,
consist in<; of tive mendteis. anthority to make hindinj;
conti'acts in behalf of the connnittee would have to be exer-
cised by a majority of the members, either directly or by
(hdejiatiii^- the i)ower to a less lunnber. One member alone
could not contract witluuit being authorized so to do by a
majority.
Conveyance, Presumption. Where real estate is conveyed
to trustees in trust for the use of a church or congregation,
as a place of worshiji, which church or congregation is after-
ward incorjtoraled, the court, after a great lapse of time,
will j)resume a conveyance from the original trustees, or
their heirs, to the corporation. Dutch Church in Garden
St. V Mott, 7 Paige Ch. (X. Y.) 77.
Debts. Dissenters are held liable for debts of the society
contracted before they withdraw. Hosford, etc. v Lord. 1
Koot (Conn.) lV2y>.
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 <levised to a i-eli-
gious society for the ]Mir]»ose of maintaining a Iri'e school in
a specified district it was held tliat an agreement by the
society to divei-t tliis fund fi'oni tlie (►bject for wiii( h it was
given and apply it to the .supi)ort of the minisiiy was void,
being a fraud ujjou this puri>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 <levise, nor was this power exteMih'd by the Ke-
(;;;(; 'iiii: cin IL law am» 'I'IIi; cmi i:rii
\is('(| Stahitcs. Siicli ;i <l('\is(' to ;i coiiior.i I ion ciiniiot he
snsi;iiii(Ml ;is a (Iiai'iliihlc use. Ayrcs \ TniHteeK, Meth-
odist lOpiscopJil <1iiii-(li, New "N'oi-k, ."'. Saiidf. Sup. C(. ( N. V. i
Dissolution. Xo iiieetiiif; of tlic I)oai<l of trustees was neces-
sary to authorize ;i iiiiijority to make iiii ;i]iplieat i(*ii for the
dissolution of the society inider the act of isTl', chap. 42i.
Matter of Third Methodist Episcoi)al CIiiii(h. Brooklyn,
i\7 TIuu (N. Y.I S(i.
The court declined to direct a dissolntion of a corpora-
tion known as the IMoprietoi-s of tlie New South Meeting
House in Boston a.uainst tlie ])rotest of a minority of the
mendters. Ke New Soutli Meeting House, Boston, K? Allen
(Mass.) 407.
Diversion of Property. It is not in the i)ower of a majority
of a denomination or congrej^ation, however large the major-
ity may be, by reason of a change of religious views, to
carry its ])roperty to a new and ditt'erent doctrine. Smith
et al V I'edigo et al 145 Ind. :'>(»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<l, it appcai-ing that seals were
affixed when the certilicate was execute*!.
Incorporation, How Proved. Tlie necessai-y certilicate of
«;:5s Till-: ('i\iL LAW AM) tup: cmiicii
iii(()i|M)r;il i(»ii hciii;; lost, I lir i iicor|M»r;i I i«»ii \\;is |)criiiil tcl
(o lie proviMl hy ii cfrl ificd copy of the vcr<n(\ oj' the iiicor-
|)or;ilioii. Sccoiul McllMMlisf l']|»iscop;il (Mnircli of (Jt-cimi-
wiili V Iliimplircv, II) St. Uv\k Mil.
Incorporation Not Necessary. "A cliurdi or i-j'lijfious so-
ciety niiiy exist for nil the piu-poscs foi* vliicli it w;is or^^nii-
ized iiulepeiidently of any incorporation of tlic body under
the statutes of the State." Hundley v Collins, V.'A Ala. 234.
Independent. Diversion of Trust. If the trust is confide<l
to a religious coii<;regatioii of the inde])endent or coiif^re-
gatioiial form of government, it is not in the power of the
majority of that congi-egatifui, however ju-eponderant, hy
reason of a change of views on religious subjects, to carry
the property so confided to them to the support of new and
conflicting doctrine. It is the duty of the courts in such
cases, wheu the doctrine to be taught or the form of wor-
ship to be used is definitely and clearly laid down, to inquire
whether the ])arty accused of violating the trust is holding
or teaching a ditl'erent doctrine, or using a form of worship
which is so far variant as to defeat the declared objects of
the trust. Watson v Jones, VA Wall. (U. S. i (IT!).
Individual Rights. A collection of individuals as a church
acquiring rights as a church and .subsequently dissolving,
have no indivi<lual rights growing out of the formal organ-
ization. Berryman v Reese. 11 B. Mon. (Ky. ) 287.
Joint Incorporation. The Maryland act of 1802, chap. 111.
authorizing th(» incorporation of churches, is not to be re-
stricted to individual churches or societies singly, but two
different denominations may unite and form one society or
congregation within the meaning of the act. Neale v Vestry
of tSt. Paul's (Miurch, 8 (Jill. (Md.i IKJ.
Liability. In Gray v Good, 44 Ind. Ap]). (\ Kep. 470, it
was held that religious societies, whose trustees were incor-
porated, were liable, as .such, only for the acts of such
trustees.
Liability of Members. All members of an ecclesiastical
society without loial limits, formed bv voluntarv associa-
RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES 639
tion, pursuant to section lo of the Connecticut statute relat-
ing to religious societies, are not individually liable for the
debts of such society. Jewett v Thames Bank, 10 Conn, 511.
Majority, Powers. The majority may direct and control
consistently with the particular and general laws of the
organism, but not in violation of them. Sutter v Trustees
First Kelormed Dutch Cluirch, 42 I'a. .">():;.
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<l
that all the religions societies located within the paroclii;il
limits designated {'ov tlie accnmnlMtion and distribution of
school moneys, were llie o\\ iiers of sudi moneys, and entitled
cij riii; (IN II, \..\\\ .\M> '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()UiHl<Ml, hold tlir clmirli |»ro]»(M-ty ai;aiiist llic minority ad-
lM'rin<r to sncli failli. Tlic title to tlu' ]>roi>('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 ai<l in the construction of
a building for a public purpose, and which funds have been
applied to that ])uri)ose, he has a right to insist that such
building shall not, without good cause, be converted to other
uses ; and he may maintain an action either in his own name,
or on behalf of all the subscribers to prevent a violation of
the contract. In this case the contributions were made for
the erection of a church to be used by the Baptist Society,
and it was also to be used for the purpose of having lectures
and concerts of a religious nature. It was held that the
society could not, without the consent of the contributors,
sell the proi)erty for mercantile jturposes without any inten-
tion to erect another church editice. Avery v Baker, 27
Neb. 388.
Threefold Aspect. First. The congregation that usually
meets together for religious worship and instruction.
Second. The church, strictly so called, composed of those
entitled to full church privileges. Tliird. The trustees or
corporation. Worrell v First Presbyterian Church, 'S.\ N. J.
l':q. 96.
Two Societies, One Minister. It is not iUegal for two reli-
gious corjyorations to unite in the settlement ol a minister
if they agree to worship together; and the circnnistance that
one of the corjioi-at i<tns is in an adjoining State makes no
dilference. IVckhani v North Parish, Haverhill, 1(J Pick.
(Mass.) 274.
lil I 'llli: ('l\ II. LAW AND Tin; (III |;r|i
Unincorporated, Status. In .M;i;^ill \ llidun. I'cil. ('as. No.
S,I>r)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
»'Ic<l<'(| ullicfs ill llit'ii' pl.iccs. All ;irti()ii \\;is liioiij^lit liy IIk;
new fiMislccs ;ij;;iiiisl tlic oriiiiiinl Inistccs. :iii<l llic iiiiiiistci"
to secure possession iiiid eoiifiol of llie <-liin'eli jiroperfy. It
wjis liel<l tliiil llie (•(Hijire'^Mt ion, Inivini; severed its reliitions
witii llie (lislricl synod, the ti'iistees who li;id heen ousted
Inid not Viiciiled llie oHIees, Imt were still the lociil tiMistees
;ind entitled to the possession of the jii-opei-ty nnd Itoiind to
administer the ti-nst vested in tlieni l»y the ori<;in;il deed
and by the eliarter. Rarlholoinew v liiitheran ('(Mif^regation,
;{5 Ohio iH'tl.
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION
Connecticut, 647.
Described, G47.
Mormons, G4S.
Municipal ordinance, G48.
Parental duty, 649.
Pennsylvania, 649.
Protestantism, 650.
Connecticut. It is the settled policy of this State to so
frame its legislatiou that each denomination of Christians
may have au equal right to exercise religions profession and
worship, and to support and maintain its ministers, teacli-
ers, and institutions in accordance with its own ])ractice,
rules, and discipline; and this policy is conformable to the
provisions of our constitution. Christ Church v Trustees of
Donations and Bequests for Church Purposes: Trustees of
Donations and Be(juests for Church Purposes v Christ
Church, 67 Conn. 554.
Described. In this countiT the full and free right to
entertain any religious belief, t(» practice any religious jtriu-
ciple, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not
violate the laws of morality and ]>ro])erty. and which <loes
not infringe on personal rights, is conceded to all. The law
knows no heresy and is committed to the support ol no
dogma, the establishment of no sect. Pounder v Ashe, 44
Nebr. Ke. G72.
"The belief of no man can be constrained, and the i>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 a<lvocated and i)racticed.
Municipal Ordinance. An ordinance in the city of New
Orleans, a<lopted April 7, 1858, prohibiting the assemblage
of colored jiersons for religious worship except under speci-
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION 649
fied conditions was sustained in African Methodist Epis-
copal Church V New Orleans, 15 La. Ann. i41.
Parental Duty. Tlie provision in the New York constitu-
tion guaranteeing Ireedoni of religious worship was not vio-
lated by a provision in the penal code requiring parents to
furnish medical attendance to their children in time of
need, and a father was held not excused from liability for
failure to furnish medical attendance by reason of liis belief
in divine healing which could be accomjtlislK'd by prayer;
tliat lie did not believe in physicians and liis icligious faith
led him to believe that the child would ,i;(t well by i.iayei-.
IVople V Peirson, 17(1 N. Y. 201.
Pennsylvania. In their frame of governmei:t of the Trov-
ince of Pennsylvania, together with certain laws agreed
ni)on in England on the 25111 of Ai»ril, H!S2, will be found
the following provision, which fornuMl the '{5th section:
"That all persons living in this j)rovince, who confess and
acknowledge the one Almighty and Eternal (lod, to be the
creator, upholder and ruler of the world, and that hobl
themselves obliged in conscience to live peacea])ly and Justly
in civil society, shall in no ways be molested or lucjudiced
for their religious ]»ersinision or practice in matters of faith
and worship, nor shall they be compelled at any lime to
frequent or maintain any religious worship, place, or min-
istry whatever." In jniisuance of this plan of government
thus formed, and to can-y out those great and enduring prin-
ciples, will be found, in one of the lirst laws enacted by them,
and entitled a law concerning liberty of cousciem-e. the fol-
lowing remarkable sentiments: "Almighty (lod, being only
Lord of Conscience, I-'ather of Lights and S])irits, and the
author as well as object of all divine knowledge, faith, and
W(U"ship, who only can enlighten tiie minds :ind persuade
and convince the understanding of the peo|>le 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 <Jod to be the creator, uphobler
(;:.(► 'nii: cin ii. law and riii; cm i;( ii
jiimI niirr of llic woi-ld, iiiid tluit prorcssctli liiiii oi- InTNcIf
<>l)Iij;('<l ill conscience to live pciiccnlMy iind justly under the
civil <;<)vernnient, sluili in ;iiiy\\ise Im; molested or jueju-
diced for his or lier conscientious ]»ei'su:isions, noi" shall he
or she nt any time he compelled 1(» Ireciuent oi- maintain
any relij^ious worshij>, 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<l provi-
sion made for true liberty of conscience in relation to
religious worship. Before this time these princijjles had
no place in the statute books of any j)eople. They formed
no part of the institutions of any country. They do not
appear to have entered into the mind of any man except
Lord Baltimore, who was a Roman Catholic, and had intro-
duced the principles into Maryland. Here in this country
for the first time they were made a part of the funda-
mental law of a distinct people. Commonwealth v Sig-
man, 2 (Mark (Pa.) 36.
Protestantism. Religious toleration is the vital principle
of Protestantism. Anderson v Brock, •{ Me. 2-t8.
See also article on Religious Freedom.
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
Basis of public recognition, G51.
Camp meeting, 651.
Defined, 652.
Duty of person attending, 652.
Majority may regulate, 653.
Musical instruction; singing, 653.
Orphan asylum, 653.
Place of, when exempt from taxation, 653.
Preserving order, 653.
Protestant meetings, 654.
Regulations, when illegal, 654.
Removing disturbers, 654.
Right of choice, 655.
Sunday school, when not included, 655.
Taxes, apportionment, 655.
Usage of congregation, 655.
Basis of Public Recognition. "The public recognition of
religious worship is not based entirely, perhaps not even
mainly, nj)on a sense of what is due to the Supreme Being
himself as the author of all good and of all law; but the
same reasons of state policy which induced the govern-
ment to aid institutions of charitj' and semitiaries of instruc-
lion will incline it also to fo.ster religiotis worshii) and reli-
gious institutions, as the conservators of public morals and
valuable, if not indispensalde, assistants in fhe preservation
of pnldic oi'<ler." Trnstees First Methodist lOpistopal
(Miurch, South v Atlanta, TG Ga. 181.
Camp Meeting, fanij) meetings are i)laces of religious
woi'sliip; it is the favorite meeting jtlace in the pleasant
season of the year of one of the largest and most inlluential
religious bodies in the land. The meetings are condtu-ted
in the same manner as if held in clinnli ; it is divine wor-
651
(Ml' 'riir: cixil law a.\i> 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 <luty and privilege of administer-
ing the Cliristian^ ordinances." Attoruej'-General v Pro-
prietors of Meetinghouse in Federal Street, Boston, 3 Gray
(Mass.) 1.
Religious worship consists in the performance of ail the
external acts, and the observance of all ordinances and cere-
monies which are engaged in with the sole and avowed
object of honoring CJod. Chase v Cheney, 58 111. 501).
The term should be construed to include within the bene-
ficial operations of the statute every variety of religious
faith and belief and every religious philosophy of life or
death. As applied to a church which accepts the inspira-
tion of the Scriptures and the divinity of Jesus, it means
the assembling together of the members in a congregation,
together with others that may choose to come, for the pur-
po.se of worshii)ing God according to the religions forms of
the particular organization in question. Re Walker, 200
111. 566.
In ]>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<lmitted, do not constitute ])nblic worship. Asso-
ciation for the Benefit of Colored Orphans in New York v
New Yoik, 101 X. Y. ^>^^.
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<ni. !*."> 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<l«;e Ames said:
"I'l-otestant seels who maintain, as a i)art of their ritual
and discii)line, stated weekly meetings, in which the exer-
cises consist largely of j)rayers and songs, and the reading
and repetition of scriptural j)assages, would no doubt
vehemently dissent from the proj)osition that such exer-
cises are not devotional, or not in an exalted degree wor-
shipful, or not intended for religious edification or instruc-
tion ; that they possess all these features is a fact of such
universal and familiar knowledge that the courts will take
judicial notice of it without formal i)roof."
Regulations, When Illegal. The authorities of a clnii-ch
adoi)ted a regulation that no i)er.son should go out of the
church during divine service without their exi)ress permis-
sion. This regulation was held to be illegal, and an infringe-
ment ui)on natural liberty and private right. People v
Brown, 1 Wheelers Cr. Cases (N. Y.) 124.
Removing Disturbers. A religious societ;s' may prescribe
such rules as they may think proper for preserving order
when met for public worship, and they may use the neces-
sary force to remove a person who is disturbing the society
by willful violation of a rule. McLain v Matlock, 7 hid.
525.
Usage and custom have made it peculiarly the duty of the
minister or priest to conduct the services of religious meet-
ings, to i)reside over them, to preserve order therein, and act
as the organ and spokesman of the congregation. It is most
approi)riate that the minister or priest should preserve
order an<l rebuke all violations of it. As the acknowledged
I)residing officer of the meeting it is his dutj' to check all
attemi)ts to interrupt its order, quietness, and solemnity,
and tor this ])urjiose he unquestionably has full po^^er and
KELIGIOUS AVOKSHIP G55
authority to call upon others to aid liim oi* direct them to
remove the otteuder. Wall v Lee, 34 X. Y. 141.
Right of Choice. The courts cannot com])(4 an individual
to attend worship in any place, nor remain c(7nnected witli
any church, nor to receive anyone as his pastor. These are
nmtters which are relegated to the domain of the individual
conscience, and over which neitlier Jvcgislature nor court can
exercise any control. Keligious freedom means absolute
personal indeiK'udence. Feizel v First German Society of
M. E. Church, !) Kan. ."iJH'.
Sunday School, When Not Included. Two societies l)uilt
a house of worship togethei-, inuler an agreement which pro-
vided that the house should be used in common only for
divine service. For twenty years the house was used only
as a i»lace of worship. The congregation organized and
maintained a union Sunday school in a schoolhouse near
the church. After a time the Lutherans withdrew from the
union school, and established a Sunday school in the au-
dience room of the church against tlie ])rotest of the German
Reformed Societ\\ It was lield that the term ''divine serv-
ice" did not include a Sunday sch(»ol. Tliat the term was
intended to include prayer, praise, an<l worship in the
ordinary sense, and not school instruction as applied under
the Sun<l;ty scliool mctliods. Gass Ai>]>eal, 7'^ Pa. 30.
Taxes, Apportionment. The provision in the Massachu.^etts
Declaration of Rights that "all moneys pai<l by the subject
to the sn|>i)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 v<duntai'v association of Fni-
versalists. The society must have been incoi'porated to
entitle its membei-s to direct the disjiosition of taxes i-aised
for religious ])urposes. Barnes v First Pari.sh, Falmmith,
() Mass. 401.
Usage of Congregation. When a hoiise is erected for reli-
gious worship, and it cannot be discovered what was the
(ir.c Tiir: cixii. law A.\h 'I'lii; cui ucii
iKihii'e (>r the woi'sliij) inlciKlc*] hy it. it must lie iiii|)li('<I
from the usage of the eoiigregatioii, jind it is tlic duty of tin*
court to administer the trust in sucli manner as best to
establisli the usage, considering it a matter of implied eon-
tract with the congregation. Greek Catholic Church v
Orthodox Greek Church, 195 Pa. St. 425.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
Archbishop, may appomt directors of corporation, 658.
Archbishop, title to i)roperty, 059.
Archbishop, title to property, pew.s, 659.
Bishop and priest, relations, 659.
Bishop, authority, 660.
Bishop's control over priest, 660.
Bishop, liability on contracts, 661.
Bishop, no contract relation with local church, 661.
Bi.sho[) not hable for priest's salary', 001.
Bishop's powers, 001.
Bishoj), relation to corporation, Louisiana Church of St. Louis, 661.
liishop's supervision, 662.
Bishop's title to land — cemetery, 663.
Bishop's title to property, 663.
Bishoj), when not liable in damages, 666.
Burial M:round, 666.
(,'alifornia missions, 666.
Catholic Knights of Wisconsin, 667.
Catholic, rehition how determined, (507.
Cemetery, e.xclusicjn of non-Catholics, 067.
Cemetery, suicide not entitled to burial, 668.
(Congregation, relation to general church, 669.
Corporate rights, 669.
Enghsh toleration, 669.
Fraternal beneficiary society, 670.
Independent cori)oration, powers, 670.
Independent society, St. Anthony Church, 672.
Jesuit Order, 672.
Ladies' club, 672.
Louisiana corporation, powers of local officers, 673.
Mexico, 674.
Mexico and Texas, 674.
Minority's right, 675.
Nebraska, status of church, 675.
New York, incorporation, effect, 675.
()ri)han A.sj-lum, not a common school, 676.
Parish register, 670.
Penusjlvania, earl}' toleration, 676.
657
(i.-.s 'riii: ciNii. LAW AND Tin; (111 i:( ii
I'liilippiiic Islands, 077.
l*oj)(*'s position under international law, 077.
Porto Rico, 678.
Priest, 678.
Priest, action against for slander, 078.
Priest's authority, 670.
Priest, bishop's power of removal, 070.
Priest, expulsion, 070.
Priest, inaintaininf^ order al meetings, 079.
Priest, power to preserve order in ehunh services, 680.
Priest, iKtt bishop's agent, 0S().
Priest, obligation, 08().
Priest, removal without notice, 080.
Priest's right of action against bishop, 681.
Priest, salary, 681.
Property, how held, 681.
Property right, 082.
Providence Hospital, 683.
Rector, ratifying acts, 683.
St. Anne's Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church, Detroit, Michigan, 684.
Sexton's salary, 684.
Sisters of St. Francis, 684.
Slander, e.xcommunication, 685.
Spanish America, 685.
Spanish America, Umitation of papal authority, 686.
Spanish sovereignty, 687.
Spanish supremacy in colonies, 687.
Students, voting residence, 688.
Texas, 088.
Unincorporated Church, trust sustained, 688.
Woodstock College, Maryland, 689.
Archbishop, May Appoint Directors of Corporation. In ISSS
the Franciscan Fathers of St. Louis, Missouri, conveyed to
Archbisliop Kcndrick certain real estate in trust for the
con<>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<l al some lime occupied
<;(;o THio ('i\ii. LAW AM> '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 <lefendaut included an order sus-
pending him from the mission at Seward. Subsequently the
bishoj) excommunicate*! the priest for disobedience to the
order, and for gross insubordination, but the defendant con-
tinued to exercise the functions of a priest at the nnssion,
including the collection of revenues, and refused to permit
another priest appointed as his successor to assume the
duties of his office. The defendant denied the right of the
bisho]) to make the removal without giving him, the defend-
ant, an opportunity to be heard. T!ie defendant did ai)pear
on notice for the purpose of a hearing, but challenged the
right of the bishop to act in the matter, and the defendant
thereui)on ap])ealed to the highest church court. He re-
sponded to another notice to appear, again challenged the
bishop, again a])pealed. On the first hearing tlie idaintiff
was enjoined from proceeding with the case until the deci-
ROMAN CATHOLIC CllUKCH (JtU
sion of tlie api»eal by the (lefeudanl to tlie courl at Home.
Boiiacuni v ^lui'i)hy, 71 Neb. 4Go. On a rehearing, i»age 487,
the foriiier judgment was reversed and the proceeding dis-
missed witliont prejudice to a new proceeding by either
parly.
Bishop, Liability on Contracts. A bishop cannot be hebl
liable on the contracts of his ])redecessor nnless he has ex-
I)ressly agreed in i)ro])er form and for a sufficient consi<lera-
tion to become liable thereon. The personal contracts of a
bishop are the same as those of a layman, so far as their
form, force, and effect are concerned. Baxter v McDonnell,
155 N. Y. S:{.
Bishop, No Contract Relation with Local Church. This was
held in Wardens of the Church of St. Louis v Blanc, 8 Rob.
(La.) 51, where it was also said that the relation between
the bishop and a local society gives rise to no contract obli-
gation. The bishop is quite indeijendent of the church-
wardens except in relation to his spiritual or sacerdotal
functions.
Bishop Not Liable for Priest's Salary. In Rose v Vertin, 40
Mich. 457, it was held that the bishop who designated a
priest to serve a i)articnlar church did not thereby become
liable for the i>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»(»;ir<l (>r cliiircliw ;i fdciis coliiiioscd rliiclly of l;i yiiicii. 1Mlis
hoard liiid no |»o\\"('r to appoint a ciiralc, hut it was tlieir
<luty to i»rovid<' I'oi" the salai-y of tlic curat*'; but tlun' had
a riglil lo withhold all sahiiy from any pci'son whalcver,
and even to jMcvcnt any person ciainiinj^ to he curate, from
('nl(M'in«; the cliui'ch heloni^in;; to the corjiorat ion. In an
action hi'onj;h( hy (he churchwaT-dens aj];ainst lh(» Bishop
of JiOuisiana to recovei- (hinia<!jes for havinj; asked for an in-
(•rease in salary, asseiMinj^ the right of ajtprovini;- the taritfs.
requesting tliat the cni-ate liave supervision of the i-ecords
of marriages and a}»])ointment of subordinates who ofliciated
in the churcli, declining to aj»]ioint a curate and to admit
that the churchwai'dens had the right to a]»])ointnieiit ;
thanking the tenqiei-ance society for symi)a1hizing with liim
in liis cause, and withdrawing from the sei-vices of the
church all ju-iests except one, resulting in the substantial
desertion of the cathedral services, it was lield that the re-
lations between the churchwardens and the bisho]» implied
no civil contract, and consequently gave rise to no civil
obligations. The bislioj) was inde])endent of the church-
Mardens excei»t in relation to his spiritual or sacerdotal
fmictions. Wardens of the Church of St. Louis v Blanc,
S Kol>. (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<l. There-
fore the bishoj) was only a depository of the legal title of
the property, holding it in trust for the congregation.
The plaintitts were entitled to a decree directing the bi.shoj)
to transfer the property to them as trustees of the con-
gregation, such conveyaiui' td l»c in trn.st for the purposes
(kk; tin: cinil law am> 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 <!iincli lorltid IIk' hiirial, in conscf rated ground, of the
hody of one who was nol a lionian Callioiic, or who was a
niend)er of the .Masonic frateniilv. The refusal of the ceme-
tery to pei-niit the hui'ial of a I'^reeniason. althon^h a Ro-
man Catholic, in this cemetery was sustained in People ex
rel ro]»pers v Trustees, St. Patrick's Cathedral, X. Y., 21
llun. (N. V.) 1S4. It was also held that his i-i;.,dit to burial
therein was not secured by a paper acknowledi,dn<; the re-
ceil)t of a sum of money s]»ecitied as hein^ for the purchase
money of the jdot. Ai)plicants for Iniiial plots in (Jatholic
cemeteries are ])resumed to know the regulations of the
church concerning bui-ials, such as the exclusion of nou-
('atholics and Freemasons.
:McQuire v St. Patrick's Cathedral, 54 Hun (N. Y. ) 207,
involved the right of burial in a lot in a Roman Catholic
cemetery under a receipt acknowledging the payment of a
stipulated sum, and under which the intestate's wife had
already been buried in the lot described. The receipt was
held to convey a mere revocable license, and the court de-
nied an application to compel the cemetery authorities to
permit the interment of the intestate.
Cemetery, Suicide Not Entitled to Burial. Land was con-
veyed to the bishop of the Diocese of Fort Wayne for a
cemetery. The bishop took the land in trust as a bui-ying
ground for the Catholics of the city. The congregation,
with the cooi)eration of the grantors, caused the land to be
laid out into lots, and it was consecrated and set apart
according to the ritual and principles of the Roman Cath-
olic Church for tlie burial of the bodies of such persons as
were entitled to sepulture according to the rites and doc-
trines of the church. To entitle a person to burial in this
cemetery he must liave been at the time of his death a mem-
ber of the church in full communion, and must have per-
formed all of his church duties. A person who committed
suicide was not entitled to burial in consecrated ground.
A person who obtained a burial lot in the cemetery sought
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 069
to bury therein the body of his son \s ho liad coininitted
suicide. Such burial was resisted by the church authorities,
who brought this action to restrain the lot-owner from such
use of the lot contrary to the rules of the church. The
church authorities decided that the person whose burial
was sought was not a Catholic, and not entitled to burial
in the cemetery', and the court held this decision final ami
conclusive. The power of making lules regulating the use
of the cemetery was lodged in the bishop of the Diocese of
Fort Wayne, and the i)astor of St. Mary's Church. The
moment this cemetery was consecrate<l it came under the
dominion of the church. It was held that the churcli
authorities, including the bishop and pastor, couhl main-
tain an action to restrain the burial of the suicide in con-
secrated ground. Dwengcr v (ioary, 11.". Ind. 100.
Congregation, Relation to General Church. Congregations
may hold Catholic doctrines just as other denominations
hold Catholic doctrines, but ecclesiastically and in sight of
the Ronmn Catholic Church, they have no existence; they
are not recognized by the papal authority. Tlie congrega-
tion cannot divorce itself from the church, or form an inde-
pendent organization and retain the ownership of the ]>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'"ren<h
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CTl
priest to act a« tlieir pastor. This ai)i»licali()ii was <l*'iikMl
b}' the bisliop, because he did not approve the establishineut
of another Roman Catliolic church at North Brooklicld. The
new society erected a churcli and again applied to the bishoj)
for the appointment of a priest, but this application was also
denied. The society then enj»aged a priest on its own account.
Subsequent to the settlement of the pastor the bishoj) noti-
fied them that those who continued to attend the church
would be excommunicated. Some members returned to the
established church, others declined to attend any church,
while still others adhered to the new society and maintained
services there. Subsequently a meeting was called for the
pur])ose of revising the list of church nunnbers. At this
meeting certain names were crossed otf the record. At the
same meeting trustees of the society were elected. The
former trustees atteni]>ted to close the church, and notifie<l
the pastor that his services would no longer be required.
An action was brought by the new trustees against the old
trustees to prevent them from closing the church and pre-
venting its use for religious services. The expulsion of
certain members on the revision of the list was sustained.
But the election of otilcers at the meeting at which the list
was revised was held to be irregular for the reason that it
was not within the terms of the call of the meeting. It
was also held that the trustees could not close the church
because, in their judgment, to keep the church open would
be to defeat the ])urj)oses for which the association was
formed. The association having been incor])oratt'd under
tlie statute ])roviding therefor, and liaving adopted a cou-
stitution without any ])rovision as to llie form of \\(trshi|i.
it becajne an in(lei)endcnt society not subjcci to liic jiii-is-
diction of the bishoj). The court granted a decree ])rr\(nt-
ing the trustees from closing the rhurcli building ot the
association against any religions services helil for tlie pnl»li«'
advancement of the worshi]> 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 ha<l he(Mi
acquired willi cont rihntions made hy llie coiigregalion, and
(Mnj)loved a pastor williont any kiiowledyc tliar Ik* had heeii
assij;ned by the archbislio|t.
In an action to coinj)el the transfer of the property of the
church to the archbishop it was lield that the <-oni"l had no
authoi-ity to conip(d sn( h a transfer. Dochkns v J^ilhiianian
Benefit Society of St. Anthony, 206 Pa. St. 25.
Jesuit Order. ''The Society of Jesus is a religions order
founded by Ignatius Loyola. It is understood to be com-
posed of missionaries and teaching priests of the Roman
Catholic faith. As we umlerstand it, there is no legal in-
corporated bod}', but the ])riests are bound only by their
vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and after a second
novitiate, by a fourth vow, re(iuiring them to go wherever
the poi)e nmy send them for missionary duty. They are
governed by a general, and the society has been estab-
lished in the United States for many years." Colennin v
O'Leary, 114 Ky. ;J8S. In this case, considering the validity
of a devise to the society of land to be selected by it, at a
given location, for purposes of education or religion, the
court said there was no trustee created by this bequest who
can be made subject to the control of the court, and com-
pelled to execute the ]n'ovisions of the trust. But a definite
trustee was not necessary under the Kentucky statute, if the
objects of the charity were sufficiently definite. It was held
that the object of the trust was too indefinite; that in case
of necessity it would not be enforced by the court by the
appointment of a trustee or otherwise. The bequest was
held void.
Ladies' Club. The society, intending to erect a new hou.se
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH V>T.\
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<lifice was not erected
on this land, but on another lot. The half interest ac(piired
by the ladies' club was conveyed to the bishop, the plaintitl'.
In an action by tlie bisliop to recover the other half interest
which was still retained by the trustee it was held that the
bislio]) was not entitled to recover, for the reason that the
amount contributed by the committee in the iturdiasc of the
lot had not been ]»aid to them. ICis v Croze, 1 1!> Mich. (I'J.
Louisiana Corporation, Powers of Local Officers. The war-
dens of the society tixed the compensation of a curate, an<l
it was paid for more than a j-ear, when tlu' resolution tixiiig
the compensation was rescinded by the wai-dcus. and notice
given accordingly to the curate that at a specitied time his
comi)ensation would cease. The curate seems to have con-
tinued his relations, or attempted to do so, in ()])position to
the action of the wardens. It was held that the chnrch
wardens were, in theii- <-oi-porat(> 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 in<le])endent sovereign power, a j)()litical as well as an
ecclesiastical state, having universal dominion, superior to
all other princii»alities and powers of whatever (lescriptiun
and wherever situated. As such it can acipiire territoiial
rights in Nebraska, if at all, only with the consent of its
Legislature, by treaty with the government at Washington."
New York, Incorporation, Effect. The act of ISC:'., chap.
45, amending the religions coi-]t()i-ations act of 1S1:5 as to
Roman Catholic churches, authorized the archbishop, tin*
vicar-general, and the i)astor of a church, together with two
other persons to be seku ted by them, to make and tile a <fri i f
icate of incorjioration and therein designate the title of the
(i7<; Tin; <M\II. I, AW ANh 'I'lli: (III KCII
cliiircli, :iii(| (IcchiictI lli;il llic prrsuiis si;;iiiii^ llic ci-rl ilicale
iiixl llicir successors slionid Ik* :i ImxIv <'<>rj»<)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; <iii i:<ii
I.«'o XIII li;iv(' not (('iiscd lo pfotost." 1 Moore's Di;;. :'/.»,
IVmcc V IJoniim ('atliolic Clinrch, 210 U. S. 21M).
Porto Rico. By tlio SpMiiisli l;iw. from the earliest moment
(>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, ;in<l its ]»ro|»(Mly rif^hts solemnly safej^uarded. In so
(loin*;- the treaty followed the recojinized rule of interna-
tional law which wonld have i»rotec1ed the ])roy)erty of the
chnrch in Porto Eico snbseqnent to the cession. The juristic
personality of the Ronian Catholic Church and its o^\^ler-
ship of j>roi)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 <liv(U'ce(l from his tirst wife, excom-
municated him from the church; that it should debar him
from employment as a physician by the nuMnbers of the
jiarish under ])enalty of loss of the ministrations and sacra-
ments of the church in case of their illness, and that any-
one needing the priest should not send for liini when the
physician w;is i»rcsent, as he did not wish to be undei* the
sjime roof. It was held that the words might properly be
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 079
submitted to a jury as actionable \>tv .se, witlioiit an aver-
ment of special <laniai;e. Morasse v Broclai, ir>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 authenticate<l by the
rector with the seal of the corporation. The mortgage was
authorized by the Sui)reme Court. The ])r()ceeds of the mort-
gage were deposited in a b;iidc in the name of the rector, and
the money was drawn out by him from time to time. ;iiid
used in ])art on ]);iyments on the contracts. The society w.is
<leemed to have knowledge of the varions tran.saclions by the
r»84 TnrlnvrL law and 'iiii: cihikii
I'cclol', :iliil to liiiNC :illl li(iri/,c(l oi' iMtilM'il the roiihMt Is iikmIc
I»y liiiii. lie \s;is llic jij^ciil (»! llic <or|»()r;i I i(Mi, iiml it was
ImhiihI by his ads. Coiuloii v Climtli ol' Si. Aiii^nsl inc, 1 I'J
A PI.. Div. (X. Y.) IflS.
St. Annes Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church, Detroit.
Michigan. This was an aiicicnl J'rcnch p.irish oi-ganized
aicordiiiy; to the iiiclhods ol" the (lallicaii Cliiircli, whicli
elected lay trnslfcs as iiiaiiagcis of its 1(*iiij)oralilit*s. Tiic
treatj^ of Paris of MVt'A ii'couiiizcd all these old orgaiii/.a-
tions as entitled to protection, and the act of 1S()7 was
plaiidy designed to enable the ])arish to obtain i-ecord evi-
dence of its cor[)orate const it nt ion nnder the American
local government. The i>arish 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 scan<lal, and that it remain on tliem.''
The court said these words were not slanderous in them-
selves, and were not made so by any averments in reference
to the business of the plaintiff, and they did not make a
defamatory charge. The i)riest at the same time pronounced
an anathema and sentence of excommunication against Fitz-
gerald. On demurrer, the court assumed that the priest
])ossessed the power of excommunication, and, possessing
this power, his sentence was a judicial act not reviewable
by the civil courts. Fitzgerald was subject to the discijdinc
of the church. If the priest had no ])Ower to excommuni-
cate, then Fitzgerald was still a member of the church, and
had no cause of action for the attempted excommunication.
A sentence of excommunication, even if ])ronounced by com-
petent authority, and still more, if possible, when pro-
nounced without authority, is incapable of imjtairing or
alfecting a man's civil rights. Fitzgerabl v Kobinson, 112
Mass. :}71.
Spanish America. Koman Catholicism has been the otlicial
religion of Si)ain since the time of the N'isigolhs. As far
as the chnrcli in Spanish America was concerned, the King
of S|)ain was sui)reme patron. Under the bulls of .lulius II
(ir)0;M5ia) and Alexander VI (14!)2-150:5) there were con-
ce<led to the Sj)anish crown all the tithes of the Indies, under
the condition of endowing the church and jiroviding the
priest with projier support. The church in Spanish AnuT-
ica, through this royal jtatronage, came into possession of
(iSO Tin: (IN IL LAW AND Till: (III K'CII
coiisidriMMc propril ics. The ii;^lil of tlic cliiircli !<» own,
iii:iiiitiiiii, Mild liolil siicli ]>r<>|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'-('Xp<Mis»'s of wor-
sliip ill Spain, rul)a, Porto Ki<-o. and tlic riiilippincs. I'oncc
V Konian Cntliolic Cliiinli. IMO I'. S. L'!»(;.
Spanish America, Limitation of Papal Authority. In IT'.lli
l>ro|»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 intro<luction of the
papal dominion in the New World. For that purpose he
obtained from Alexander VI (1-192-1503) a grant to the
crown, of the tithes, in all the newly discovered countries,
on condition that he would provide for the religious in-
struction of the natives. Soon after, Julius II iir>0: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 lamente<l, and
wished to recall. In consequence of those grants the Span-
KOMAX CATIIOIJC CHURCH (iST
i^sll nionai'dis iKMaiuc, in cIliHt, llie heads <»1 llic Calliolic
Church ill their Anieiican i>ossessioiis. 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, Fer<linand and
Isabella, became, in effect, the heads of the Catholic Church
in their American possessions, hi them the administration
of the revenues was vested. Their nominations of persons
to su])ply vacant benetices was instantly supi>lied 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<l bishops, snch jn-iests as lie destined to the service f)f the
clinrches, and those jfrelates were bound, except for <^<>(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 an<l di<l
not lix the conditions uniformly and iniparli.illy. and con-
travened common right.
Municipal Ordinance, Michigan. Members of the Ainiy in
this city (Grand Kapids) paraded the streets witliuni iii»
taining the mayor's license, as required l)v an (»rdiiiancc. A
mend)er of the band was ari'ested for violating the oiMlinance.
It was held that the ordinance was nnreasonal>h'. 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<l and near
their barracks. Some of them were singing a religious song
and one carried a small Hag. Their object was to attract
outsidei's to their army barracks where a religious meeting
was to be held. The j)ersons so nnirching were arresti'd for
violating a city ordinance against dislnil»ing the jnihlic
peace, ami were convicted. On a|ii»eal the judgment of con-
viction was revei-sed, the courl liohling Iliat the act of the
defen<lants did not, under the i ircumstaiK t's, c(»nstitute a
violation of the ordinance. People v Kochester. II linn
(N. Y. ) Kid.
Municipal Ordinance, Pennsylvania. In \\ilkes Hanc an
ordimince was adopted wlii<h, among other things, piohib-
ited the beating of a drum in a |Mil»lic street without a per-
mit from the niavor. An ensign in tlie Salvation Army vio-
692 Tiir: ri\iL law and riii; rm i:('ii
l;il('(l llic (H'diiiiincc i>_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<i tu lutld
the j)roi)erty. Boyles v Roberts, 222 Mo. 013.
693
SCHOOLHOUSE
Other use, 694,
Other Use. In Scoficld v Ij<;lith School District, 27 Conn.
4!)!), it was held that the inhabitants of a school district
have no ri<i;ht to use the schoolhoiise of the district for reli-
gious meetings and Sunday .schools against the objection of
any taxpayer of the district, even though the district may
have voted to allow such u.se.
School authorities have no ])Ower to grant the use of a
public schoolhouse for the purpose of conducting a Sunday
school therein. Dorton v Hearn, tl7 Mo. I'Ol.
Its u.se cannot be authorized for general purposes not con-
nected with education. Spencer v Joint School District,
15 Kan. 250.
In State v Dilley, U5 N. W. (Neb.) 991), it was held that
holding Sunday school or religious meetings in a country
schoolhouse not exceeding four times a year, and not so
as to interfere with school work, did not constitute the
schoolhouse a "i)lace ol worship" within the Nebraska Con-
stitution, art. 1, sec. 4.
694
SECESSION
Abandonment, when deemed effective, 695.
Changing denominational relations, 696.
Congregational, 696.
Consent, when necessary, 696.
Diversion, 696.
Division of property, 696.
Effect, 697.
Effect on property rights, 697.
Forfeiting church proj^ert}-, 699.
Forfeiting property rights, 700.
Injunction, 700.
Lutherans, 700.
Majority's right, 701.
Minority's right, 702.
Pohtical differences, 704.
Presbyterian Church, 705.
Proof necessary, 705.
Right of, 705.
Roman Cathohc, 700.
Temporary withdrawal, 706.
Trust fund, 706.
Trustees, seceding, 706.
United Brethren, 706.
Abandonment, When Deemed Effective. A seceding minor-
ity from the (icnctal ( 'oiilVn*ii<o, the hiirliesl h'jjjishnivc and
judicial body in the eburcli, must, iu general, be regarded as
abandoning the chnrch ; nor is there any exception to this
rule uidess in the case of a nsnrj)ation of jiower in the gov
erning body so revolutionary in its character as to result
either in the ci-eation of a new and essentially dilferent
organization, or in such a radical change of the articles of
faith as to constitute an essentialh- ditferent leligion from
that previously followed by the clmrcli. lloisman \ .Vlleu,
12!> 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, vole<i to <lis
solve its <*onnection witli the T"nite<l ricshyterian ('lnir<li
and join the Kocliestei- Cily I'lcsliytery of tlic ()l<l School
Tresbyterian Church. The niinistei- ol' the lo»al church
had already taken the sauu; sti'p and had been adniitte<l to
the Rochester I'resbytery. This local .society then hccanie.
in etl'ect, i)ai*t of the Kochester Oity I'l-esliyteiy of the Old
School Presbyterian Church. If a reli<2;ious society thinks
proper to separate from the church with which it has ])i-o-
fesse<lly l)een connected and to form a connection with an
other (lenoniiuation, the trustees have the power to eni])loy
such minister as they think fit, and to exclude from the
]>uli)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<h
diversion. Baker v Ducker. 7!) Cal. ;^()5.
Division of Property. In case of a di\ision of a rcligio\is
SECESSION GU7
society or corporation, wlii'ie both piuties still adhere to tlie
tenets, doctrines, and discipline ol" the orj;anization, the
property should be divided between them in proportion to
their members at the time of the separation. Hale v Everett,
53 N. H. 1.
In 1845 land was conveyed to trustees of the local soeiety
called Dunkers, or Tuid^ers, on which land a meetinghouse
was afterward erected with contributions liom niendiers of
the society. In 1SS2 a division arose in tlic society, one sec-
tion withdrawing and organizing a new society, calling
themselves I'rogressives. Those remaining called themselves
Conservatives. It was held that the Progressives were not
entitled to the i)roi)erty, but must be deenied to have seceded
from the society, but the court suggested that in view of
the fact that there was no sei-ious dirtereiKe ol o])inion on
the questions relating to faith and doctrine, and that all
parties desired to avoid litigation, an agreement be made
between them by which the i)roiterty should be sold, and the
proceeds divided, one third to the J'rogressives, and two
thirds to the Conservatives, such jiroceeds to be used by
the respective societies in the erection of independent houses
of worship, and otherwise cari-ying forward the work of the
society. Ex parte Shoup, !> 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-
<i!>s tin: <i\ii. law am» tiii; <in itcn
ciikMl, even ;iltli<»\i^li it ni;iy Ix- in ;i iiiiiioril y. I'crraria
V Vascoiicclh's. L';t 111. 45(5, 'A\ 111. 1.
There is no doubt about tlie rijjlit of individual iiiemborH
of a clmi-i-li oi-}i;i nidation to secede therefrom at will. The
same is true of any nundx'f of members of such organiza-
tions; but no number, however peat the majority may be.
has the right to seceih* and t;ike the ehurrh |)rojteity with
it to the new affiliation, so lon^^ as there i-emains a faction
whicli abides by the doctrines, principles, and rules of the?
church government which the united body professed when
the land was acquired. Karoly v Hungarian Keforined
Church, S:i N. J. Kq. 514.
The local society was declared to be a part of the (lerman
Reformed Church of the United States, and subject to a
specified classis. Several members of the church, by elec-
tions and various proceedings, sought to make the church
independent, and rejected the authority of the classis. It
was held that those members and officers who adhered to the
original organization were entitled to the possession and
control of the church property, and that the seceders had
no power to make the cliuich independent. Roshi's App.,
(ID Pa. St. 4<)2.
The question arose as to the right to use a chapel which
had been erected for the use of one ])articular class of
seceders from the lOstablished Church of Scotland. Certain
members of the seceding class again seceded from that class
and established a new grouj) of seceders, who thereupon
claimed the possession and control of the chapel. The
original society for which the chapel had been erected was
connected with the Associate Synod. The court held that,
according to the facts presented on the trial, both parties
claiming the property still adhered to the religious per-
suasions and principles of the Associate Synod, to which
were attached the members of the local society at the time
the chapel was erected, but that one party continuing to
occujyy the jiroperty while the other did not, it was in effect
declared that the party actually in possession should not
SECESSION GU9
be disturbed. Craigdallie v Aikinau, 1* Bli^li ( Scotlaiul i
529.
When the members of a religious congregation divide, and
one faction breaks away from the congregation and forms
a new organization, tlie title to the property of the congre-
gation will remain in that part of the congregation M'hich
adheres to the tenets and doctrines originally la tight by the
congregation to whose use the property was originally dedi-
cated. Christian Church of Sand Creek v Church of Christ
of Sand Creek, I'l!) J 11. 5();i.
This society was chartered as a branch of the German
Evangelical Reformed Church in the Ignited States, subject
to the synod of that church, ''and was in all resjjects to be
governed hy its rules and regulations" ; and a charter
expressly i»rohibited any alteration in the congregation for
another denomination. Two juirties having arisen claiming
ditferent views as to church government, the plaintiffs
began an action to restrain the defendant from exercising
control over the property. It was held that the plaint ill's
were the true church and entitled to the possession of the
property. The defendants were held to be seceders.
Schnorr's Appeal, (17 J*a. 1.'58.
The members of the church in Cincinnati became in(()r
porated under the general act of ISII), and in 1827 Ihey were
incorporated by a special act of the Legislature. Afterward
the treasurer of the society and other members witlidi-ew
and organized another society under a «liffei'ent name, built
a church, and conducted worship therein. After the seces-
sion, the remaining mend)ers elected trustees and apjiointed
a new treasurer in ])lace of the one who had joined the seced-
ing party. The new ti'easurer brouglil an action against the
former treasurer to recover the sum of money remaining
from the proceeds of tlie sale of the burying gi-ound owned
by the society. The ]daintitf i-ecovered judgnieiil. Meth-
odist Episcoi)al Church, Cincinnati v \\"o<i(l, ."> Ohio 28.*?.
Forfeiting Church Property. Laml was conveyed to a local
society l(» l»c iieid and enjoy»'<l by it so long as it siniuld be
700 Tin; (IN iL \..\\y AM> '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 sece<le from the local church and s«m nji foi' them-
selves, claiming to be the true Cnited Baptist Cluirch at
Lulbegrud. They alleged that the majority h:id gone out
from the society and abandonetl the Paptist I'nion. Vov a
time each party o<cui)ied the chni-ch edilice on dilVerenl Sun-
70L» Tin-: own. LAW AM) THK cnil'ItCII
days ill (mcIi iim»ii11i. The nuijority |»;ii'ty inslilnlcd procc*'*!-
ings to obtain the exclusive posHCSsioii ;iih1 ri^lit to une tin;
church. Ft was lidd that tliis party must ha considered
the church, and cntith'<l to the exclusive jtossession an<l en-
joyment of the churcli property; that the minority party,
haviufif expcTided ]ai'<;(' snins foi- repairs and inijtrovementH
on tlie property, was entith*d to reinihnrsenient, and to use
the church property until such reimhursement had been
made. Hadden v riiorn. 8 B. Mon. (Ky. ) 70.
The society had an existence as far back as 171K). I'ntil
1855 the church projterty was occu])ied by the society in
harmony. At that time dilferences arose in the society
resulting- from some practices initiated by the pastor. A
secession occurred, and another society was organized, an<l
the seceding minority brought an action against the major-
ity to obtain j)ossession of the church property. It was
held that the title to the property reuuiiued in the successors
of the original congregation, and that the minority, the
seceding party, could not assert any title thereto, and had
no right to the possession thereof. The congregation was at
first attached to the "West Pennsylvania Lutheran Synod.
Lutheran Congregation, I'ine Hill v St. Michael's P^vangel-
ical Church, 48 I»a. St. 20.
Minority's Right. Tn Brown v Monroe. 80 Ky. 44'i. mem-
bers of a colored church under the jurisdiction of the Method-
ist Episcopal Church, South, withdrew and attached them-
selves to the African Methodist E])isco]>al 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 niin<n-ity of a loial or terri-
torial parish, and not the seceding majority, const it ulcd the
church of such parish for all civil jturposes. Tlierefore the
plaintiff, as a representative of the original society, was
entitled to tlie j)ossession of the ]»roi)erty. Stebhins v .Jen-
nings, 10 rick. (Mass.) ITl*.
A minority or seceding i>arty 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, an<l had adopted doc-
trines not generally accepted by Baptists, but the majority
ignored this decision. The court held that the majority
party was entitled to control the jiroperty, at least until
tliey have been sliown to have ceased to constiiute the church
by departing from its fundamental faith. Tin' c(»nrt de
clined to consider the question as to which jiarty most
nearly represented the true faith of the chnn h. .lari-cdl v
Sproles, 20 Tex. Civ. A])p. I>87.
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 <liiii'<|i or to
('iij^riil'l one upon Ilic ol<l stork if nwy of it should rcinain;
;iii(l this new cliurch NN'onId succeed to iill the ri;^dils (jf the
old ill ichitioii to the ]»;iiisli. Where ;i iiiajoiit y of the mem-
bers of :i ('oii<;re<;at ioiial cliiircli separate fioiii the majority
of llie j»arisli, the iiieiiihers who remain, altlioii<;Ii a minority,
constitute the church in such jtarisli. and retain tlie rights
and ])roperty belonging thereto. P.aker v I^iles. HI Mass.
488.
Political Differences. A church edifice was erected in 1847.
and the con<i,regation continue<l as <»ne harmonious body
until the close of the Civil Wnv. Soon afterward the loyal
portiou of the conj^regatiou, includiiii; two out of three
elders, but constituting a minority of the membership of
the church, ou account of ditlerence of political sentiment,
procured the discharge of the minister, took possession of
the church, and emi)loyed another minister. About 1857 or
1858 the Jonesboro church connected itself with the United
Synod, of the I'resbyteriau Cliurch in the United States,
and had kei)t up and continued that connection until the
union of the body with the Old School Presbyterian As-
sembly in 1864. After the war the minority of a congrega-
tion, without notice to the majority, assumed to carry the
church back to the New School Presbyterian Cluirch North.
Subsequently the majority reorganized the Jonesboro church,
not as a secession, but as the church itself. It was held
that the effect of tlie purchase or donation of land for
church purposes, and tlie erection of an edifice thereon,
was to ]»rovide that the building should be used for the pur-
poses of the l*resbyterian congregation as organized, and as
it might continue to be in the future, and for all time to
come. Such organizations are self-]>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( (• <lc(|ii(c(l on llic tri;il. \'aH-
coiK-ollos el ;il \ l''('ii;iri;i el ;il, L'T III. -'M.
Roman Catholic. Tlic socirly was (livi(l<'<l aiid two coiijin;-
<,Mti(ms loiincd tlicreri-oiii. one retaining; tlio original name,
and the other taking a new name — St. Peter and 8t. Paul
Catholic Congregation. Tlii.s division was made with the
approval of the bishop of the diocese. The original property
was sold to the original congregation, and a bond was given
to the new congregation for its interest in the jjrojierty. In
an action on the bond it was held that there was a valid
consideration for the contract resulting from the division
and separation and the agreed apportionment of the original
l)roperty. Arts v (lUtlirie, 7.") la. (574.
Temporary Withdrawal. Pa it of tlie members withdrew
from the society (Swedish Church) and organized another
church. They subsequently returned to the original society.
Their withdrawal was held not to be a secession from the
church but only a temporary sejiaration from the local
society. Peterson v Samuelson, 42 Neb. 161.
Trust Fund. Seceders from a religious society are not
entitled to share in the benefits of a fund held in trust
for the society. Attorney-General ex rel Abbot v Dublin.
38 N. H. 459.
Trustees, Seceding. Before the persons seceding from a
religious coritoration or society can recover possession and
control of the church proi)erty by virtue of being the right-
ful trustees of such corporation, against those who have
remained in continuous pos.session and control, claiming
to be such rightful trustees, they must have been peaceably
admitted to the offices of such trustees, or have established
their title thereto by some direct proceeding or action
brought for that purpose. Fadness v Braunborg, 73 Wis.
257.
United Brethren. Property was held in trust for a certain
sect, the Cnited Brethren in Christ, and at a General Con-
ference, which convstituted the highest authority- in the sect,
an amended constitution and revised confession of faith
SECESSION 707
were adopted, A small i)ait ol the General Conference
seceded, claimed to be the true representatives of the cliurch,
and demanded the benetit of tlie property. It was held that
where such changes do not conflict with any formal doctrinal
matter, nor with the substance of the faith, and are adopted
in the method provided for by the constitution of the church,
the schismatics cannot obtain aid from the courts. Griggs
V Middaugh, 10 Ohio Dec. G43.
A division in the United Brethren Society at Fairview,
Ohio, resulting from the adoption of an amended constitu-
tion and a revised confession of faith by the General Con-
ference of 1889, after which a minority withdrew and or-
ganized a new society, did not give such minority a right
to the property of the local church. The majority who
adhered to the original organization were entitled to such
proi)erty, and to its ])Ossession and control. Brundage v
Deardorf, 92 Fed. 2U, aff'g 55 Fed. 8^9.
The effect of a withdrawal of members from the clnncli
of the United Brethren in Christ in Canada was considered
in Brewster v Hendershot, 27 Out. App, 282 (see article on
United Brethren in Christ), where it was held that i)ersons
who adhered to the original denomination were entitled to
control the propert3\ and that the seceders had not and
could not acquire any right to the i)roi)erty, and lould not
exercise any control over it.
SECTARIAN INSTITUTION
General, 708.
General. Considering? the provision of the Illinois consti-
tntion i»roliilMlinj5 uppiopriations by tlie State, or by a
municipal corporation in aid of a church, sectarian school,
or other institution controlled by a church or religious de-
nomination, tlie court said tliat approi)riations for the sup-
port of inmates were in aid of the institution. The rendi-
tion of service by the institution in giving instruction to
children committed to it is not the criterion by \s liich ques-
tions of aid must be determined. The institution is secta-
rian if it is under the distinctive control of a particular reli-
gious denomination and teaches its own faitli and creed to
the inmates to the exclusion of anj' other faitli or creed.
Cook County v Industrial School for Girls, 12.') 111. 540.
In Sargent v IVd. (»f Education (Kt)cliester ) 177 N. Y. 317,
it was held that St. Clary's Boys' Orphan Asylum of the city
of Rochester was neitlier a school nor an institution of
learning within tlie meaning of sec. -1 of art. of the consti-
tution prohibiting the payment of public moneys to a de-
nominational school or institution of learning, but. on the
contrary, was an orphan asylum within the meaning of sec.
14 of art. 8 of the constitution permitting the payment of
j)ublic moneys for the secular education of the inmates
therein. The fact that such asylum was controlled by a
religious organization and that the teachers employed by
the Board of Education, who were duly licensed t(» teach by
the public authorities, \\ere members of a sisterhood con-
nected with such (lenoiiiinatiou, is immaterial, since the
statute clearly recognizes the fact that the instruction of
the inmates is neither i)racticable nor jiossible elsewhere
70S
SECTA K I A N I X ST ITl T ION 7UU
thau in the institution itself, iiiid it is the duty of tlie board
to provide for their secular education therein, regardless of
the religious belief of those in control of the asylum. It
appeared that no denominational tenet or doctrine was
taught or religious instruction imparted in the asylmn dur-
ing the hours of school ju'escribed by the i-ules ;nid regula-
tions of the Board of IMucatioii, but religious instruction
was given in the evening at seven o'clock.
SECTARIAN INSTRUCTION
Illinois Industrial School for Cirls, 710.
Illinois, 712.
Iowa, 713.
Kansa.s, 713.
Massachusetts, 713.
Meaning, how determined, 714.
Nebniska, 714.
Ohio, 714.
Pennsj'Ivania, 715.
Prayer, 715.
South Dakota, 716.
Taxpayers' presiuni)tion of consent, 716.
Texas, 717.
Wisconsin, 718.
Illinois Industrial School for Girls. This iii.stitiitioii was
by statute aiitliorized to receive dei)eiKlent female infants,
eoniinitted thereto Ity the county court, and to keep them
until they arrived at the age of eighteen years, unless sooner
discliarjied according to law. The county judge made certifi-
cates from time to time. ai)proving bills for clothing for
the girls, such bills to be paid by the county treasurer. In
an action by the scluxd against the county for ttiition, care,
and clothing, a judgment was recovered for the amount
established. The Cook County commissioners refused to pay
the judgment on (lie ground that they were forbidden by the
constilulion, art. 8, sec. .'>, 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<l, aud had receive(l
authority to accep't dependent female infants under tiie stat-
ute. Seven of the officers of the Industrial School wore
oflBcers and manageis of the House of the Good Shei»herd,
and the remaining two officers of the school were Roman
Catholics. At the time of the comnuMicenuMit of the action
the Industrial School had no building or other projierty.
The children nominally sent to the Industrial School were
mixed with other jiersons sent to the House of the (Jood
Shepher<l. There was m> separate dassilication. It was
shown that a large number of girls alr<'a<ly in the House of
the Good Shepherd and the Saint Joseph's Orphan Asyluiu
were taken into the county cmirt and adjudged to lie de-
pendent, and were thereupon <ommitted to the hidiotrial
School, but, in fact, i-eturiied to the institutions fi-om which
they had been brought. It was held that the |iaynient of
the amount claimed by the Indnsirial School would be a
])aymeut in sup])ort of schools controlled by a clmrch, aud
in aid of a sectarian jmrpose. It was held further that the
TIL' Tin: ('i\ii. LAW AM) Tin; ciirK'cii
I iidiist ri.il Stiiool iK'Ncr- li;i\ iiij;- csliildislMMJ ,[\u\ iii;iiiit;iiii(Ml
;in iiidiisl ii;il scliool lor ^irls, }is coTitciiiplatcd hy the act
<»r IST'.I, il \v;is not (Milillcd to ;iv;iil itself of the pi-ovisions
of lliat still lite. The act did not coiiteniplate the organiza-
tion of nominal industrial schools, and the care of persons
coinniit ted to thcni l)y other institutions, but each school
orj^aiiized under the act was ex[)ected to maintain a liome
of its own for the reception of children committed to
it. Cook Connly v Industrial School foi- (lirls, 12.') 111.
Illinois. The I'oai-d of l^ducation, actinij; under statute
authority, leased for school jturjioses the basement of a
Ronnin Catholic chni-ch. It was held that the board had
power, and it was its duty, to lease a building for school
pur])oses, if the district had no schoolhouse, or the school-
hou.se had become unfit for use, and the renting of a part of
a Roman Catholic church was not legally objectionable. It
ai)j)eared tliat Koman Catholic teachers an<l children of
Catliolics were recpiired to attend at a Catholic church, the
basement of which was used for the school, at eight o'clock
in the morning on school days, and hear mass read by the
priest, and then repair to the schoolroom, and engage in
the study of the church catechism for half an liour before
the o])ening of the school, and at the close of the school at
noon the Augelus prayer was read by the teachers and
pui)ils.
In a proceeding to prevent the use of school funds for
sectarian instnution it a])i)eared that the plaintiff had no
children which would be affected by the religious exercises
in the church before school, and that there was no ground
for equitable relief. It was alleged that the Board of Edu-
cation had threatened to employ Catholic teachers. It was
held that the law did not prescribe any religious belief as
a qualification of a teacher in the public schools, and there-
fore the school authorities might select a teacher who be-
longed to any church, or to no church, as they might think
best. Milliard v Board of Education. 121 111. 2!)7.
SECTARIAN INSTRrCTION 713
Iowa. Teacliei'.s iu the .scliool were accu.stoiiied to occupy
a few minutes each morning in reading selections from tlie
Bible, in repeating tlie Lord's I'rayer, and singing religions
songs. The plaintitf had two children in the .school, but
they did not attend these exercises. He requested their dis-
continuance, but his request was refused. The Iowa statute
contained the following provision: "The Bible .shall not be
excluded from any school or institution in this State, nor
shall any i)upil be recpiired to read it contrary to the wislies
of his parent or guardian."
It was held that this did not violate the i)rr)\ision of tlie
Iowa constitution that ''the General Assembly shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit-
ing the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be com-
pelled to attend any ])lace of woi-ship, jtay tithes, taxes, or
other rates, for building or rei)airing places of worship, or
the maintenance of any minister or ministry," and that the
plaintitf was not entitled to the relief sought. The school-
house did not by the religious exercises desciibed become
a house of wor.ship within the meaning of the constitution.
Moore v Monroe, 04 la. o(»7.
Kansas. In Kansas it was held (Billiard v IJoanl of IMii-
cation, Topeka, 09 Kan. 53) that rejjeating or reciiing ilic
Lord's Praj'er and the Twenty-third Tsalm in public schools
did not constitute an act of religious woi-ship. and <lid not
violate the constitution and statute, noi- did il const i(u(«'
sectarian insti'uction or the tea<hing of r«'ligious dncli-ine.
The Lord's Prayer and the Twenty-third I'.salm wei-e
repeated by the teacher without respon.se, comment, oi-
remark. These and other opening exercises occupied about
fifteen minutes, and the pujuls were not re(piired to take
part in them but were only required to ])reserve (uder and
projier decoi'uni.
Massachusetts. The school committee <if iIh- tdwn had
authority to make an order that the Bibb' should iic re;id
and j»rayer oll'ered at the opening of the scliools on the moi'u-
ing of each day. Hu\ such an order coidd not be made if
71 1 'riii; ('i\ iL LAW AM* 'iiii; rm kch
lliO (MiroiHeiiieiit ol' it viohilcd llic r«'li«i;i()us coiivirt ions <»r
the pupils. A school conniiillrc li;nl power to cxcIimIc Ironi
the school a pupil viohitinj; tlic order unless the parents ol
the child had recpiested Dial he Ik* excused froui tlie oh-
servauce of the rule. Sj)iller v Wobuni, 12 Allen (Mass.)
127.
Meaning, How Determined, in State v llallock, 1(» Nev.
37o, the court for the purpose of detennining the ineaniuj^
of the phrase "sectarian purposes" examined the history of
the State, in relation to appropriations, as shown by the
statutes and legislative journals. It was held that the word
"sectarian'' was used in its popular sense, and a religious
sect was defined as a body or number of persons, united in
tenets, but constituting a distinct i)arty by holding doc-
trines different from those of other sects or people, and it
was said that every sect of that character is sectarian within
the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. The
Nevada Orphan Asylum, a Roman Catholic institution, was
held to be sectarian and not entitled to share in an appro-
priation of public funds.
Nebraska. Exercises in public schools, consisting of the
reading of ])assages selected by the teacher from a book com-
monly known as King James version, or translation, of the
Bible, in singing certain religious and sectarian songs, and
in offering prayer to the Deity according to the customs and
usages of the so-called orthodox evangelical churches of
this country, and in accordance with the belief and practices
of such churches, the pu])ils joining in the singing of such
songs, aiid hymns, constitute religious worship and are
sectarian in their character within the meaning of the con-
stitution of Nebraska. State v Scheve, 65 Neb. 853.
Ohio. The constitution of the State does not enjoin or
require religious instruction, or the reading of religious
books in the public schools of the State. The Legislature
having placed the management of the public schools under
the exclusive control of directors, trustees, and boards of
education, the courts have no rightful authoritv to interfere
SECTARIAN INSTRUCTION 715
by directing what iiistnutioii shall Ix* <;ivei!, or wiial l)()(»ks
shall be read therein. Board of lOdu* alioii ol Ciiuiiinati
V Minor, 2:5 Ohio St. 211.
Pennsylvania. Members of this order were eiiii)loyed as
teachers in the public schools at Gallitzin Borough, I'enn-
sjdvania. There was no evidence of religious instruction
during school liours. But after school hours tiie schoolroom
was used by the teachers in imparting Catholic religious
instruction to children of Catholic i)arents. with the consent
of, or by re(piest of, the parents. The Catholic teachers
wore the habit of the order. Teachers are not disqualified
because of their religious ojunious. The court said that the
school authorities had power to employ members of the
Order of Sisters of St. .Joseph as teachers in the public
schools. The niend>ers 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<ler. Ilysong \ (lallii/.in
Borough School District, Hi4 I 'a. i>-U. See also Keligious
Carb.
Prayer. In the school maintained in r>r(»«»ks\ illc <!radeil
School District, lht> 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 ihI<v ((Hislitiilioii and stat-
utes.
Tlic school was tioI a |>la<c of worsliip, nor its teachers
ministers of religion within the contemplation of section 5
of the constitution, although a prayer may be offered inci-
dentally at the oj»ening of the school by a teacher. The
Bible is not a sectarian book, an<l when used merely for
reading in the common schools, without note or comment by
teachers, is not sectarian instruction, nor does such use
of the Bible make the schgolhouse a house of religious wor-
ship, Hackett v Brooksville Graded School District, 27
Ky. L. Be. 1021.
South Dakota. The constitution prohibits sectarian aid
and sectarian instruction in schools supported in whole or
in part from the public treasury. In Synod v State, 2
S. Dak. 3GG (14 L. R. A. 418) it was held that Pierre Uni-
versity, a Presbyterian institution, was a sectarian school
within the meaning of the constitution, and that therefore
appropriations for the university could not be made from
the public treasury, even as compensation to the institution
under a contract with the territorial board of education by
which the institution was designated. The university was
designated as one of the educational institutions in which
a class of students should be taught the method and prac-
tice of teaching in the common schools.
Taxpayers' Presumption of Consent. A\liere taxpayers have
acquiesced for twenty years in the expenditure of money
raised by taxation in maintaining public .schools in which
sectarian instruction was given contrary to the constitution,
which prohibits such instruction, they cannot maintain an
action against school officers to recover from them person-
ally the amount so unlawfully expended. The school officers
had a right to presume that the taxpayers, who had knowl-
edge of the facts, consented to such expenditure, and the
court said that under the circumstances it would be inequit-
able to compel the officers to reimburse the district for money
so expended.
SECTARIAN INSTKUCTIUN 717
lu tlie .same cat<e the cuiirl ^svlstaiued tlie action of the
school autliorities in hiring a part of the parochial school
buildiny; for the use of the district, the roj^ular schoolhouse
beiiig inadequate for the acconiunxhitiou of all the pupils.
The power to rent was based on the general authority con-
ferred by the statute. Dorner v Scliool District No. 5, 137
Wis. 147.
Texas. The Board of lOducalioii of Corsicana, Texa.s,
ado]>led resolutions recommending (>|»ening exeri ises in the
public schools each <iay. consisting of reading of extracts
from the Bible, tlie recital of ihe Lord's I'laver in concert,
and the singing of hymns in wliich the juipils were invited,
but not i-e(piiied, to join; an<l exercises were accordingly
instituted and observed in nearly all the rooms in liic high
school. Certain residents of the district, including Konnin
Catholics, Jews, and one person who did not believe in the
inspiration of the Bible, protested against these exercises,
but the trustees declined to discontinue them, and in this
action they were sustained by the State sn]>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; <iiri;<"ii
ll was licld llial I lie exercises (IhI not coiisl it iile sectari;iii
iiisd-iicl ion, nor Mini llie school iiitrt a reli^^ioiis society.
Sucli a society was delined as "a voiiinlary ass(»ciat ion of
individuals or families niiited foi* the jtiirpose of haviiij^ a
coniinon place of worslii|» and to provide a pi'oper teacher
to instruct them in i-eli;^i(»iis docti'iiies ami duties, and to
administei- the \arious ordinances of reliuioii." It was also
held that the exercises did not make tlie sclnxd a place of
worshij) within the meaninj;; of the constitution. Such a
place of worship was defined as "a ])lace where a number of
persons meet together for the purpose of worshiping God."
(Miurch V Bullock, !()!> 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, create<l and preserved by joint
industry and exertion. And each oiu; by the exj)ress terms
of the covenant engages ''never to bring debt or demand
against the deacons nor their successors, nor against ;iny
members of the church or community, jointly or severally.
on account of any service or i)roperty thus devoted and con
secratf^l to the aforesaid sacre«l ami charitable use." The
j>laintill', 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<lion against the society to
recover comix'usalion foi* his services rendered while he was
a member of the family. It appeared that he was oiiginally
placed in the family by iiis father, but after reaching his
majority lie signed the foi-egoing covenant. It was held thai
the contract was binding on him and that he could n<»l
recover comi)ensation for ser\ ices. W'aiie \ .Men-ill, el al, 4
Me. 00.
719
TIM) Till-: ('l\ll. LAW AM> 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<lsuii v I-'rccman. i> 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 <lod, and
productive of the greatest good of any state or situation
attainable on eartli/ tlierefore covenanted and agreed to-
gether by these articles:
"1st, To gather themselves together, and be constituted
and formed in the order of a church."
The second article creates an otlice of trustee, or agent-
ship, and appoints three of the brethren thereto.
By the third article new members are allowed to come in.
and bring and devote to the joint interest of the church, all
such property as they justly hohl, etc. The joint interest of
the church thus formed by the free-will otTerings of the mem-
bers respectively, shall be jjossessed and hehl by the whole
body jointly, as their natural an<l religious right ; that is,
every individual of or belonging to the church shall enjoy
equal rights and privileges in the use of all things pertaining
to the church, according to their order, and as every one has
need, without any difference being made on account of what
any one brought in. ''And it shall be the dutv' of all the
members to su]>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 giv<Mi u]), as aforesaid, to the joint interest of the church,
or that may thereafter be given or devoted for the benefit of
the church." "The said joint interest shall be hebl by them in
the (ajiacity of agents or trustees. an<l shall be and remain
SHAKIOKS Tl'I
forevei' inviolably luulei- the i:niv ;iii<l dvi-isiglii and al ilic
disposal of the ti-nstee or agentshiji ot ilu* chuiTh, in a con-
tiniial line ol' succession; that flie transaclions of Uu' triis
tees in the nse and disposal ol' the joint inlcresi shall he for
the mutnal l)enelil of the church and in hcinill ol (he winde
body, and to no j)ei-sonal end or purpose wiiatever. Hut the
trustees shall be at liberty, in union with tiie body, to make
presents and bestow deeds of charity upon such as ihey may
consider the real objects that are without." in case of a
vacancy in the trusteeship the duties are to Ik- nansferred
and devolve on a successor to be appointed so thai each indl
vidual api)oiuted to the ollice of trusteeship shall be invested
with the power and authority of nuuia{;inji and disposing of
the property jind interest of the church."
7th, As the whole end and desijj;!! of oui- thus uniting
in church relation is to receive and diffuse the manifold gifts
of God to the mutual comfoi't and happiness of each other,
as brethren and sisters in the gospel, and f(u I he iclief of
the poor, the widow, and the fatherless, and such as may he
deemed real objects of charity; no one shall make any
account of laboi- or properly or services, devoted by us to
the j>urposes 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;i<l ;iiil liority
io ('.\|K'I ;i tiiciiilx'r. Tlic c'wW court could (»iily iiKinire as
to llic aiilliority vested in tlie iiiiiiistei-s and «*lders, who
could not deteniiine, tlie (luestion whether accordiiig to the
rules of the society, the plaintill' lia<l been juoperly exi)elled.
In this case the jdaintitr was <harged with entei-taining
opinions and i>roninl<i;atinji; <loct fines within the society at
variance with the estal»lished helieC :iii(i siiltvcisive of tlie
or<;anizalion. (Irosvenoi- v United Society of I'clicvers. IIS
:S[ass. 7S.
Massachusetts. In J^awrence v Fletcher, S Mete. (Mass.)
]5.">, 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<i
duties of trustees. The Watervliet society was an oll'shoot
of the ])arent society at New Lebanon, and it is a tiiiida-
nieiilal rule and j)rinciple pervading these communities that
there shall be no individual owncrshi]) of jMoperty, but that
all the property held l)y individuals, on their admission t<>
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, an<l legulations therein ])res(ribed.
Each trustee executed iijion his appointment a written
declaration of the trust, and their authority and powers
were defined in the covenant. The trust was for the
benefit of the entire society, and not for any private inter-
est. The act of 1S."I0, chap. 174, declared that all deeds of
trust of real or ])ersonal estate, executed and delivei-ed jtrior
to January 1, 1830, to any persons in trust, for any rnite»l
Society of i)eo]»le called Shakers, shall be valid and elVect-
ual to vest in tiie trustees the legal estates and intei-esls con-
veyed, for the uses <leclared in sinli deeds, oi- declared in
any declaration of trust executed by the trnslees in the
same manner, and to the same elVe<-t as before .Tanuarv 1,
1830, and the act contirmetl all linsis cicaled prior to .lan-
uary 1, 1830. The act provided that the trust shonld con-
tinue and devolve on the successors of the existing trustees.
The act also authorized I'liluit' trnsts. The elVect of the
act was to make the tiaistees a corporate body, and the
property held by them cor|)(Hale |iroperty. and, therefore.
71' I Till': ('I\lh LAW .\M» 'llli: (111 I.Mll
;iH ;ic(i<»M rchiliiijf lo a coiilriicl l»y IIh; society <"oul«l Ix;
iiiiiiiit;iiiMMl jif^ainst the truHtoes as Huch and enforced agaiiiHt
coi-poi-ate jii-operty in their hands. White v Miller, 71
X. V. lis.
Partition or Withdrawal of Property, Not Permitted. Several
persons intending; to form a society of Shakers, entered into
a covenant to snrreiKlci- to the society all their common
l)roperty. The joint interest of the chnrch thns formed l>y
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 indivi<lual
7L'<; Tin-: ('l\IL LAW AM) Till; (IK K<1I
iiitciH'sl ill iiiiy iiM'inlx'f. aiHJ is iii;iii;ig('<l jiiid disjtoscd of for
the purposes of the society by certain trustees chosen l>y 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<l of tlie priest in charge of the church at
Barton that ''Father is not responsible or he is excus-
able, or he may not be entirely of a sane mind as he was
injured in his brain in a railroad accident. That he is no
more the parson or priest of Barton, and that he had taken
all rights away from him, and that the congregation no
more acknowle<lge<l him as parson or priest, and that he
has good reason to transfer him." It was held that these
words were slanderous per se. Hellstern v Katzer, 103
Wis. 391.
Minister. In Klsas v Browne, (IS (Ja. 117, it was held that
to charge a minister of the gospel with collecting money for
a specific object, and, instead of so approj)riating it, with
end)ezzling and applying it to his own wi-ongful uses, is
actionable; if not imj)nting to him a crime i»unishable by
law, it is certainly charging him with being guilty of a de-
basing act, wliich may exclude him from society.
Privileged Statements, Church Trial. Slan<lerous state-
ments made by one being examined as a witness in a church
trial, which is c<)nducte<l according to ecclesiastical discip-
line, are not privileged statements, and can be proved in a
j)rosecution for defamation of character. Grant v State,
Ul Ala. !)0.
727
SPIRITUAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL TEMPLE
Division, minority's right, 728.
Division, Minority's Right. The society ijurchased land
oil which it erected a church buihiin^, the exi)ense of which
w as borne by members of the society. Afterward a division
arose in the society and part of its members, constituting
a minority', ])rocured the incorporation of a new .society. In
an action involving the title and possession of the property
of tlie society it was held that the corj)oration organized in
jiroceedings taken by the minority was a valid corporation
nnder the statnte. Si)iritnal and Philosophical Temple v
Vincent, 127 Wis. Jr,; 105 N. W. (Snp. Ct. Wis.) 1026.
72S
SPIRITUALISTS
Camp grounds, 729.
Devise rejected, 729.
Trust sustained, 729.
Unincorporated society, cannot take bequest, 730.
Camp Grounds. Tlic jissochilion w.is incoipoi-atcd in 1ST7
by statute. Tlie scliciiie of llie corjxn'.ilioii iiM liidt'd n taiuj)
ground with wliarf, iiotel and oilier pnldic l»iiildiii<is, |»iivat»'
residences and cottages. The incorpoiatctrs wnc s|.iiitu:tl-
ists, and came togetlier for the purpose cd' aeciuiring and
developing some phiee upon the .seashore as a summer resort
for spiritualists, inci<lentally as a site for spiritualists' camp
meetings. The society erected a temple ami atiditorium in
which to conduct its exer<-ises. A camp meeting was held
each year. The corporation |)aid all the expenses of the
meeting. Tn July, 181)5. the cor]»oration made a lease of the
property to its trustees. It was held that the society had
authority to establish and maint.iin a cam]) meeting on its
pro])erty. Nye v Whittemore, \U:\ Mass. 20S. See also article
on Camp Meetings.
Devise Rejected. A West Virginia will contained a
devise to a trustee for the benefit cd' the l'"'irst Spiritualist
Church of Baltimore. This was ludd void foi- nncnlainty.
Miller v Ahrens, 150 ImmI. (IN.
Trust Sustained. A will contained the following residuary
clause: "All the rest, residue, and renuiinder nl my estate,
real and personal, wlmlsoevcr and wheresoever found, I give
and becpieath unto my executors hereinafter named, and
their successors in trust, for the jmrc base (d' books upon the
Philosophy of Siiirilnalism. not sectarian, or <d" any ci'eed,
church, or dogma, but (d' free liberal bearing. Said books
to be placed by my exe<-utois where they can be f i (»e to all
729
7:io Tin-: cixil law and tiii: cmiicii
wlio <l('sir(' t<> lliiiik lor llu'iiisclvcs, ;iii<l who inc sccUin;^ ior
the trulli from Hie tnic ;iimI livin;; <lo<l. loi- I liclicvc in om-
God, one clnn'cli, ;iii(l one coniil ry : lirsl , t lie ( Jrciil I 'iikiiowii ;
soroiid, llu' whole huniiin i-jicc, ;is one family; fhifd, llit;
whole globe, the home of all nations — thai is my Trinity,"
It was li(d<l that the i-csiduai-y jiift was expi-csscd in terms
snfliciently cei-tain to enable it to Ite can-ied into ell'ect ;
that though the trust was a perpetuity, which execntois and
their successors could not execute, yvi it was also a charity,
which a court of ecjuity could not permit to fail for want of
a trustee. Jones v Watford, C2 N. J. Eq. 339.
Unincorporated Society, Cannot Take Bequest. The Pro-
gressive Spiritualists' Society was an unincorporated vol-
untary religious association and as such association was
incapable of taking a direct bequest to it. Fralick v Lyford,
107 A. D. (N. Y.) 543.
SUBSCRIPTION
Building committee, action by, 731.
Condition accepted, 731.
Condition, variation, 732.
Condition, specified amount to be raised, 733.
Consideration, 733.
Defective incorporati(jii, vvlicu a defense, 733.
Existing debt, 733.
Liability is several, 734.
Mutuality, 734.
Performance by society, 735.
Perpetual liabilitj', 736.
Promissory note, 736.
Revocation, 737.
Roman Catholic Church, special purpose, 737.
Special agreement, 738.
Subscriber's death, effect, 738.
Subscriber's intention as to object, 738.
Subscription note, validity, 739.
Sunday, 739.
Sunday school, 739.
Title to fund, 740.
Unincorporated society, 740.
Withdrawal from society, effect, 741.
Building Committee, Action By. A promise to pay to a
lniildin<i conuiiittcc a ci'ilain amount of money for Ihe ])ur-
pose of eroding a meelinglionse, of which commillee the
promisor was one, may be maintained against hi in in tlic
name of the other members of tlie committee or the survivors
of them. Sucli action was hebl maintainable, even Ihongh
the edifice bad been finished, and the conunittee di.schargetl
from furlher duty. rhand)ers v Calhonn, 18 Ta. St. VA.
Condition Accepted, ^^'here one signs a subscription for
the erection of a churcli, njxm condition tliat a certain
amount be sid>s(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 rescin<led except npon al)aiidoiinient of the scheme or
failnre 1o collect the amount agreed npon.
AVhei'e snbsci-iption to a clnu-ch hnihling fnnd is condi-
tioned on a certain anionnt being snltsciibed a siibscril»er
is not ])rejndiced by a finding that the required amount waK
snl>scribed, wlien the evidence shows tliat inclnding his sub-
scription, an<l the anionnt s collected for memorial windows,
sale of pews, and money raised at a church fair, the amount
collected exceeded in the aggregate the required amount.
Hodges V O'Brien, 11:5 Wis. 07.
Where divers persons subscribed to a fund for the support
of ])nblic worship, ])romising to pay to the trustees of the
l>arish 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<j;e, 2 Denio
(N. Y.) 40:>; 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
<lis(liar<;(' a jn-ccxislcnl dchl docs iiol clianj^e Hie ijHt that
they have incurred a new an<l diirerent liability. Where a
person subscribes to a public enterprise, and work is done,
money expended, or liability incurred, on the faith of sn<h
subscription, it becomes binding.'' Trustees v (jarvey, ."3;j
111. 401.
A subsci-iption to raise 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 e<lific«'
was erected in reliance on fhe subscriptions. The defend-
ant, a subsci-ibei*, was pi-eseut at meetings for the incor|»ora-
tion. and foi- oilier purjxises connected \\itli the niovemcnl.
and was cojiiiizaut of the various steps taken in th«* nuittcr.
and expressed no dissent. It was held that there was a «;ood
consideration for tlie defendant's subscription, which could
be enforced by the treasui-ei- chosen by the corporation u|»ou
proof of an understan(lin<j; when the subscription was made
that the edifice .should become a ]jart of the temporalities of
a Presbvteiian society to be or«i,anized. Presbyterian So-
ciety V Beach, 74 X. V. 72.
Subscriptions were made for the jturjiose of ]»urcliasini;
land ami erectinji' a nu'etin<;hou.^e, but the house was not
built, and no shares were issued. The subscriber, who had
taken ten shares, was sued on his subscription, but the court
liehl that the society could not recover. The subscrijttion
pajier was mutually ma<le amonji; mend)ers (tf the society ami
other friends, and with the buildinj:: committee, but there
was no contract witli the church. I'^irst I'niversalist Society,
Newbui'y])ort v Cunicr, .'! Mclc. (Mass. » 417.
A subscrijdion was made for the purpose of raisin;^ fuii<ls
to rebuihl a church. Sid>se(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 an<l by the dii-eclion of the defendant, ftu- which an
action would lie, upon the subscription papei-; also that the
subscription |»aper. :ind the subset|Uenl reipi'-st and direction
7;:t; Tin: cixil law and 'iiii: ciii i:rii
(>r 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 brou<!:ht by the society
on a subscription providinj; for a specided jiaym<Mit annu-
ally for the sujtport of the ministry so loujj; as (he then
incumbent should be the minister of the congregation. The
minister was dei)Osed by the dassis, but on an appeal to the
synod that body restored him to his position. Afterward
the classis at diHeient times declared the minister to be in
full possession of his ministerial functions, and at otlier
times declared that he must be considered as having been
deposed. In the action on the subscription the defense was
that the relation of tlie minister to the congregation had
been discontinued, and tliat therefore the subscription was
no longer bin<ling. It was held that the action of the synod
on the ai)peal ]>ractically 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 <h*liver\.
Where promissory uotes given in payment of a subscription
to a church erection fund are made in consideration of a
selection of a site anti coniniencenient of work by a given
date, in au action thereon, evidence of initi.itory stej)s and
discussions of a congi-egation prioi- to tlie giving of the notes
is inadmissible for the jnirjtose of varying their terms.
Michels v Kustemeyer, 20 \V;ish. 51)7.
A promissory note given in aid of the Kentucky K;ip(isi
lOducation Society was held 1o be a valid subsci-iption. 'i'lic
society was under obligation to appro[)riate the money for
the purposes of its charter. This was held to be a sntlicienl
consideration for the snbscriidion. Collier v Baj>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: <lll KCII
Special Agreement. A sHhsciihci- to ;i riind bciii;; raised
for the i)ur])ose of crcriino; ;i clnncli ;i;:;ic'«l to give the rent
of ccrljiiii pi'opcrty loi* llircc years. This did not mean a
lease of the i)roi)erly itself, l)>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-<liii<i to llic riles jiiid (ci-ciiioiiics ol' that de-
nomination. O'llcai- V I)e Goesbriand, ;{;> \'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<I. the
740 Till': ciNiL LAW AM> 'riii; <iii i;< II
♦•Jiurcli \\;is licld ciilillcil to n-ctnci" lioiii its Ununtv treas-
urer iiKtiicy (((llcch'd on siil»s(i-i|»t ions for ;i Sniiday Hchool
buildiii;^ ruiMJ of (lu* cliiircli. jilllioii^iJi liic Simdjiy school
lijid a voluntary organization ind('|»<'n<l('nt <A' the church.
Title to Fund. In Amish et al v (lelhaus et al 71 la. 170,
it was held that money raised on a sul>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('<l a Iter Ilic siijiicr's witlMlrawal li-oin the s()< i«'t y, it
was held lliat the contract coiiliiiiM'*! l>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<l.
Moseley v llalcli, 108 Mass. 517.
Amusements. Tlie act of ISOO. cli;!]). 5(11. pi-obibiiing cer-
tain amusements in Die cily »»!' New VorU on Sunday, was
sustained in I'eojde v lloym, IM) How. Pr. Tti. ( Sp. T. 1 as a
valid exercise of legislative |)ower, and it was ludd tliat (he
exhibition on Sunday of a pbiy cjlleil "One of Our reoj)le"
or "lirave Isaac,'' in tbe Xew \<tvk "Statll Tlieatei-" on tbe
Bowerv, was a violation of tbe statute.
710 Till'] ('l\ II. LAW A.\"l> Tin: CHUKCH
S(>r\ ices were licid Siiii<l;i_v ('Vi'iiiM;,^ iiiiihT tlic Miispircs of
a sdcicly culled "Kecreative KeligioiiistH," and consisted of
])io('('s of sacred music performed on the organ, accomj»anied
by other insli-nments and a j^ratnitons choir; but there were
some paid singers. An ad<lress was delivered, alwaj's in-
structive; sometimes of a religious tendency, sonn'times
neutral rather than religious, hut never aggressively irreli-
gious, and never profane. Certain hymns were printed and
circulated among the audience, but they were never sung.
Most of the hymns could scarcely be called devotional, but
expressed sentiments of adoration toward the Supreme
Being and all of them exhortations to 'moral duty. There
was no public prayer or address to the Deity other than
was contained in the musical compositions. There was no
debating or discussion ; nothing dranmtic or comic, or tend-
ing to the corruption of morals, or to the encouragement of
irreligion or profanity. Admission to the body of the hall
was gratuitous, but tickets were sold and money taken for
admission to reserved seats. The i)lace was registered as a
place for religious worshij). It was held that the place was
not a place of ])ublic entertainment or amusement within the
statute jtrohibiting certain entertainments or amusements
on the Lord's Day. Meetings for religious worship are not
within the act. It is not essential to such protected reli-
gious worshij) that it should be in accordance with the reli-
gion of the State, or even with the general religion of the
nation. Baxter v Langley, :>8 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<li
was his ordinary calling. The baking of puddings, etc., was
hehl not to be a violation of the statute.
A baker who keei)s his store open for business, and sells
ice cream, cakes, etc., on Sunday, is guilty of performing
worldly emi)loyment on Sunday, contrary to the I'ennsyl
vauia Sunday law of 17!)4, and tlie local acts of 18").') relat
ing to Allegheny County. Burry's Appeal, 1 Monag. I'a.
Suj). Ct. Cas. (Pa.) 81).
Bank Paper. Commercial paper falling due on Sunday
should be presented on Monday. Salter v Burt, 1*0 \Ven<l.
(N. Y.) 205; see various State statutes on this subject.
Balloon Ascension. An agreement to make an ascension
in a balloon from a public garden on a Sunday for a com
pensation is a contract for the ]»erfornunice of servile laboi.
and an action for the compensation cannot be sustiiiiictl.
Sunday, originally established as a day of rest and religious
worship, 1ms become by statiite a civil institution, (o be
observed by courts, public ollicer.s, and all private citizens.
Brunnett v Clark, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheldon) (N. Y. ) .">()(».
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<I wliicli imposed a penalty
<liH'('renl I'l-oni tlial applicable lo oilier prohibitions ol busi-
ness on Sunday.
Barbei'ing on Sunday was held not to l»e u work of neces-
sity or cliarity, and tlieretoi-<' not permissible under tbe Wis-
consin Statute. Stark v iJackns, 1 !(► ^^'is. 557.
Shaving and hairdressing lor hire in a shop kej)t foi- tin;
j)urpose is a worldly eni})loyment or business, which, if done
on Sunday, is, uuless a work of necessity or charity, for-
bidden by the act of April 22, 1794, Such an occupation is
not rendered a work of necessity or cliarity by the fact that
there are some persons whose beards require shaving daily,
or whose occupations through the week make it dillicult
or impossible for them to get shaved except upon Sunday,
when it a])i)ears that the shoj) is kejit open for all persons
indiscriminately, and tlie work done is not merely shaving
but all the work of a barber. Mere lap.se of time or the
developments of modern life cannot repeal such a statute.
Commonwealth v Waldnmu, 8 Pa. Co, Ct, 440.
In Ex Parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 408, it was held that sec-
tion .'UOl of the California Penal Code, enacted in 1805,
making it a misdemeanor to keep open and conduct a barber
shop or to work as a barber on Sundays and other holidays,
was an undue restraint of personal liberty, and was special
legislation and based upon an arbitrary classification, au«l
not a proper exercise of the police ])ower. and was uncon-
stitutional and void.
In State v Krech, 10 Wash. 166, it was held that a statute
prohibiting the sale of goods, .wares, and merchandise on
Sunday, or the opening of places of business for that pur-
pose, did not prohibit the opening of a barber shop on Sun-
day. So in Tennessee (State v Lorry, 66 Tenn. 05) it was
held that a barber keeping open his shop and carrying on
his business on Sunday \\as liable to a penalty but was not
subject to indictment.
The New York act of 1805, chap. 823, prohibited barber-
SUNDAY 749
iii;^ «»u Sunday except in Saratoga Springs and In NY'w Y<»iU
city, where it was ])('niiitte(l until one o'clock in tlie after
noon. The act was amended in 11)07, chaji. 207, as to Sara
toga Springs, and was continued in the Tenal Law of 1000,
sec. 215o. The original statute was sustjiined in People v
Haynor, 149 N, Y. 105, and in I'eojde ex rcl Bohach v Sheritf,
i;5 Mi.sc. (N. Y.) 587, 35 N. Y. Suj.p. 1!>.
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 <leleated by the objecti<»ii of a person who was not
a j)arty to the sale and liad no interest in the property.
Kichardson v Kimball, liS Me. 4(>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 <looi-ke('i»ei\ the «hui-ih so (leiiiandiiiji
and receiviii<> 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<l for the viola-
tion of Sunday, inflicted in the mode prescribed by law.
Mnn-ay v Commonwealth. 24 I*a. 270.
Charitable Institution, Resolution. A resolution amending
a by-law of a charitable institution relative to relief of such
members was held not voifl because adopted on Sunday.
McCabe v Father Matthews, 2! Ilnn ( N. Y.I 1 10.
Chattel Mortgage. A ])i-oniise l)y the jmrcliascr of mort-
gaged personal jtroperty to i)ay the mortgagee the ammmt
due, if the latliM- will snn-cnder tiie note and mortgage to the
mortgagor, is not witliin tlir st:iintc of frauds. It is no
(h'fense to a suit on snch prcuiiise lliat the piii-cliase from
the mortgagor was ma<le on Sunday, nor that there was a
breach of the mortgagor's warranly. I'i'ovcn* lice v Piper,
OS N. II. :;i.
Church, Resolution to Employ Minister. An ecilesiMstical
corporation may. at a regnlai- service on S\inday. adojii a
resolution to employ a minister. Arthur v Northlicld C<»n-
irreirational Clnuch, 7:> 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 starte<l on Sunday, and on
Monday was wrecke<l, resulting in the loss of the liorses. It
was held that the contract was not void because made on
Sunday. Merritl v Karic, iMl N. V. 11."., alFg. ;;i Barb.
(N. V.j :{S.
Contract. Though an executory contract of sale made
on Sunday is illegal and not enforceable, yet whei-e the c(»n
tract is executed by delivery of possession the title of the
l)roperty sold ])asses, and the property is not thereafter sub-
ject in the hands of the vendee to attachment in favor of the
vendor's creditors. Blass v Aiulerson, HT Ark. AS'A.
An agreement <ui Sundav between a debtor and his cred
754 Till-: ('l\IL LAW AM) 'I'Hi: Clil IMH
itor ;iii«l :i llii)-<i immsoii, IIi;i( hucIi third imtsoii should j)ay
the debt iis :iii iiccoiniiKMliit ion to the debtor, iind the debt
was paid on that <biy, tl>e transaction was lield void under
the Maine statute afjainst doinj; business on Sun<hiy, and
that it was not a work of ne«'essit_v n(»i" <iiarity. in an
action by the liiird person on a written order j^iven as a part
of the transaction it was held tliat he w;is not entitled t(»
recover. Mace v IMitnani, 71 Me. l*:'>s.
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 <late, and the
services are ])erformed on a week <lay. Tuckernian v
Hinkley, J) Allen (Mass.) 452.
If a letter is written an<l delivered on Sunday, request-
ing and promising to pay for the performance of services,
and there is no proof of an agreement made on that day to
perform the same, the person who received the letter may
maintain an action upon the promise contained therein, if
he subsequently performs the service on week days. Tuck-
ernian V Hinkley, U Allen (Mass.) 452.
A contract for the purchase of goods was initiated on
Saturday and completed on Sunday. It was void, but was
held enforceable by reason of the subsequent promise of the
purchaser to pay for the property which was deeme<l a rati-
fication of the original contract. Williams v I'aul. 4 M.
& P. (Eng.) 532.
While an executory contract made on Sunday will not
be enforced by the courts, such a contract may be ratified
and reaftirmed on a secular day, and will then become valid.
In this case a note was discounted on Sunday, and a check
for the ]>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<l«M-atioii.
A contract by which a liorse is let on the Loid's Day is
void, and a court of law will not enforce it nor give com-
pensation or damages for breach of it. Hut il the [mmsou
hiring the horse, having c()m|»lete<l the distance agi«'(M|
ujion, undertakes a new and independent journey, not witliiu
the terms of the illegal contract, the illegality of tin- (oa-
tract furnishes no defense for his subsequent acts. Trovn-
nuiy be maintained for the wrongful conversion of tin'
horse, unless the owner to establish liis claim in\(tkcs ai<l
from the unlawful agreement.
A let a horse to H on the Lord's Day to go llircc milfs;
B went with him six miles further, and overdrove liiiii si»
that he died. Jt was held that an action of troxci- lay foi-
danuiges. Mcu'ton v (iloster, 4(> 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<l
against the public exposure of commodities to sale in the
street, or in stores, shops, warehouses or nuirket jdaces. It
has no reference to mere private contracts, which are made
without violating or tending to produce a violation of the
public order and solemnity of the day. Every man is per-
mitted, in those respects, to regulate his conduct by the dic-
tates of his own conscience. In this case the contract was
made on Sunday in Canada, but it related to jirojterly in this
State, which was transferred by one jiariner to another in
settlement of partnership affairs. The transfer was sus-
tained. Boynton v Page, I.''. Wend. (N. Y.) 425.
An agreement was ma<le on Sunday for the extension of a
debt on condition that a certain amount should be jiaid at a
si)ecified date, and the amount was afterward jiaid accord
ingly. The ccmlract was not void, although made on Sun-
day. It was a lU'W contract and binding on both parties.
The Sunday law should not be used as a means to jieriu i i;ile
a fraud. Uhler v Ai.jdegate, 2(; Pa. St. 140.
Where a contract was to be performed on demand, a
denuind for the j)erformame on Sunday need not be com-
plied with. A party is not bound to perform a contract on
that day. Delamater v Miller, 1 Cow. (N. Y.i 7.">.
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<H
but iili cxcculcd colli I'jicI »oii.siiiiiiii;i1<m| on SuihIjiv, wliirli
does not need tlu' :ii(l of llic coiiil lo (Miforcc it, will not l»c
jivoidcd on tli;it }ii"oiiiMl. A deed |»r-('vionsly sij^ncd aii<l ac-
kiiowlcdged, but delivered on Siindny. will piiss tln^ title to
the grantee. Shunian v Shuniaii, L*7 l*a. St. DO.
If an offer made on Sunday be a((<'|)ted on Monday, the
contract is not invalid under the New Hampshire public
statutes, chap. 271, sec. 8. McDonald v Fernald, 68 N. H.
171.
Conversion, Driving Horse Beyond Contract Limit. A person
who hires a horse of its owner to drive to a particular place,
and drives it to another ])lace. is liable in tort for the con-
version of the horse, although the contract of hiring was
made on the Lord's Day, and, as both parties knew, for pleas-
ure only, and therefore, illegal and void. Hall v Corcoran,
107 Mass. 251.
Courts. In Story v Elliot, 8 Cow. (N. Y. I 27, it is held that
by the common law all judicial proceedings are prohibited
on Sunday. Making an award is a judicial ])roceeding, and
is invalid if made on that day.
Courts, Ancient Hebrew Custom. Sir Henry Spelman
quotes several Hebrew writers as authoritj' for the statement
that Jewish courts frcHjuently sat on the Sabbath, and that
it was customary for the Sanhedrin to hohl sessions each
week day "from morning to night in the dates of the city;
and on the Sabbath, and on festivals upon the walls. So the
whole year then seemed a continual term, no day exem])te<l."
Swann v Broome, '^> 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 vali<lity of judicial pi-oct'cdings on Sunday, jiixcs an
iuterestiug history of ancient usage, quotinj^ Ironi Sir Henry
Spelmau's Original of Terms the statement that "tiie Ciiris-
tians at first used all days alike for hearinji <»f causes, not
sparing (as it seenieth) the Sunday itself.'' Lord Manstield
says the Christians had two reasons for this couise: "One
was, in oijpositiou to the heathens, who were s»i]»ers(itious
about the observation of the daj's and times, conceiving some
to be ominous and unlucky, and others to be lucky, and
therefore the Christians laid aside all observance of days.
A second reason they also had, which was, by keeping their
own courts always open, to prevent Christian suitors from
resorting to the heathen courts." BegiuTiing with the yeai"
517 several canons were made by church councils restricting
and finally prohibiting judicial proceedings on Sunday.
These canons were confirmed by William the Con(pieror and
Henry 11, and so became a part of the conunon law of Kng
land.
Courts, New York City Magistrates. In Peo]ile ex rel Burke
V Fox, 205 N. Y. 41)0, it was held that New York city nuigis-
trates may exercise jurisdiction on Sunday where it is neces-
sary to preserve the peace, and, accordingly, a summary con-
viction of disorderly conduct on that day was sustained;
citing sec. 5 of the Judiciary Law; Cons. Laws, chaj). .".0
and the Inferior Criminal Courts Act of lOlO. chap. <i.")0,
sec. 71, conferring jurisdiction on city nmgist rates to sit on
Sunday.
Deed. A deed made on Sunday is void. A contract not
otherwise invalid, but void only because made on Sunday,
constitutes an exception to the general rule that void con-
tracts are not susceptible of ratitication. A deed takes elfect
from the time of its delivery, and thoiigh signed and ac-
knowledged on Sunday, if delivered on another day. it is a
valid deed, whatever may be the elVect njxui the acknowledg-
ment. \Yhere a {\vri\ is executed on Sunday, but by the i»ro-
7(50 TIIIO ('l\IL LAW AM) '1111; CliriKII
cureiiu'iil of I lie grantor is (hilcd upon the preceding «iiiy, In;
cannot assert the invjilidity of the deed against a subsequent
ItoiKi fide |uir(li;is('r. Love v Wells, 2") Ind. HOo.
Defined, hi MmIiic it was held that the Sabbath, as estab-
lished by statute, conniKMict's at midniglit preceding and ends
at sunset on the Loi'd's Day. Traveling after simset on that
<lay is not illegal. Nor was it any defense in an action for
damages against a town, for injuries to plaintiff's horse by
a defect in one of their highways re<-eived after snn.set on
the Sabbath d;iy, that the i»laintiff let his horse on Sunday,
and at tlie time of the injury the horse was being used nndei-
such contract. Bryant v Biddeford, ?>i) 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<l thirty days
after the rendition of the judgment, and the last day fell o\\
Sunday, the time was not thereby extended. Sunday could
not be excluded from the computation, and an execution
issued on that day was too late and invalid. Alderman v
Phelps, 15 Mass. 225.
Food. A proprietor of an ice cream saloon and a cake ami
bread bakery sold ice cream, cake and bread to i)ersons who
either ate them on the premises or carried them away. Such
sales were held not to be a violation of the Pennsylvania
Sunday law of 1794. Commonwealth v Kcitlian. 1 Monng.
Pa. Sup. Ct. Oas. .'HIS.
Foreclosure Sale. In Sayles v Smith, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 57,
the court sustained the regularity of a notice of sale in fore-
closure by advertisement which provided for a sale on Sun-
day, saying that such sale on Sunday was not prohibited by
law; but in this case the sale was ]tostpone<l before the Snn-
7<;ii Tuv: ('i\iL LAW ANi> 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<i that the defendaiit "did unlawfully play
at cards and dice on Sunday" charged no olfense. Kucker v
State, G7 Miss. .^28.
Gaming, Dice. The Texas statute a«(ainst jijandng for
money in a city on Sunday was held to include gaming with
dice prohibited by a subsequent statute. Borders v State,
(K; S. W. (Texas) 1102.
Habeas Corpus. A writ of habeas corpus may be executed
on Sunday. Kice v Commonwealth, 3 Bush (Ky.) 14.
Ice Cream. The sale of ice cream on Sunday by a baker
who conducts a refreshment room in connection with the
bakery but who does not furnish ordinary public entertain-
ment, is a w'orldly employment i)rohibited by the Pennsyl-
vania act of 1704. Commonwealth v Burry, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 481.
Immoderate Driving. An action will not lie to recover
damages arising from the immoderate driving of a hor.se
during a pleasure drive on the Lord's Day for which he was
hired. Parker v Latuer, GO Me. 528.
In Way v Foster, 1 Allen (Mass.) 408, it was held that
no action lies for an injury to a horse from immoderate driv-
ing, if he had been intrusted by the owner to the defendant
to be driven in violation of the statute for the observance
of the Lord's Day.
Injuries, Action for Damages. It was held in New Hamp-
shire that it was a good defense to an action brought in that
State for injuries sustained in the State of Maine while
traveling for pleasure ou the Lord's Day that no recovery
could be had under the laws of that State. Beachara v
r»ortsmouth Bridge, G8 N. H. 382.
Insurance. Where a life insurance policy required the
payment of a premium within thirty days after notice, and
the time expired on Sunday, it was held that a payment, or
SUNDAY Hy.i
tender, on the next day was in lime, and tlic policv was con-
tinued in force. Campbell v International Life Assurance
Society, London, 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 2f)S.
Intoxicating- Liquors. If the prohibition inclndcs selling
liquor on Sunday, and also exposing; f(»r sale on Snnday, on
proof of sale only the defendant cannot also be convicted of
exposing for sale as a i)art of the same transaction. He is
not liable to two penalties. Tlie act of selling necessarily
includes the act of exposing for sale. Biooklyn v Toynbee.
31 Barb. (N. Y.) 282.
A hotel keeper who was authori/AMl to sell litpior to be
drunk on the premises, except on Sunday, could not avoid
the penalty of the statute against Sunday sale by i-ecpiiring
the purchasers to first eat a cold luncli placed on the table
at which the liquors are served. Commonwealth v I lagan,
140 Mass. 289.
Keeping open on Sunday a place for the illegal sale of
intoxicating liquors was held to constitute an offense against
the Massachusetts Sunday law. Commonwealth v Tiickey,
13 Allen (Mass.) 559.
Where a sale is made on Saturday on an agreement that
the saloon keeper should keep the beer on ice, and hand it to
the customer on Sunday through a broken glass in a door,
was held to be a violation of the statute against selling
liquor on Sunday. Wallis v State, 78 S. W. (Texas) 231.
Proof of intent is necessary on a charge against a licensed
tavern keei)er for .selling liquor on Sunday. Such intent
cannot be presumed from the fact that the sale is by a bar-
tender. The question is for the jui-y. reoi)le v Utter, 44
Barb. (N. Y.) 170.
Jews. Jews are bound to observe the civil regulations
made for the keeping of the Christian Sabbath. Society for
the Visitation of the Sick v (^)mnionwealth, ~>'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<K 2(17 X. V. 17, I'd; !'(•(. pIc V Moses, 1 Id N. ^'. 215;
also Liii(U'iiiiinll('i- V IN'opU', ;'.;> 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 <lesire and are entitled to the day." "As a civil
institution the selection of the daj' is at the o])tion of the
Legislature; but for a Christian people it is highly fit and
proper that the day observed should be that wliich is re-
garded as the Christian Sabbath, and it does not detract
from the moral or legal sanction of the law of the State that
it conforms to the law of God, as that law is recognized by
the great majority of the people. The Sabbath exists as a
day of rest by the common law, and without the necessity of
legislative action to establish it ; and all that the Legisla-
ture attemi>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, an<l others of a similar ini])oit,
enacted during" th«' colonial jteriod, hail become olisctlete by
the formation of a State government and the adoption of
different ])olicies of legislatitni which had limiicd the enact-
ment of laws in relation to Sunday to the cessation of c«'r-
tain ])rescribed forms of business on that day, and whiih
do not assume to impose any reiigitnis oltligation <tn the
citizen. Disti'ict of ('(dnnibia v lJol»ins(»ii. .!() Ap|». D. C,
L's;;.
TCS 'I'lll': ('l\IL LAW AM) 'I'll I ; f'lUKCII
Levy. A l('\_v on jiropcrty is void. I'ciicc v Hill, I» I'ml.
(Ala.) 151.
Loan. A loan of money inado on Uie Lord'.s Day Ih void.
Wlu'llier the promise to repay be in writing, verbal, or
implied, it cannot be enforced. Header v White, GO Me. 90.
Mail Carrier. A contract willi the postmaster-general to
carry mail required it to be carried between certain points
every day. This was held to justify carrying the mail on
Sundaj', notwithstanding the statute which jtrohibited trav-
eling on that day, except as a work of necessity or charity.
Commonwealth v Knox, 6 Mass. 7G.
Marriage. A marriage contract may be performed on Sun-
day, nayden v Mitchell, lO:} Ga. i'M.
Meat Market. Keeping open a butcher shop and selling
meats and vegetables from it on Sunday is a violation of
the Arkansas statute of 1895 imposing a tine on evei-y per-
son who shall on Sunday keep open a store or retail any
goods, wares, and merchandise. I'etty v State, 58 Ark. 1.
Moving Pictures. A moving-picture show was held to vio-
late the New Jersey statute. Rosenberg v Arrowsmith, 89
A. (N. J.) 52-t; see also Kx parte Zuccaro, 102 S. W. (Tex.)
844; also Lempke v State, 171 S. W. (Tex. Crim. App.) 217;
see also People ex rel Kielej' v Lent (Yonkers) IGG A. D.
550 (N. Y.), but see Hauck v Ingles, 148 N. W. (Minn.)
100.
Municipal Ordinance. An ordinance of the town of Colum-
bia, South Carolina, prohibiting the sale of certain goods on
Sunday was sustained in Town Council, Columbia v Duke,
2 Strobh. L. (S. C.) 530. It did not violate the provision
of the State constitution relative to the freedom of religious
profession and worship, nor did it violate the amendment
to the federal constitution on the same subject.
An ordinance adopted by the city of Charleston prohibit-
ing the sale of certain goods on Sunday was held not to be
a violation of the x)rovision of the State constitution declar-
ing freedom of religious profession and worship. The de-
fendant was an Israelite wlio kept the seventh day — the
SUNDAY Ti;:)
•lewisb Sabbath. The court held tluit SuiKhiy was a <hiy
of rest, and that Sunday had nothing to do with it. Tlic
prohibition containing the ordinance operated against
Christians and Jews alike. City Council, Charleston v Ben-
jamin, 2 Strobh. L. (S. C.) 508.
If the general State law c<,>ntaiiis 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) <Ja.
503.
Necessity. A person who rei)airs a railroad track on Sun-
day by removing a broken rail and replacing it with a new
one does not violate the statute against worldly business on
Sunday. In this case the broken rail was distovered on
Sunday morning. Commonwealth v Fields. 4 Pa. Co. Ct. i:>4.
Repairing on Sunday a belt in a mill wlii<li i»roke (ui
Saturday was held to be a work of lUMcssity, as (»tlu'i-wise the
mill could not have been rini on Monday. State v Cidlett,
79 S. W. (Ark.) 7!)1.
Works of necessity are not limited to laboi- for the pre-
servation of life, health, or j»roperty from impending danger.
The necessitj' may grow out of, oi-, indeed, be incident to tlie
general course of trade or business, or even be an exigency
of a particular trade or business, and yet be within the
exception of the act. McCatrick v Wason, I (Hii<» St. ."ilHl,
declaring it lawful to load a vessel (ui Sunday if there was
no other time to do so, in view of the danger that navigation
might be closed.
It was held not a work of necessity to clear out a wheel-
pit on Sunday, for the iiur])ose of preventing the stoppage
on a week day of mills wliidi eni|)l(>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. I<i7.
All agi'«l wonwin, wliilc in ;i li(»sj)il;il sntlViiii^ froni seven;
injuries, execiiled on Snn(l;iy :in assij^nnicnt of perMonal
pioperty in tnisl lor Ik r own licnefit, coinforl, and siippoi't
(lurinn; life, for her funeral expenses, and a burial lol, and
U}V the celebration of masses for the benefit of her father,
brother, and herself. This was held to be a work of neces-
sity or charity under the statute, and was valid. Donovan
V McCarty, 155 Mass. 543.
The Illinois criminal code, which ju'ohibits labor on Sun-
day, work of necessity and charity excepted, does not mean
by the word "necessity" physical and absolute necessity,
but a moral fitness or propriety of the work done under the
circumstances of each particular case. Any work, therefore,
necessary to be done to secure the i)ublic safety, by the safe-
keeping of a felon, or delivering him to bail, must come
within the true meaning of the excei)tiou in the statute.
Therefore it was held that a prisoner might enter into a
recognizance on Sunday without violating the statute.
Johnston v People, 31 111. 469.
''By a work of necessity is not meant by the statute a phys-
ical and absolute necessity but any labor or work which is
morally fit or proper to be done on that day under the cir-
cumstances of the particular case." Commonwealth v
Fuller, 4 Pa. Co. Ct. 429.
It was held that when a defect in a highway is discovered
on Sunday which may injure the limbs and the lives of
travelers, it is not only morally fit and proper that it should
be immediately repaired, but it is the imperative duty of
the town which is bound to keei) the highway in repair to
cause it so to be done, or to adopt means to guard against
the danger until it can be done, and work and labor for this
purpose is no violation of the law or of religious duty. Flagg
V Millbury, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 243.
Kunning certain trains on Sunday by railroad companies
is a work of necessity under the Pennsylvania act of 1794,
SUNDAY 771
and it is necessary to have such cars iiisiKMtcd and rcjiairs
to keep the road o[)eii and the cars niovinff. It was hel<l
that an inspector who repairs cars on Sunday was not guilty
of an offense under this statute. Connnonwealth v Kobh,
3 Pa. Dist. Ke. 701 ; 14 Pa. Co. Ct. 473. In Page v O'SuUi-
van, 159 Ky. 703, it was held that the service performed, by
a prison guard was a work of necessity.
Newspapers. In Commonwealth v Teamann, 1 Phila. (Pa.)
400, it was held that a charge of disorderly conduct in sell-
ing newspapers on Sunday could not be sustained without
evidence that the crying of newspapers on the streets had
been committed in such a disorderly manner as to constitute
a breach of the i)eace.
A person kei)t ()i)en his place of business on Sunday, and
Sunday papers of that date were upon that day sold therein,
and he received and caused to be delivered to the customers
upon his route as a carrier upon that day the newspapers
which had that daj' been published. This was held a viola-
tion of the I'ennsylvania Sunday law of 1794. That carry-
ing on any business on Sunday may be j)rofitable to the per-
sons engaged in it, that it may serve the convenience or
tastes or wishes of the public generally, is not the test which
the statute applies. Commonwealth v Matthews, i* I'a. Dist.
Re. 13.
The publication of a newspaper on Sunday was held to be
worldly employment under the Pennsylvania ad ot I7'.il.
and a ])erson who was a stockholder, director, and general
business manager of the newsi)aper company was held liable
for a violation of the statute. Comnionwealili \ Houston,
3, Pa. Dist. Ke. OSO, 14 Pa. Co. Ct. :;•»."..
A contract for the publication of an athcrHsenieni in a
newspaj)er to be issued and sold on Sunday is \<iid. .hnl^c
Allen, after quoting the slalute regulaiing Sunday ob.serv-
ance says: "The statute is in harnn)ny wiili tlie religion of
the country and the i-eiigious sentiment of the public," ami
that the statute should be libei-ally construed in respect to
the mischiefs to be remedied. Smith v >Vilco.\, -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 <j;iven <lay, a]llionj;li llie liist insertion of sncli notice
was in a Snnday ne\\sj»aper.
In Montana tlx' conri snstained tlie validity of the publi-
cation of a notice of liie submission of a constitutional
amendment, altliouj^h it was publislied in the Sunday issue
of one paj)er, there being in that State no statute prohib-
itin<; sucli a i)ul)lication. The court said that the common
law rule would govern in such a case. State ex rel Hay v
Alderson, 49 Mont. 387, 142 P. 210.
In Sentinel Co. v Motor Wagon Co., 144 Wis. 224. it was
held that the publisher of a newspaper could not recover for
an advertisement published on Sunday.
A contract to distribute newspapers on Sunday was held
void. Knight v Tress Co., 227 Pa. 185.
Object. The law gives to the public the right of enjoy-
ing the Sabbath as a day of rest and of religious exercise,
free and clear of all disturbance from merely unnecessary
and unauthorized worldly employment. Where this law is
contravened in such a manner as to disturb that enjoyment
by noise or disorder accompanying it, or incident to it, it
may be treated as a breach of the peace. Commonwealth v
Jeandell, 2 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 50G.
The institution of the Sabbath is not only admirably
adapted to promote and establish religion among us, but to
secure and ])reserve our ]ihysical as well as moral health and
strength. Commonwealth v Dupuj', Brightl}- N. P. (Pa.) 44.
Omnibus. Driving an omnibus on Sunday is worldly em-
ployment, and within the prohibition of the Pennsylvania
act of 1794, The driver of the omnibus cannot defend by
showing that he was under a contract for monthly hire, and
that it included Sunday. Johnston v Commonwealth. 22
Pa. St. 102.
One Offense Only. A person can commit but one offense
on the same day, by exercising his ordinary calling on a
Sunday, contrary to the statute of 29 Car. 2, C. 7. And if
SUNDAY 7T;J
a justice of the peace proceed to convict iiiiii iu more thau
one penalty for the same day it is an excess of jurisdiction
for which an action will lie before the convictions arc
quashed. Crepps v Durden, 2 Cowp, (Eng.) 040.
Ordinary Calling. The English statute of 20 Charles II,
chap. 7, sec. 1, enacts that "no tradesman, artificer, work-
man, colorer, or other person whatever shall do or exercise
any worldly labor, business, or work of their ordinary call-
ings niK)n the Lord's Day." The construction given to this
statute has been that it j)rohibits only the prosecution of ji
num's ordinary secular business upon the Lord's Day. Tlic
terms "of their ordinary callings" have been held to qualify
and restrict the general phraseology' which precedes them.
Boynton v Page, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 425.
A farm laborer who sold soda water and lemonade on one
Sunday was held not liable under a statute prohibiting a
person from carrying on his ordinary business or calling
on Sunday. Repeated acts are necessary to constitute an
ordinary calling or business. Ellis v State, 5 Ga. App. 615.
Payment on Debt. A i)ayment on Sunday discharges the
debt. Jameson v Carpenter, G8 N. H. G2.
Physician's Prescription. Under the Texas local option law
whisky is treated as medicine, and it was, accordingly, held
that a sale of whisky on Sunday by a druggist on a physi-
cian's prescription was not a violation of the statute ])ro-
hibiting the sale of merdiandise on that day. Watson v
State, 46 Tex. Cr. Re. 138.
Plaintiff's Violation of Law, When No Defense. A law
relating to the Sabbath dcliiics a duty (d' the citizen to the
State, and to the State only. A party who erects iin obstruc-
tion in a navigable sti-eam and thereby occasions ;in injury
to anothei' cannot, in an action for such injury, set u]> 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 assesse<l by tl»e jnry on
that day, even lliough the testim()ny is taken on the previous
day. Butler v Kelsey, IT) Johns. (N. Y.) 177; see also Lord
Cornwallis and Iloyle (;>ri(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<l thereon. It cannot be presumed that the note was given
on a contract made on Saturday. If tliere was such a con-
trac-t, the action slionld be bronglit thereon instead of on
the note. Kepncr v Kccfcr, (i Watts (Pa.) 231.
A note made payalilc in specific articles fell due on a Sun-
day. It was held that a lender of ])erforniance the next day
was in time. Bai-rclt v Allen. 1(» Ohio 42(5.
The holder of a pj-oniissory note, bearing date on a secu-
lar day taken before matniity. and in good faith and for a
valuable consideration, may maintain an attion iheicon,
altliongh the note was, in fact, made on Snnday. Cranson
V (Joss. 107 Mass. 4:'.!>.
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 Siiii<l;i\ lor ;;o()(|s prcxiitiisly |Mircha.se<l
A\;is licid iMil \(»i(| iiiMirr tlic ( m-oij;!;; net ol' ITd'J. Tlu* note
Wiis iiol inihU' ill (III' exercise of (lie ordiiwiry ealliiig or hiisi-
iiess of (lie jiaities. Sanders v .lolmsoii, LM) (ia. OUn.
Where a note falls due on Sninliiy a tender on llie loUow-
inj; day is j^ood. Avery v Stewart, 2 (Jonn. (j9.
In Maine the i>rohihition against bnsiness on Snnday
relates only to the time between niidni<iht an«l snnset. A
promissory note was execnted on Sunday before sunset. The
payee was not j)resent at the execution of the note but re-
ceived it on a subse<iuent week day. The transaction was
not complete until the delivery of the note, and the note
was accordingly held valid. Hilton v Houghton, 35 Me.
143.
A horse was sold on Sunday, and the buyer on that day
gave to the seller a note for the i)rice. Afterward the buyer
made two payments on the note, retaining the horse. Such
payments and retention of the horse were deemed a ratifica-
tion of the original contract, and the seller was held entitled
to recover on the note. Sumner v Jones, 24 Vt. 317.
Negotiations were begun late Saturday night for the pur-
pose of preventing the imprisonment of a person charged
with theft. The sister of the i)erson charged gave a note
in settlement of the matter, but it was not signed until about
two o'clock in the morning. The court sustained an action
on the note, notwithstanding the fact that it was made after
the beginning of Sunday. Carpenter v Crane, 1 Root
(Conn.) 1)8.
The indorsee of a negotiable promissory note, who pro-
cured it to be indorsed by the payee on the Lord's Day,
cannot maintain an action thereon in his own name against
the maker. Benson v Drake, 55 Me. 555.
In New Hampshire a promissory note made on Sunday
was held to be void. Allen v Deming, 14 N. H. 133.
A note made on Sunday is not invalid at common law.
O'Rourke v O'Rourke, 43 Mich. 58.
A note dated on Sunday may be a forgery where it is
SUNDAY 777
charged and proven that it was, in fact, made on a week day.
State V Sherwood, 90 la, 550.
In Michigan a note made and delivered on Snn<lay i^s void,
although payable in another State. Arbuckle v Reanine.
96 Mich. 243.
A business transaction prohibited by law, in this instance
the indorsement of a proniissoi-y note on Sunday, is void,
and the contract cannot be enforced. First National Bank,
B:ir Harbor v Kingsley, 84 Me. 111.
Railroad Train. Kunning passenger cars on Sunday is a
violation of the law of 1794. Commonwealth v Jeandell, 2
Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 50G; see also S])arhawk v I'nion Pas-
senger Railway Company, 54 Pa. St. 401.
An action lies against a street railway company to recover
diimages for injuries sustained bj"^ a person who was riding
for pleasure on Sunday. Horton v Norwalk Tramwiiy Com-
I)any, 66 Conn. 272.
A locomotive engineer in charge of a stock train was
injured while running his train on Sunda3^ It was held that
there was no evidence that the running of the train was a
work of necessity or charity; therefore thjit the engineer
was performing labor in violation of the statute, an<l he
was precluded from maintaining an action for personal
injuries. Read v Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 140 Mass. 199.
The running of railroad passenger trains on Sunday,
transporting passengers, and baggage, was held to be a
work of necessity. Commonwealth v Louisville & Nashville
R. R. Co., 80 Ky. 291.
Under the Georgia IVnal Code, sec. 420, which i»rohibits
Ihe running of a freight or excursion train on Sunday, it
was held that only the superintendent of, transportation was
indictable for the violation of the statute, and that a pro-
ceeding could not be maintained against the trainmaster
who acted under the orders of the su])erin ten dent. Craven
V State, 109 Ga. 266.
Redemption from Sheriff's Sale. Where a redemption from
a sheriff's sale was on Satnrd;iv it was held that the next
778 Tin: ('l\ IL LAW AM) 'rili: (IK K'CII
redciiipl ion. wliidi llic I;iw r('«|iiir('«| lo Itc iii:i<|c williiu
twenty lour Iioiirs. ini};lil he inndc on Mond.-iy, Snn<l;iy not
bcin}^ a day on wliicli sncli an act could he pci lornicd.
ToHor V IMcrcc. 120 \. V. IMT.
Religious Services. What is a work of lUHcs.sify (»r clmrity
is a (lucstion of law lor the court and not a (|U('stion of fact
for tlie July. Kclij^ious soi-viccs (Mi Sunday constitute a
charity, including Ihe seinion. the niuHic, and any other
exercises usually foi-min^- a part of the services, an<l j^er-
sous who engage in this service do not violate the Sunday
law. "It is a matter of common observation that religious
societies solicit moneys for their needs and take subscrip-
tions at their regular meetings on the first day of the week.
The custom is from time immemorial. The regular Sabbath
offerings, as they are called, are limited sometimes to gifts
for the poor, or for sacramental purposes, or missions, but
quite as often they embrace gifts for the general needs of
the society, including the repairs of the church, lighting and
heating, the payment of taxes, and the numerous other needs
which do not differ at all from the needs of ordinary business
associations." "The support of public worship is a work of
charity within the meaning of the statute.'' A subscription
on Sunday to raise money to pay for a house of worship is
valid. Allen v Duffie, 4:5 Mich. 1.
Rescission of Contract. The rescission of a contract re-
quiring certain formalities to make the rescission effective
is as much a matter of business as that of making the con-
tract itself, and if done on Sunday is illegal ami void. Bene-
dict v Bachelder, 24 Mich. 425.
Sale. If the charges on a party's own day book, upon
which he relies as evidence of his claim, are dated on the
Lord's Day, he must show that the sale was not, in fact,
made on that day, or he cannot recover. Bustin v Rogers,
11 Cush. (Mass.) 34G.
Negotiations on Sunday for the sale of property are in-
valid, and pass no title to the property. It is settled hiw in
Michigan that a Sunday contract is a prohibited transac-
SUNDAY 779
tiou, the illegality of which foibul.s it being made a sale bj'
a mere delivery hiter. The ileliverj'^ must be accompanied
by circuiiistaiucs wiiich in thc^jiiselves .sui»]>ly the necessai-y
elements of a contract, withont (lci)cn<ling upon the Sunday
transaction for any essential. Aspell v Hosbein, 1)8 Mich.
117.
A vendor of personal property, when sued in this State
upon his warranty, cannot defend ui)on the ground that the
sale was made on Sunday, if the sale occurred in Louisiana,
there being no law in that State prohibiting the enforce-
ment of Sunday contracts. McKee v Jones, (>7 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 Siiii<l;iy liiw ol is:',l. lilooiii v
Kiclijinls. 2 Ohio St. 387.
In \(nlliiMi]» V Foot, M Wrixl. ( N. Y. ) 24S, it \v;is held that
an actiiMi could not Ix' maintained in New York based on
an allej^ed deceit in the sale of a horse made in Connecticut
on S\in<lay, where sncli sale was void.
The private sale of a span of horses on Sniiday is not"
void at common law; nor is it void niidcr the New ^'ork
statnte ])r(»hiltitin»5 the ex]>osui"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, alth<mgli it will probably be floated away
beyond rcacli unless then gathered. (^mimonwealth v
Sampson. !I7 M;iss. 407.
Security for Good Behavior. Security for good behavior
cannot be recpiired of a jierson convicted on several occa-
sions of a violation of the law against doing worldly busi-
ness on Sunday. Commonwealth v Foster, 28 Pa. Super.
Ct. 400.
Seventh Day Observance. Persons who habitually observe
the seventh day as the Sabbath are nevertheless amenable
to a statute i)rohibiting certain labor and business on Sun-
day. Specht V Commonwealth, 8 Pa. St. 312.
Slot Machine. The pi-ovision of the South Carolina statute
782 'nil', ('IN 11. LAW .\M» 'I'lli: (III IMIl
|»i(>liil»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 <lirected hy the seilei-." Cain v Daly, 71
S. (\ 4S0.
Social Club, Treasurer Receiving Money. The treasurer of a
social club received on Sunday money lielon<;in<; 1o the
club. Even if this receipt of monej' by him on Sunday was
a violation of the Maryland statute, he could not interpose
such violation as a defense in an action by the club to recover
the money. Haacke v Knights of Liberty Social and Liter-
ary Club, 7() Md. 429.
Soda Water. Sellinj;' soda water as a beverage on Sunday
in connection with drugs is a violation of the Tennsylvania
act of 1704 prohibiting worldly employment on Sunday.
Splane v Connnonwealth, U Sad. (Sup. Ct. Cases, Pa.) 201.
Stagecoach. In Sandiman v Breach, 7 Barn, and Cres. 1)G,
it was held that the statute (3 Car. 1. chap. 1, and 29 Car.
2, chap. 7) did not nuike it unlawful for stage coaches to
travel on the Lord's Day.
Statute, Constitutional. Sec. 247 of art. 27 of the Code of
Maryland, public general laws, prohibiting work on Sun-
day, is not a violation of the State or federal constitutions.
Judefind v State, 78 Md. 510.
The Texas act of Decend)er 2, 1871, known as the Sunday
law, makes it a misdemeanor for any dealer in a lawful
business to sell or barter (except drugs or medicines) on
Sunday, between nine o'clock a. m. and four o'clock i*. m.
within the limits of any city or town, under a penalty of not
less than |20 nor more than 850. It was held that this en-
actment was constitutional, and still in force, and was not a
local law, nor repugnant to the guaranty' of equal rights
SUNDAY 783
giveu by the coustitutiou of 1S7C, Bohl v State, o Tex. Ct.
App. (>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 <lelivered to the beneficiary on tliat <lay,
or he had knowledge of its execution on Sunday. Sherman
V Roberts, 1 Grant's Cas. (]»a.) 201.
Telephone. A telejdione company may be required to keep
its exchange open during reasonable hours on Sunday. The
question, "What are reasonable hours?*' depends for its solu-
tion on various consi<lerations, including the size of the town
or village, the number of patrons, and the amount of income
and expense, and the demand for service. Twin Valley Tele-
phone Co. V Mitchell, 27 Okl. .TSS.
Tippling House. In (leorgia, under the statute prohibiting
keeping oi)en a tii)pling hou.se on Sunday, it was held that it
made no difference in law wliether the place be called a bar-
room, or a glee club resort, or a parlor, or a restaurant, if it
be a place where liquor is retailed and tippled on the Sab-
bath day with a door to get into it, so kept that anybody
can push it open, and go in and drink, and the proprietor of
it was guilty of keeping open a tippling house on Sunday.
Hus.sey v Georgia, 60 Ga. 54.
Tort. In an action to recover damages for an injury result-
ing fronj a tort, it is no defense that the act was com-
mitted on Sunday. Bridges v Bridges, Oo Me. 557.
In Logan v Mathews. 6 Pa. St. 417, it was held that the
IVunsylvania law was not violated by a son who hired a
horse and wagon on Sunday to visit his father. "The visit
to his father was discharging a filial duty, which nothing iu
the law hinders or forbids."
Traveling. A woman who worked in a mill iu one town
and temporarily boarded there went on Saturday to see
her children in an adjoining town. One of them being sick,
she remained until Sundav night, when she went to the town
where she worked lo i»i*ocMi-e iiiediciiie for tlie sick eliihl,
iuteiidiii^ to send it Iioiiie by nuotlier person, and on lier
way was iiijure<l by a defect in (he hiuliway. It was hebl
that the jnry wonhl be warrant''*! in lindiii;; lliat she was
traveliug from necessity or charity, (jornian v Lowell, 117
Mass. 65.
The act of riding on Sunday, bein<>' 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 ; for the s(a(u(e extends only to (he case of (ravel-
ing; but the cliief justice said if they had l)een going (o make
visits, it might have been otherwise. Teshmakci \ llun
dred de Edmington, 1 Str. (Eng. ) 400.
A hired dom('s(ic servant who drovi' liis eni|»i(iyci's laniily
to church on (he Lord's Dav did not viohite the IVmiusvI
786 TIM': (M\II> l>A\\' AM> Till: <lirK(||
vani;i SuiMlay law of IT'.M. ( '((iiiiiioiiwcallli v Ncsbil, ill I'a.
31)8.
A journey on Sunday to visil one's cliildi-cn who arc
properly away from home is not j \iol;ilion ot the N'ermont
statute against traveling on Sunday, except in (Mses of
necessity or charity, and the fact of such trav<'ling is no bar
to an action to recover damages for injuries receive<l from
a defective highway. Met Mary v Lowell, 44 Vi. IK',.
A person who violates the law by traveling <tii Sun<lay
may nevertheless recover damages from a town for injuries
received by reason of a detective highway, if the illegality of
so traveling did not contribute to the injury. Wentworth v
Jefferson, 00 N. H. 158.
Persons nmy travel by railroad train on Sunday to attend
a camp meetiug. A railroad ticket agent who sells tickets
for that purpose ou Sunday is not guilty of a violation of
the statute of Pennsylvania against the performance of
w^orldly employment or business on that day. Conimon-
wealth v Fuller, 4 Pa. Co. Ct. 429.
One who works by night instead of by day, and travels on
the Lord's Day for the purpose of seeing his master and
inducing him to change his hours of labor from night to the
day time, in order that he may sleep better, is not traveling
from necessity or charity, and cannot nuiintain an action
against a town for an injuiy sustained by him while so
traveling, by reason of a defect in a highway which the town
is by law^ obliged to keep in repair. Connolly v Boston,
117 Mass. 64.
A person cannot legally travel on the Lord's Day from one
city to another, a distance of several miles, for the purpose
of visiting a stranger if no occasion of necessity or charity
is shown for him to i)ay such visit and cannot nuiintain an
action against a street railway company to recover damages
for a i^ersonal injury received by him while so traveling on
one of their cars, in consequence of their negligence. Stan-
ton V Metropolitan K. K. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.) 485.
The facts that the exercises of a sjuritualist camp meet-
SUNDAY 787
ing included a show to which an admittance fee was charged,
and that some of the speakers declared that they would
throw away the Bible in their search for the truth, are not
conclusive that the person traveling on the Lord's Day to
attend the meeting did so unlawfully; and the question
whether he traveled except from necessity or charity is for
the jury. Feital v Middlesex Railroad Company, 109 Mass.
.-{98.
Trespass, Adjusting- Damages. The amoniit of damages
ix'sulting from trespasses by animals was adjusted on Sun-
day, and the agreement was snbsecpiently completed on a
week day. The Sunday arrangement was valid. Taylor v
Young, 01 Wis. :{U.
Trust, Declaration. A declaration of trust executed on Sun-
day for the purpose of consummating a jn-evious oral agree-
ment that the pro])ert3' conveyed slionld be held in trnsl for
the grantor does not violate the Massachusetts statute
against doing business on Sunday. Faxon v Folve;:. 110
Mass. .302.
Vaudeville. A theatrical entertainment on Sunday, under
the auspices of a .Tewish religions and charitable society,
was held not to be a violation of the Massachusetts statute
concerning the observance of the Lord's Day. It was said
that the net i»T-oceeds of the entertainment were ])aid to the
society for its general jjurposes, which were conceded to be
leligious and charitable. Commonwealth v Alexander, 185
]\iass. r>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<lei- a warrant issued
on that day. IVarce v Atwootl, \'-'> .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'ute<l is valid. Bennett v Brooks, !) Allen (Mass.) IIJS.
SUNDAY SCHOOL
Relation to church, 789.
Treasurer, when responsible to parent society, 789.
Relation to Church. Tlu* SiiiKhiy school room and the lec-
ture room of ;i modern church are as essentially used tor
religious purposes as the body of the church building itself.
The Sabbath schools are an important auxiliary of every
Christian church ami indispensable to its life and growth,
Tliat the services in such schools are, in the main, of a reli-
gious character is too well known to be seriously disputed.
Oaig V First Presbyterian Church, 88 Pa. St. 42.
A beipiest to the society- in aid of the Sunday school was
sustained. Tlie school was an integral part of the church
organization, and therefore embraced within the scope of
tlie corjjorate fum-tions and work of the church. TIu' be-
(piest was sutliciently definite and certain, and capable of
being enforced. Eutaw Place Baptist Church v Shively,
<;7 Md. 4!»:5.
Treasurer, When Responsible to Parent Society. The treas-
urer of a Sunday school connected with a religious corpora-
lion is responsilile to the corporation foi" the funds collected
by such treasurer for a project under the patronage of the
corporation. First Chuich of Christ Scientist in Buffalo,
N. Y. V Schreck, 70 Misc. (N. V.) (145, V21 N. V. Supp. 174.
789
SUPERSTITIOUS USE
Existence doubt 0(1, 70().
Origin, 790.
Roman Catholic; i)uhlications, 790.
Shakers, 791.
Existence Doubted. In Friersoii v General Assembly of
Presbyterian Chnrcli, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 08:5, doubt was ex-
pressed whether in the United States, where no discrimina-
tion is made in law between the professors of any particular
religions creed, any sndi thing as a suiK'rstitious nse can
be said to exist.
Origin. In Sliernian v Baker, 20 K. I. 44(», it is sai<l tliat
the strife of the time of tJie Keformation natnrally found
vent in statutes. Among them was that of 1 Edw. \'I. chap.
14, for vesting in the Crown property, devoted to "supersti-
tion and errors in Christian religion," which sjjecified "vain
opinions of purgatory and masses satisfactoiy, to be done
for them which were departed." From this came the J'^ng-
lish doctrine of sn])orstitions uses.
Roman Catholic Publications. Moneys in English stocks
were assigned to trustees upon trust to pay the dividends
to the settler during his life, and after his death to apply
them in ])rinting and promoting the circulation of a book in
the Latin and French languages, inculcating the jjeculiar
doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion ; and the deetl con-
tained a proviso that if any of the trusts should be declared
by a court of law or equity to be void, then the trustees
should stand ])ossessed of the fund in trust for the executors
and administrators of the settlers. It was held that the
trusts, after the limitation for life to the settler, were in the
nature of superstitious uses, and therefore void. De Them-
mines v De Bonneval, 7 L. J. Ch. (Eng.) 35.
790
SUI'EKSTITIOUS LSK 791
Shakers. Tlie use created by the trust lor this society
would at uo tiuie siuce the Reforniatiou have beeu deemed a
superstitious use in Enghiud, for tliough the courts there
disallowed trusts in favor of the Catholic or Jewish religion,
as inimical to the established religion and settled policy of
the government, yet trusts in favor of dissenting Protestants
have always been sustained and enforced. In this case two
members of the society sought a partition of its j)roperty
and to recover their alleged shares therein. It was held
that by the terms of the covenant they had no cause of action
against the society. Gass and Bonta v Wilhite, 2 Dana
(Ky.) 170.
SWEDENBORGIANS
Bequest, rejected, 792.
Bequest, sustained, 792.
Bequest, Rejected. In ISCl tlic ((iritoi-at i(»ii was t'orincd in
Illinois known as llic (Jeueral (.'onvention of the New Jeru-
salem in tlie rnited States of America. The charter gave
it geueral i»o\\('i- to receive, take, and hold i)roperty in any
of the ordinary ways, specifying them. This was the repre-
sentative body of the New Jerusalem Church. Testatrix
bequeathed her residuary estate to two ministers, or the
survivor of them, or the i)erson selected by them, as their
successor "in trust for the benefit of the New Jerusalem
riiurch (Swedenborgian) as they may deem best.'' It was
held that the bcnpiest could not be deemed to have been for
the corjtoratiou of the General Convention, but for the
benefit of the entire church, and that it was, therefore, too
indefinite for enforcement. The bequest was declared to be
invalid. Fi field v \'an Wyck's Executors. 04 Va. 557.
Bequest, Sustained. The First New Jerusalem Society of
Pittsburgh was incorporated in l^Ct?*, and attached it.self to
the General Swedenborgian Church of I'ennsylvania and
with the General Convention of the Fnited States. The
Fennsylvania branch of the General Church separated from
the General Convention in 1800. In 1802 tlie Pittsburgh
church severed its connecti(m with the General Church.
The minority of llie Pittsburgh clmrcli ilicn organi/ed a new
church known as the Church ol the Advent. A bequest to
the "New Church of Pittsbnigh" was awarded to the First
New Jerusalem Society of Piushui-gh. Ke Aitken Instate.
158 Pa. 541.
792
TAXATION
American Sunday School Union, 793.
Camp Meeting Associaticjns, 793.
Cemetery, 793.
Corporate securities, 794.
Dissenters, 794.
Cieorgia rule, 794.
Illinois rule, 794.
Land adjacent to building, 794.
Liquor tax law, 795.
Masses, 795.
Member, exemption, 795.
Member, liability, 795.
Members, support of church, 795.
Member, when liability arises, 795.
Ministers, 796.
New Hampshire, 796.
Ownership and use, 796.
Parsonage, 796.
Pennsylvania rule, 798.
Resulting benefits, 798.
Sunday school building, 798.
Transfer tax, 798.
Use for other purposes, 799.
Worship, lioston, 799.
Young Men's Christian Association, 799.
American Sunday School Union. Tlio Aiiun-iciiii Sniulay
School Union, llioii^li (Mii;;i<;(m1 in tiu' jniblicat ion iind cir-
culation of nionil ;in<l religions bo<»ks, was held lo lie a Irad-
iiig cor]>oi-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 <lebts incurred before they dissented. Lord v Marvin,
1 Koot (Conn.) :W0.
Georgia Eule. The constitution of Cleorgia provides that
"No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury
directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or
denomination of religionists, or of any sectarian institu-
tion." This provision was held not to be violated by a
statute exem]iting church i)ro])erty from taxation. Trustees
First Methodist Ki)iscopal Church, South v Atlanta, 70 Ga.
181.
Illinois Rule. The provision in the charter exempting the
society from taxation for local improvements was held void
under the constitution of 1848. The Legislature had no
jwwer to extend the exemptions authorized by that instru-
ment. Chicago V Ba])tist Theological Union, 115 111. 245.
Land Adjacent to Building. The idea of a church edifice
necessarily carries with it the use of ground ample for its
use. To be exempt from taxation it is not necessary that
such ground should be indispensable for the use of the
church; but if it is no more than is reasonably a]>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 ituti<Mi,
A\lii(h ]»roIiihits tlie Legislature from exempting from taxa-
tion i)i'operty not used exclusively for religious ]uirposes.
Peoi)le ex rel Tliompson v First Congregational Churcii, 2:'.2
III. 158.
Wliere it a]»pears by a case stated that a jiart of a biiihl-
ing erected f(tr the j)nrposes of religious \\'orship is in use as
a parsonage these facts arc not sufficient to sn|ii>ort 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
establishe<l may jnovide for religious iii.struclion by the;
erection of meetinghouses and the sujujoit of ministers; b\it
this power ceases on the establislimenl of a se]»arate i)arish
in the town, and thereafter taxation and otlier i>roceedings
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 an<l receives grants, donations, and conveyances
(»f pi'o]>erty, 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<l('(l liial one share of laiul slionld be "for ainl
toward the sui)i)or< of the <;osi»('l ininistrv there forever."
Tt was held that this share belonged to the town ; that a
minister settled ovei' a clmich and incorporated relij^ious
society in the town could not hold it against the town; and
that the town could sell the land and divide the proceeds
equally' among the dilferent Christian denominations tlierein.
Cilley V Cayford, Smith (N. H.) 150.
New Hampshire, Parochial Powers. The New Hampshire
act of l.'^1!> 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 ac<piired for religious i)urposes
to the uses for which it was designed by granting it to reli-
gious societies within the town. Candia v French, 8 N. H.
133.
TREASURER
General duty, 803.
Liability, 803.
Power to borrow money, 804.
General Duty. Money was contributed to the society for
the purpose of building- a (•liurcli edilice. The pastoi- dclix-
ered it to a ti-easuier to be k(']»t. It was hebl that he had
no right to withhold it on the ground that the vestry in-
tended to divert it from the purpo.ses for whi( li it was com-
tributed. If such contribution created a trust, it became
such only between the vestry and the contributor, and the
vestry is responsible to him if it diverts the fiind. The
treasurer's duty is to return to his i>rincii>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 riiii<l was
raised. The ('\i(l('nc(' was snlliciciit to show (hat the t'mid
was subscribed lor (he bcnctit of the cinii-cli. ami not siiii|»ly
fof llic Sunday school coimeclccl with the clniich. Itcctor,
(Mmrch of the IxcdcciiKM- v Crawford. A'.\ X. V. IKI.
Power to Borrow Money. There is no iiresiimption that a
treasurer of a relij^ioiis corpoi'atioii has ]»ower to i»oi'i(»w
uiouey, sign notes, and hind the coi-i>oratif)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', <S1().
Powers, (leorKia rule, S17.
Powers, Maine rule, 817.
Powers, New York rule, 817.
Powers, Pennsylvania rule, 818.
Presumption of oflieial title, 818.
Promissory note, 81 .
Property, trustees cannot distribute, 819.
(Quorum, 819.
(^uo warranto, 820.
Religious services, 820.
Removal, 820.
Representative character, cannot act in two capacities, 821.
Representative character, 821.
Roman Catholic, how chosen, 822.
Seating, power to regulate, 822.
Status, 822.
Statute of limitations cannot be waived, 823.
Temporahties, 823.
Title to office, 823.
Title to office, necessar}- to maintain action, 823.
Abandonment of Office. A trustee who witlidraws from the
(.'hiircli iimst be deemed to have abandoned his olliee, e.s])e-
ciall}' when he joins another eliureh which jn-ohibits its
members from holding otiicial relations in other denomina-
tions. Ross V Crockett, 14 La. Ann. 811.
A trustee who calls for and receives a letter of dismissal
from the society does not thereby necessarily withdraw from
the civil constituency of the churcli. but by his acts and
conduct, especially ]>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 <le facto of an
unincorporated society may maintain an action for tresj)ass
on the society's property. Green v Cady, 1) Wend. (N. Y.)
414.
Actions, Illinois Rule. In Illinois actions by or against a
TRUSTEES SOT
religious society iiiiist be in name of trustees. Ada Si. Mcili
odisf I-4)iseoi»al Cliuicli v Garnsey, Hit 111. loH.
Actions, Pre-Organization Contracts. "The trustees of an
iiicorj»orate(l church, as the rejtreseutatives of all the nieiu-
bers of a church, nuiy in the corjiorate nanui enforce aj^rec-
nients made for the use and benetit of the society before iis
lej^al orfjanizatioii." Whitsitt v Trustees Proeniptidn Trcs-
byterian Churcli. 1 10 III. llM.
Action, Trespass. Where a religious society coiisisiin;; ot
many wors]ii|»ers was the owner of certain lands in (ontro-
versy its trustees wvw entitled to sue for an injury to the
freehold, consisting of a wi-ongfnl removal of coal from be-
neath the land, witiiout joining the members of tlie con-
gregation. I'enny v Central Coal and Coke Comi)any, loS
Fed. 7C9.
Appointment by Court. The action of a circuit court in
appointing trustees of church ])roperty is the subject of
aj)peal, and the ipiestion of the regularity or validity of
their ai)i)ointment cannot be questioned collaterally in an
action of ejectment by newly appointed trustees to recover
possession from trustees removed. Kreglo v Fulk, .*> 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<l of land in trust for the erection of a house ot
worship thereon, according to the rules and Discijiline of the
denominat iou. A house oC worshij> was erected on the land
in 1854. An a(lion was brought to quiet Ihe title, which
involve<l m:iny (piestions iclating to li'usts and the validity
of the tiust contained in the origiinil conveyance, bul these
were not dis|»<>sed 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 <lenied bv ihe cliiiiter. 'i'lu- li-ustees li:id "('iieiiil
SOS 'I'm; ("i\ II. LAW A.\h 'riii; < ini.'cii
siijM'i-x isioii of llic coi'itorjilioii ;ijl;iirs. I'lHJcr lliis iiiiplicd
|Mi\\cr. ;iii iiHli\ idiiiil iM)t«' ji;iv«'ii by :i Inislcc lor iiioiioy
borrowed l<> 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 bo<ly, the members thereof wlio organ-
ized and were instrumental in creating tlie corporation;
and if they dei)art from this rule, they ai-e sid)ject to be
restrained by the courts. Isham v Fullager, 14 Abb. N. C.
(N. Y.) 3(5:i.
Conveyance. Where trustees of a gospel lot were by stat-
ute declared to be a body i)olitic and corporate a deed of
a part of the land signed by them as individuals was sus-
tained. De Zeng v Beekman, 2 Hill ( N. Y.) 180.
Conveyance By, When Required. Persons who purchase
land in their own names but for tlie benefit of a religious
society are bound to convey such land to the society ui)on
its incorporation. Such conveyance is charged with a trust
in favor of the society. Trustees So. Bai>t. 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-<tni api»lviiiu the u-niporalilics of the
church in i)aying for (he .sei-vices of a ministef who had
been duly deposecl from his ollice.
sio Tin: ('i\ii. LAW AND 'I'lii: cmi:*!!
Covenant of Warranty. Trnsiccs in ;i <1c(m| of (■li\iirii pi-oj)-
v\\\ iii(hHl«'«l ;i covciijiiil (d" waiTjiiity. TlH-re was no ovi-
(k'iH(^ of jindunily I'loiii (lie toiigi-c^alioii let make this war-
ranty. It was held that the trn.slccs were persotially liahle
on Ihc covcnanl. Klopp v Moore, Kan. 27.
De Facto. A de facto trnslee i.s one who i.s acting as an
ollicer nn<ler color of having Ikhmi rightfully elected or ap-
pointed. Trustees, East Norway Lake Norwegian lOvangel-
ical Lutheran Church and others, v llalvorson, 42 Minn. TjO:}.
A deed of land to trustees de facto of an unincorporated
leligious society conveys no title to the society. Bundy v
Birdsall, 2J) Barb. (N. Y.) 31.
The proceedings of de facto trustees are valid till they are
ousted by a judgment at the suit of the people, and no
advantage can be taken of any nonuser or misuser on the
]»art of the cori)oration by any defendant, in any collateral
action. All Saints Church v Lovett, 1 Hall's Sup. Ct. (N. Y.)
105.
Diversion of Property. In a proceeding based on an allega-
tion that the pastor and certain trustees had conspired to-
gether to change the ecclesiastical denomination of the so-
ciety', and divert its temporalities from the religious de-
nomination with which it was connected, to another, it was
held that under the act of 1875, chap. 70, the trustees were
charged with the care of the temporalities of the corjiora-
tion and prohibited from diverting such temporalities to any
other use. It was also held that one member of the soCietj'
could maintain a proceeding against the trustees to procure
an injunction restraining them from diverting the property.
First Keformed Presbyterian Church v Bowden, 14 Abl).
N. C. (N. Y.) 350.
"A grant of land was made in 1781) to the trustees of an
evangelical Lutheran congregation, consisting of two
churches, 'for the conimon use and benefit of the said Lu-
theran congregation forever.' Prior to 1800, with other dona-
tions, a house of worship was erected by each church, and
other temitoralities were acquired. Each church became
TKUSTEES 811
incorporated under the j;eneral statute. At (he time ol' these
eudownients their standard of laith and doctrine was the
Augsburg Confession of Faith. In 18;>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 <lill'erent day, without the notice, are not trus-
tees de jure. Trustees de facto of a clinrcli may rightfully
eject from the church persons who claim to be its trustees,
and who have taken jtossession of il. but who are neither
trustees de facto noi- de jure, and are mere inlermeddlers
with its temporalities. First African Methodist ilpiscopal
Zion Church v llillery, HI Cal. IT).").
By statute the trustees were divided into three classes, the
seat of one class becoming vacant e\ery year, llms recpiiring
S1L> 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 <l;iys bcfon; IIk; vacancy
sliouM liii|»|i('ii. II was IicM that an clcclioii on I'iiixter
^fonday (Monday at'tci- Wliitsiiiidayj in ea<-h year, tlion;^h
a movable lioly day, and not a day cei-tain, was valid.
Differences having arisen in the churcli, the trustees closed
the dooi'S of the cJuirch edifice ajjainst the minister and the
congrej^ation. The minister and the conj^rej^alion having
broken into the church, they were held liable for indictment
for forcible entry and detainer. PcojjIc v Knnkle, U .lolms.
(N. Y.) U7.
Election, Burden of Proof. In questions involving elections,
the burden of i>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' ;in<l (Icrciidjint.
Trustees ol' :i I'dij^ioiis society li;ive possession ;mm1 cnslody
of the temporalities of the church, whethei- i-ejil or personal
estate, and are the proper parties to l»rin«; nii action foi- an
iujury to either. A trustee allet^ed to he a ticspasser could
uot be sued while he coiitiuued in oHice. Trustees, First
Soeiety of the Methodist I'>j)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 knowle<lge, used in im]>roving tJie property of tlie
chur<h. Montgonuu-y v AValton, 111 Ga. 840.
Meeting, Duty to Attend. IVople ex rel Kenney v Wijians,
2J) St. l\e]>. (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 boar<l, so that they may hear each other's views, d(dib-
erate, and decide. The sej>arate action of the ti-uste<s indi-
vidually, without meeting and consulting together as a
board, even though a niajoiity in number should agree
upon a certain act, is not biiuling ui)ou the corporation, an<l
does not and cannot of itself create a coi-|»oratt' liability.
Constant v St. Albans (Mi. 4 Daly (X. V. I :H)ry.
Mingling Charitable and other Funds. "If the ollicers of a
religious society intermingle funds held by them n]M»u dis-
tinct Irusts, one of which is charitable, and am)ther. al-
though not strictly chai-itable. is in the nature of religious
uses, and there is evidence by which the amount (»f e.icli IiiihI
can be appi'oximately ascei'tained, the charily will not, \'uy
that J-eason, b<' entitled to the \\hole amount but the cnnii
will determine, with as much accuracy as p<»ssible, the
amount now justly belonging to each fund." Attorney
Cxeneral v Old South S(»ciety in IJoslon, l.'l Allen, (Mass.)
474.
Minister's Employment. In this scKiety, which was iude-
])endent, the propeity was veste<l in trustees, and it was
held that the enij)loyment of a minister ought to be sanc-
tioned by them, es]»ecially where it ap|>eai('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<lf. Sup. Cl. (K>(».
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 ha<l no
ri<j;ht to continue to occupy the pro[)erty. He might, acconl-
in<; to circumstances, liave a rifjht of a<tion against the
society for unlawfully excluding him from the j)ul|»it.
Official Term. At the tinie of the incorporation of the
soiicly the term of office of trustees, as fixed by tlie Gen-
eral Conference, was unlimited, but the General Conference
of 18G4 limited the term of office to one year. It was held
that a trustee elected in 1Sr;2 could not hold oHice perma-
nently, but his otiice became subject to the limitation im]>osed
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 custo<ly,
possession, management, and legal control of the property
and temporalities belonging to their particular societs', in
the same manner and to the same eflect as the directors of
private corporations are entitled to the possession and con-
trol of their ]>roperty ; 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 <listiil>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 bo<lies, parts of the congregation, is noi a valid
corporate act. Cammeyer v United (lermaii lailluran
Churches, New York, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 20S.
The trustees hold the i)roperty in trust lor the l)ene-
ficiaries, consisting of pewholders, contributors, and other
]>ersons 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 <hui<h property. Everett v First rresbyterian
CMmrch, 5:5 N. .1. lOq. 500.
The trustees of a relij;ious .society are mere agents to give
effect to the will of the corporators, or a majority of them,
as to all matters within the sco]>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 t<j whom is dclej^ated the
power of nianaj>inji 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 entitle<l to the possession of the church ])roperty.
First African Methodist Episcopal Zion Chnrch v llillery,
51 Cal. 155.
Title to Office, Necessary to Maintain Action. I'ersons
claiming to be tinstees of a religious society, but who have
not been admitted to the office or exercised any functions
thereof, cannot maintain an action in the nanu; of the society
to restrain individuals, in jiossession and claiming to be
trustees of the society duly elected, from closing the church
edifice and from j)reventing the j)astor from holding ivli-
gious meetings therein, etc. Ulaintitls must lirst establish
their title to the oHice, and this question caiiiiot be deter-
mined on a motion for an inj\inction. North i'>a|)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<l wilii i\ Inisl, hut IImtc wiis :i iiini-nl Inist wliicli th(*
urchbisliop i-ccoj^iiized and declan'd liis intcntioii to obHcrve.
It was held lliat the arcldiisliop was cut il led t(» tlic ])r<>\)(tr\y.
Flood V Kyaii, L'L'O |»a. 450.
Auburn Theological Seminary. I'rcvious to tlic Revised
Statutes a peciiiiiary le<i;a(y to a (•orj)oratioii, i)ayal»le out of
the proceeds of real estate, which the executors were directed
to sell, was valid, althouj»;h the corporation was wot author-
ized by its charter to take i-eal estate by <levise. Auburn
Theolooieal Seminary v (Miilds, 4 I'ai«re (Mi. CS. Y.) 411>.
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<;i<nis services on SuiMhiys ;in<] Wednesday evenings,
the ai»i»<)iiilnienl of it desijjiialed rcdigioiis deiioniination
necessarily implies a limitation of snch use to the doctrines
and jMii'poses of tluit denoniin.ilion. An appointnienl of a
Primitive Methodist Clnii'cli under this deed was snstiiined
in Cape V Plymouth Congregation;! 1 (Iniicli, i:!(l Wis. 174.
Denominational Use. T'nder a trnst for the jMirchase of a
lot and the erection of a chni'ch, conditioned that the Meth-
odist P^piscopal Church should have the right to occupy the
house two Sabbaths each month and other religious denom-
inations the other Sabbaths, the Methodist Church may law-
fully transfer its interest to another denomination using the
same ])i'o])erty. Alexamler v Slavens, 7 B. Mon. (Ky. i :>51.
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
declare<l by the instnniient under which tlie ]»r()perty is held,
a trust arises, jind ;i court of e([ui(y will pre\tMit a perver-
sion of the trust attached to its use. So long as there are
persons or agencies witiiin the meaning of the original dedi-
cation, and willing to carry out the uses intended to be main-
tained by the donor, a court of equity upon their application
will extend its aid in executing the trust. Brundage v Dear-
dorf, 1)2 Fed. 214, atf'g 55 Fed. 839.
The dedication of a meetinghouse to the use of a religious
s:;l' 'imim (M\ il law and 'I'iii: cihijch
society cicjilcs ;i clKiiiliililc Must, t'liforccwMi; in ecjuity;
it 11(1 wlicic llu! object of a hill is to Hecure a trust, secure
peace and enjoin multiplied invasions of sin alleged right,
chancery has jurisdictiou of it. Curd v Wallace, 7 Dana
(Ky.) 190.
In Tennessee the rule that where a trust is created for a
lawful object, definite in its character, and vested in trus-
tees, so that it is properly cognizable in the courts of
chancer}', has continued in existeiu-e from the earliest period
and is still in force. Dickson v M<jntgon»ery, 1 Swan
(Teun.) 348, sustaining bequests to the treasurer of Clarke
and lOrskine College in trust for home missions, for foreign
missions, and also for the education of ministers under the
auspices of the Associate Reformed Synod of the South.
When the devisee is indefinite the court can name a
trustee to administer the gift as a trust. Kingsbury v
Brandegee, 113 App. Div. (N. Y.) 60G.
If the object of the trust be lawful, and suiRciently specific
and definite to enable the court to execute it, it Avill never
fail for want of a trustee. The court will execute the trust.
Attorney-General v Jolly, 1 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 99.
In Bowden v McLeod, 1 Kdw. Ch. (N. Y.) 588, it was held
that the court of chancery had complete jurisdiction of
trusts for religious ])urj)oses, and trustees of religious soci-
eties, and will interfere in any abuse of the trust and will
compel the trustees to discharge their duties fairly with
respect to the property.
Foreign, Unincorporated Society. In Washburn v Sewall,
50 Mass. 280, it was held that a bequest by a testatrix resid-
ing in Massachusetts to the Concord Female Charitable
Society located in Concord, Xew Hampshire, was valid
although the society was not incorporated and that a court
of equity would appoint a trustee to receive the bequest in
trust for such charities as were administered by such society.
Funds, How Applied. Under a will providing for the estab-
lishment of a free church and the maintenance of a minister
and public worship therein, with authority to use the prin-
TRUSTfci 833
cipal for rebuilding tbe house if destroyed, il was held thai
the expenditure of a portion of the income for the services
of a sexton and for fuel was not a !nisapitli(ati()ii of the
trust fund. Attorney-General v Union Society, Worcester,
116 Mass. Kh.
Home for Aged Persons. In Odell v Odell, 10 AUen i Ma.ss. i
1 the court sustained a bequest to a savings bank in trust to
be invested by the bank, the interest to be added to the i)rin-
cipal semiannually for fifty years. At the end of that time
the sum which shall have accumulated shall be ajjpropriated
by a society of ladies from all the Protestant religious so-
cieties in Salem, to provide and sustain a liome for respect-
able, destitute, and aged native-born American men and
women. "The above annual payment shall be made from the
income of my real estate, which real estate sliall be lield in
trust by my executors until the last payment .shall have been
made to the trustees of the Salem Savings Bank ; then my
real estate shall be divich'd among tlie grandchihlren of my
late brother," etc. The bequest was valid, even if the direc-
tion for accumulation was invalid.
Implied from Bequest or Conveyance. A conveyance or l)e-
quest to a religious association, oi- to trustees for that asso-
ciation, necessarily implies a tiust. Fuchs v Meisel, liiLl
Mich. 857.
Indefiniteness. "The owner of jtroperty may do as he
pleases with it, provi<led the dis]>osition be not to unlawful
jiurposes, and what he may do himself he may <lo by agent
while living or by executor after death." In this case testa-
trix directed her executors to distribute and pay the residue
of her estate to and among such religions charitable and
benevolent pur])oses and objects or persons or institiiti<nis
as they, in their discict ion, might deem best and i»ro])er. The
will created a valid trust which was not voi«l for uncertainty
or indefiniteness. The executors had full j)Ower as to the
distribution of the fund, and the court would not interfere
with the exei'cise of tlieir disci-etion so long as tliev were
acting in good faiili. I>)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<t.
Both gifts were held to be valid. Shotwell v Molt, 2 Sandf.
Ch. (N. Y.) 40.
Testatrix i)r()vided contingently for the use of a part of
her estate by paj'ing it to snch worthy ]H)or girls as the
executors might select, to aid in their education. The
executors were given full ]»ower as to the anionnts to be i»ai<l
and the times of payment. This provision was held void for
uncertainty. A\Tieelock v American Tract Soc. 100 Mich. 141.
Legislature Cannot Modify. Tharp v Fleming, 1 Houst.
(Del.) 580, held void a statute providing for the sale and
conversion of real estate into personalty, devised by a tes-
tator in perpetuity and trust to a charity.
Legislative Power. Land dedicated to the use of several
religious societies to be a perpetual fund for the support of
the ministration of the gospel on the premises, ami to be
divided equally between the societies, was held valid, al-
though no trustee was created by the deed. The Legislature
had power to appoint a trustee to administer the trust.
Bryant v McCaudless, 7 Ohio (pt. 11) 135.
Limitation. Under the New York religious corporations
act of 18K> 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 Viili<l, Ili»tii;^li it dues
not aj)iK)iiil (he Inistccs «»!' I he IiiikI. il is <(»iii|iclciit t'oi- a
testator to ciiipowci' tlio cxccnloi's and Inistt-es of his will
to desl{^nale llu' lirsl trustees of sncli fnn<]. If it were other-
wise, the ti'ust wouhl remain, and tlu; conit of chancery
wouM a|»|>oint 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
<livine services in the said memorial chapel as often as
convenient, also for keeping it in repair as well as its
cemetery adjacent. The charter contemplated an organized
body having legal existence; and the language of the will
in question did not specify any particular parish, or any
organized body which should receive the income. Butler v
Trustees Parochial Fund Protestant Episcopal Church,
Western New York. !)2 llun ( N. Y. i «k;.
TRUSTS S3!)
Sectarian Purpose. 11 a uust is created, or a charity i^'wan
for the beiielil or use of a sectarian society by its sectarian
and denominational name, it is to be presumed that it was
intended to be used to advance the peculiar doctrines ol that
sect; and if a meetin<;lious(' is conveyed in trust for certain
persons, to be under the control of the society of Christians,
it would be the duly of the court, u]>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 <lt'iu»minational name
descriptive of the fundamental <loclrines (»f the sect l<» wliich
it belongs, it will be jucsunu'd th.il it was const it nied for
the purpose of advancing liie vital «locirines of such sect or
denomination, and that society or those having contrcd ol
})roperty held in trust for tiu' bcnclil of such i-eligious
society, should be reslraincil I'mni applying tiie propei-iy.
or the use of it, to llic proniKlion ol Irnets or doctrines
S-10 TIIIO (M\ II. LAW AND Till: CllLiaJU
clciirly <>|»|)(>s('(l jiihI iidvcrsc to llic fiiiMliiiiMMital princij)leK
of Uic fiiidi :iii<l (loci lines of siicli sect nv (IciioiiiiMJit ion at
llic liiiic, .-iikI iiiiiiicdiiilciv ;irici- llic trust was created. Hale
V i':v('i('it, :>:; 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<l was conveyed to two persons
in trust for an unorganized religious society, and upon the
organization of the society was conveyed to them, upon con-
dition that they should hold, occupy, and improve the same
for religious worship, and support a minister there. It
TRUSTS 841
was held that the minister and a ininui-ity of ihe .society,
not being pewholders, nor having paid any purchase money,
could not maintain a bill in equity to restrain the society
from reconveying the estate to the trustees, discharged of
any trust, nor to compel them to permit the minister to
preach in the house. Clark v Evangelical Society, Quincy,
12 Gray (Mass.) 17.
Under the New York act of ISKI property, both real and
I)ersonal, may be held in trust lor the use of an unincor-
porated religious society without any restriction as to time,
except that it shall terminate upon lawful incorporation of
the religious society, when In' virtue of the act the title vests
in the corporation. The trust may be shown by parol as well
as by deed. The same rule governs as to personal jiropert}'
held by an incorjiorated religious society for the use of an
unincorporated society as if it were hehl by luitural persons.
Kector, etc., Church of the Redemption v Rector, etc., Grace
Church, GS N. Y. 570.
Where property is i)urchased by an unincorporaled reli-
gious society for a special purpose, or is taken in the name
of a third j)erson with the [)urchaser's consent, a trust is
created which can be enforced, although not in writing.
Fink V Umscheid, 40 Kan. 271.
The fact that a religious society to whose ti-ustees land
was conveyed in trust for the erection thereon of a church
had not been incorporated when the deed was delivered did
not invalidate the trust. The deed in such case vested the
legal title in the trustees, and upon the sub.seipient im-orpora-
tion of the society such legal title became vested in tlie cor-
poration subject to the trust. Fa(hiess v HraunlHirg. 7:*>
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;ikin<i tith; to real
|>i'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 <liurch hy an unincorporated
society, the title to be taken in the name of two designated
members who were to convey the property to a corpoiation
to be subsequently organized, imposed on such grantees a
trust which was fully discharged by the conveyance to the
corporation. Centenary Methodist Episcopal Church v
Parker, 4:J N. J. Eq. 307.
Where there is a devise of real estate to a church incapable
of taking the title because not incorj)orated, the devise is
not void, but' the legal title descends to the heirs, charged
with the trust, which they will be required to execute, or a
court of equity will appoint a trustee to execute the trust,
until the church becomes incorporated, and acquires the
capacity to hold the legal title. Byers v McCartney, 02 la.
ooit.
TJniversalist Church. A bequest for the establivshment of
a nniversalist society, with i>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\\\: <iiri;< II
(hat its iiK'iiilH'rs were liable on its (-ontraclK as joint proni-
issors or ])artn(Ms. Wilkins v Wardens etc,, St. Mark's I'rot.
Epis. Ch., 52 (Ja. :;r,l.
A member of an nnincorporati'd religions society is not
responsible for its debts unless he in some way sanctioned
or acquiesced in their creation. Males v Murray, 7 O. Nisi
]*rius Ke. 014, citing I)e Voss v Gray. 22 O. S. 150; see also
I'lattsmouth First National Bank v Kector, 59 Neb. 77.
Property, How Held. Members of voluntary unincorjjo-
rated associations can hold property in no other way than
through the medium of trustees acting as depositaries of
the legal title, and this equitable interest entitled each
beneficiary to the same voice in the nuinagement and con-
trol of the i)ro})erty as if he were a joint owner and holder
of the legal title. Clark v Brown, 108 S. W. (Tex.) 421.
Right to Sue. In an action by the society against its
treasurer to recover funds in its hands, the treasurer
objected to the capacity of the society to sue, on the ground
that it had not become a corporation. Several meetings of
the society were shown, and the transaction of various items
of business, but the court said these things might have been
done by an unincorporated association, and were not neces-
sarily evidence of the existence of a corporation. It was also
said that the treasurer was not estopped from denying the
corporate existence of the society. Fredenburg v Lyon Lake
Methodist Episcoi)al Church, 37 Mich. 470.
Roman Catholic. In the Roman Catholic Church, property
owned by an unincorporated societ}' is conveyed to the
bishop. But property purchased by a congregation for its
special use continues subject to its control notwithstanding
a conveyance to the bishop who holds it in trust for the
particular congregation, and it cannot be used for general
church purposes. Fink v Umscheid, 40 Kan. 271.
Trustees, Protected. Courts of equity will protect unin-
corporated societies in what they hold, in order to sustain
trusts, because of their charitable uses, which would other-
wise be held void. Hundlev v Collins, 131 Ala. 234.
UNITARIANS
Bequest sustained, 847.
Doctrines and worship, schism, 847.
Taxation, 851.
Bequest Sustained. In Coiigregatioual Unitari.m Society
V Hale, 2U A. J). (N. Y.j JJIMI, this society was held entilh-d
to receive a legacy given by a New York teslator, although
the society was not incorporated, it a]»]>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)Ose<l to llu^ (Mirislian faith and tending to subvert
it among the niend)ers of tl>e 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 ordaine<l by the same council of ministers that
dedicated the church. Before the dedication a church cor-
poration was formed composed of members of the society.
On the 2(ltli of April, 1821), the Dover Unitarian Society
adopted the following covenant :
"As it seems to be the duty of every Christian church
cautiously to obey the injunction of the apostle that all
things be done decently and in order, while at the same time
it avoids imi)0sing anything by way of covenant or articles of
faith, which may not be conscientiously complied with by
all who profess faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and thereby
deprive many of the benefit of Christian ordinances who have
a right and privilege to enjoy them ; therefore,
'^Resolved, That the following acknowledgment shall be
the covenant of this church, to be assented to by all who
may hereafter wish to unite themselves with us for the
benefit of Christian ordinances: Do you believe in Jesus
Christ as the ^lessiah, and acce])t his religion as a revela-
tion from Cod, the true guide of your faith and rule of your
duty? With a deep sense of your imperfection and weak-
ness, and a humble and grateful reliance upon God for the
pardon of sin, and assistance in duty, will you solemnly and
UNITARIANS 841)
earnestly endeavor, bj- atteiKhiiKc ujion \\w services of rcli
gion, aud In' tlie offices of ('liiisiijiii clKnily ;iinl jticiv, to
become a sincere (liscii)le of .Icsiis Cliiisi, tluit htini; Initlifnl
to yourself, your fellow men, and to (;<»<!, yon iiuiy not Ik-
found wanting in that da^- when lie shall judge Ihc world in
righteousness b}^ that Man whom he hath appointed?
"Resolved, further. That any person wishing to unite with
us in the celebration of the Lord's Supjier, his desire having
been j)reviously signified by the pastor of the »hiii(h, he
shall, nnless some serious objection be made, be received on
the acknowledgment of the above covenant, or any other
form of words he may prefer expressing a belief in Chris-
tianity, to the full communion of this chnrch to tlie enjoy-
ment of all its benehts.
"Res()h:ed, further, That baptism shall be administered to
all who desire it, to themselves or their children, ui)on their
assent to the following declaration, which shall be put to
them by the ])astor before administering the oitlinance:
I>o 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<l
until SeptcMnber, 180-1, had maintained i-egnlar pnblic Chris
tian worship on the Sabbath, and had ]»i-eacliing by regnlarly
ordained ministers of the I"nitai-ian denominalioii fur Cliris-
tians, who there, at sncli meetings, lu-eaciied and tanglit the
doctrines of Christianity, as held by the sect of Christians
called Unitarian.
The defendant, Francis IC. Abbott, became |iastor (if (he
chnrch on Angnst .'>!, 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;ii<l lir
was not a (Miristian nor a Unitarian so far as Unitaiianisni
was based iijton ('liiistianity, or llie recognition of (!ijrist
as the Messiah; and prochiinied himself a theist an«l
l)reaehed liis tlieistical (hx-trines to sndi ;iii <'xtent as to
j^ive great dissatisfaction to Ihc members of the chnrcli and
society. In conse(|nence of snch dissatisfaction, Mv. Abbott,
acting on the advice of friends, resigned the jiastoiate, wiiich
took effect on the 1st of April, 1S(;8. The text of his fare-
well sermon, preached on the 2!>th 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 <liverted to purposes not contemplated by the original
trust. An injunction was gi-anted against the u.se of tin-
meetinghouse l)y Mr. Abbott or by any other ])ersons prt'ach
ing the same doctrines, or permitting the use thereof, except
for the purposes for which the original society was foi ined.
Hale V Everett, 5:^, N. H. 1.
Taxation. The statute of Connecticut exem]»l<'d fi-om luxa-
tion a fund not exceeding flO,000, composed of stocks,
bonds, etc., owned by a religious society, and inxcsted for the
benefit of the church, the income derived therefrom being
used for local chui-ch purposes. It was held ihal ;in invest-
ment of such a fund in real estate ili<l not continnc ilir
exemption but such real estate was subject to taxaiion. h
was also held, in this case, that in view <tf the long coni inncd
l»ractice in the state of exempt ing church pi-oju-rty from
taxation, an occasional renting of church ]»roperty for lec-
tures, concerts, readings, amateur theatricals, and other
like enfertainmeuts did not subject the ]tio|icrty to ta.xation.
First Unitarian Society, llartfni-d v llaillord. (i(l Conn. iMiS.
UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST
Amended constitution and confession of faith, 852.
Amending; constitution, 1885-1889, 853.
Canada, 853.
Division, 855.
Government, 836.
History, 859.
History and form of government, 860.
Majority's right, 861.
Philomath College, 862.
Amended Constitution and Confession of Faith. In 1840
land was conveyed to trnstees for the nse of the local society,
according- to the rules and disTipline of the denoniinalion.
There was then a house of worship on the land conveyed.
The lejial title to the property was hehl by such trustees,
and their successors, regularly chosen by the society.
The General Conference of 1889 adopted a revised consti-
tution and confession of faith by a vote of 110 to 20. The
minority of that General Conference withdrew and organ-
ized another General Conference, declaring its adherence to
the old constitution and confession. Each party having
representatives in the local society' elected trustees accord-
ing to the rules and discipline of the detioniination. The
trustees representing the minority party brought an action
against the majority trustees to obtain the church property.
It appeared that after the adoption of the revised constitn-
tion and confession of faith in 1880 there was no change in
the teaching of doctrines or beliefs of the denomination
which were the same as those taught prior to that date. The
amended constitution and confession of faith apju-oved by
the vote taken in November, 1888, and ratified and declared
adopted by the General Conference of 1889, became the only
constitution and confession of faith of the denomination.
Lamb v Cain, 120 Ind. 480.
852
UNITED BKKTHKEX IN CllKlST 85:;
A church was erected in Sparta in 187.j, and a parsonage
in 1880. The defendants in November, 181)1, by foree broke
into the church, removed the lock therefrom, and since such
date have so retained tlie property. In 1802 the defendants
took forcible possession of the parsonage of said church,
and have continuously held possession thereof. This case
involved the question as to the validity of the action of the
General Conference of 188!) in adopting an amench'd consii
tutiou and revised confession of faith, and it was held, fol-
lowing Bear v Heasley, !)8 Mich. 279, that the revised con-
stitulion and ((nifession of faith were not constilntionally
adopted, and were therefore invalid. Lcinp v Raven, li:i
Mich. 'Mi).
Amending- Constitution, 1885-1889. The General Conferences
of 1885 and 1880 were regular and properly constituted
according to the law of the church. The constitution could
be amended, and the confession of faitli revised at the same
time, as they were, in fact, amended and revised in 1889.
Tins amendment and revision were regular ami in substan-
tial conqdiance with tlie law of the denomination. The
revised confession of faith is not in conflict with the original
confessicm, and does not constitute a .serious de])arture from
tlie ancient landmarks of tlie cliurch. (Jriggs v Middaiigh,
10 Ohio Dec. 043.
Canada. Brewster v TIendershot, 27 On t. App. (Can.) 2:52.
considers tlie division of the I'liiied Hretliren denomination
in Canada. According to the statement of facts in the case,
it seems that the action arose out of the disitute "annnigst
the members of the religions society known as the Fnited
Brethren in (.'hrist, which in ISSO en Im inn led in llic with-
drawal of a small section from the main body. TlHtsi' re-
maining, rejn-esenting the great majority of the members,
have become known as the Libei'als; those withdrawing
were for some time known as the Radicals, bnt tlu'y have
now assumed the title of Conservatives. The dilTcivnces
between these two sections s(»on extcndcti lo (pirslions re-
lating to the lillc of pi'opcrly licld lor llic use ami licnclit
mi Tiir: cinil law a.\i> 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,
an<l in evei-y instance exc«']>t (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 coinpose<l of a
snuill number of clergymen, rei»resentatives ()f the Annual
Conferences by whom they had been elected. The constitu-
tion of 1841 was adojtted by the General (\)nference of that
year. It was not authorized by any direct delegati<)n of
authority, nor sanctioned by any subsetpient vote of the
sni; TIM': <'i\iL LAW AM) 'I'm; rniKMu
iiiciiilH'rs. Ndlliiiii; iiioic <l»';irl\ ilciiioiisl r;ih's tlic sii|iiriiM'
;nilli(tiil y chiiiiK'd ;iii(l cxci'cistMl hy llieOener;il ('oiilVi-cnco
lli:iii this fjict llnil il iiiiiioscd :i constitutioTi jiiid coiifcssioii
of f;iitli upon llic clmi'cli willioiil spcciMl Jiiitliorily tlicrctd-
Inic ((nilVncd, (tr siihiiii 1 1 inj; its woik loi' ;ido|tti()ii or icjcc-
lioii hy till' iii('iiilK'rslii|). '^riiis (•(nislilutioii i)i-ovi(l<'(l tlijit
llici'c sliould he no ;ilt('i-;i tion of it except \)\ the I'efjuesl oC
two lliiids of llie sociely. and liie same constitution proliil)-
ite«l the adoption (tl any rule or ordinance altei-in^' or doin<^
away wilii the confession of faith as it then stood. Some
phin hein^ necessary in order to carry into effect these con-
stitutional ]»i'ovisions, it was competent for a Cleneral Ton-
ference to formulate such plan. Whether lay assent should
precede or follow action by the Conference was not of the
essence of the matter. Neither was it vital that such lay
concurrence should be indicated by vote or by petition. The
General Conference of 1885 adopted a report formnlating a
|)lan for the sid>missiou 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 thir<ls of all the votes
cast should be in t^nor of the i)roposed alterations, the
bishops should announce the resnlt, and the alteration
should thereu]>on 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<jusists of the i-ct-o-^iiizcd iircnclici-s. c^xlMtrtcrs,
leaders, stcwjiids. ;iii<l liustccs, and Simdav sdidol s\i|i('iiii-
teiKlenls, wlut ivsidc witliiii llif h<tniid> 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 aii<i
recogiii/.ed ])ri'achi*rs, exliortcM-s, clas^ leaders, stewards, trus-
tees, and Sunday school snperinteiidents. wiio reside within
the district, or hold nieiidtership therein. It meets <inarlerly,
and amonj^ other things appoints trustees ot tiie nieetinj;-
houses, who hohl durini: the ph'asnre of the (^narteiMy Con-
ference.
Third. The .Annual Con Terence which meets yearly, is
composed of the elders, and licentiate preachers who liave
been received by the Annual Conference in each <liviii(t. mid
is presided over by the bisliop of the church.
Fourth. The General Conference, which meets every lour
years, composed of elders elected by the church mendters in
every Conference district throughout the societ;) .
The official board is subordinate to the Quarterly Confer-
ence, the Quarterly Conference to the Annual Conference,
and the Annual to the General Conference, the last being
the highest legislative and judicial body of the church.
Some time prior to the year 1800 the church of the United
Brethren in Christ was organized as a religious society. No
General Conference of the church was he^ld until lSir», when
on the 0th of .lune of that year the first General Conference
was held at Mt. Pleasant in Pennsylvania, in pursuance ol'
a call which had before tiial time been made. This Confer-
ence formulated a Discipline which contained liie rules and
doctrine or confession of faith of the church. Some modili-
cations in the confessicm of faith were made by subseipient
General (.Conferences until 1X85. The confession of faith was
not submitted to the mend)eis of the chuich for ap|»roval.
The (Jeneral Confei-ence of IS 1 1 adojited a new const it n
tion. The constitution was not submitted to the nuMnbers
sr)S Tino (^i\'ii. LAW and tfii: cik imii
of (lie cliiircli lor ;i|ipr(»\ ;il. Tlic (JcriciMl ConlVreiice ol' ISS")
ji]»i)oiiite<l a coiimiillcc on revision wliicli at tlio sjiine Con-
fortMice i>reseiil('(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
<onstltntion and confession of faith to the niendiers of the
(lunch i)rior to the next OtMieral Conference. The plan
ad()j)ted reqnired the submission of the question to the mem-
bers of the church in November, 1888. The i»lan was sub-
mitted.
The total enrollment of members of the church at that
time was 204,517. Of this number only 54,3(i0 voted either
way on the revision plan. Nearly the entire vote cast was
in favor of the revision. The General Conference of 1885
had provided that the revision should be deemed adopted if
approved by two thirds of all the votes cast on the proposi-
tion. The actual aflSrmative vote was much more than two
thirds of the votes cast, but much less than two thirds of
the entire church membersliip. The vote was ratified and
approved by the General Conference of 1889, and by its direc-
tion the bishops issued a i^roclamation on the lOtli of May,
1889, announcing the adoption of the revised constitution
and confession of faith.
The vote of approval in the General Conference of 188!)
was 110 in favor of the revision and 20 against it. A minor-
ity withdrew and organized another General Conference,
transacted business, claimed to be the true General Confer-
ence, and declared its adiierence to the old constitution and
confession of faith.
The majority, continuing the General Conference, adoi)ted
resolutions declaring, among other things, that the minority
had, by the withdrawal, separated themselves from the
church and ceased to be mend)ers of it. The minority were
known as the Radical party, and the majority as the Liberal
party.
The Indiana court held that, for the i)urpose of consider-
UNITED BKIOTHREN IX CUKIST S5U
iii<; llie question of an a])proval of the coustitulion l>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<l by it. Mend)ers who joined i)ri()r to 1841,
and remained in the church were bound by the constitution.
History. This church originated in a voluntary associa-
tion of Trotestants of various denominations at some period
during the eighteenth century ; and its original creed was
simply that of the orthodox I'rotestant churches generally,
but allowing div<'rgencies in niatt<'rs where they dilfered.
It receives its first organization from a (Ntiifcvence of its
ministers held at Baltimore. Maiyland. in (lie year 17S!>.
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 wn<l
a revised confession of faith were adopted \t\ a vote of 110
to 20. Therenjjon the minority asseinl)led in another part
of the city, (York, Pennsylvania) and nmh'rtook to carry
on the session of the Conference, claiming that it liad ex-
ceeded its powers, and that tlie other «lelegates, hy their
ilU'jial action in adoi)ting and adhering to the amende<l con-
stitntion and revised confession, had al)andoned the chnrch
of the United Bretliren in CMirist and organized another
and distinct chnrch. Both organizations continned to use
the old name; and their resjtective adherents have come to
])e called, those of the majority organization "Liberals,"
those of the minority "Radicals." Horsman v Allen, 121)
Cal. i:il.
History and Form of Government. In Bear v lleasley, 98
Mich. 27!), it was said that this church was originated
nearly a century and a half ago, but it had no written con-
fession of faith until 1815, when its General Conference,
held in I'euusylvania, adopted one. This confession of faith
was recognized and adhered to as containing the funda-
mental doctrines of the church until 1889. The church
had no written constitution till 1S:>7, 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 administrati<Mi of
each Annual ConfenMuc, wliether it has strictly observed
I he I'ules and |)reserved the moral and doctrinal piini i|il»'s
of the Discipline in all its transactions." In IS.s") the (Icn
eral Conference adopted a resolution dcclarinji; the General
( 'onference to be the hiuhest judicial authority of the cliurt h.
The General Conference is the highest judicatoiy of the
church, and is in(ruste<l with the geiuM-al supervision of its
affairs, both temporal and spiritual. In all niattei-s. there-
fore, in which it has jurisdiction its jud;j;ments are bindinj;
u]»on the church, its clere\\ mid its nuMubers, and will not be
reviewed by the civil courts. The relation between the mem-
bers of this association is one of contract, and the coirfes
sion of faith and the constitution constitute the terms of
the a<i,reement, which is bindinji upon all. An amcMulment
of the constitution of a society must be ado]»ted in act-ord
aiH-e with the provisions of the constitution in foi-ce at tin'
time of smh adoption respectinii' such aniciidiuent ; oilier
wise it is invalid. See also Russie v l>ra/.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<loptioii of the
new constilution and revised c(uifession (»f faith by the (Jen
eral Conference in ISS!). lOacli party to the action claimed
title to the local |)i-operty, because, as alleged, it represented
the tnu' church. The majority was in j»ossession of the
pi-operly. The mincu-ity based its claim to the prop«'rty
on the j;rouiid that the socalled revised cons! it ut ion ami
c<Mifession of faith were void.
The propei-ly in (piestion was deeded lo ilie trustees of
the local s<Miety in ISCd. h was held thai llioimli there lie
a change in clinich |Mility. or alteration in the expressed
form of faith, if the substantial Iheolouical dtulrine and the
sdL' Tin; ("i\iL LAW .wh 'riii; <iii imii
^«'iH'i';il |»()lily l»c r('(;iiiic(|, llicic is no such tlcpiut iirf ;is
wonhl anioniit to ;i misuse or perversion of the trust. 'Flic
]»riu(iples of Iho <kMioiiiiiiJition, its j^enoral ])olity ami
articles of faith, were not iiialerially altered by the action
of the General Conference of 1880 in adopting the new
constitution and revised confession of faith, and this action
did not constitute a departure from the established faith
and policy of the denomination. The majority of the local
church was held entitled to i)ossession of the y)roperty.
Kuns V Kobertson, 154 111. ^M)4. See also (Iriggs v Middau<ji;h,
10 Ohio Dec. 643; Schlichter v Keiter, 156 Pa. St. 111>;
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'ir<l to the confession of faitli and con-
stitution as they existed j)iior to 1881). The college was
incorporated under an Oregon statute in 18G5, as a general
literaiy and educational institution, under the auspices of
the church known as the United Brethren in Christ. Tlie
trustees of the institution were chosen by the Oregon ('(in-
ference of the church. The decree sustained the pro( ceding
of 1S8J) a<lopting the revise<l confession of faith and jimended
constitution. This decree was allirnicd on jippcal by a
divided court.
UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Organization, 864.
Minority's right, 864.
Organization. Tlie TTiiited rresbyteriaii Church was
foiiiicd ill the year 1847 by the niiion of two churdies whidi
had separated from the Established Church many years be-
fore, and were known as the United Associated Synod and
the Kelief Church. General Assembly of Free Church of
Scotland v Overtoun, (1904) Law Rep. Appeal Cases, p. 515.
This church was formed in 1858 by the union of the "Asso-
ciate Presbyterian Cliurch of North America" and tlie "Asso-
ciate Reformed Church of North America." Wilson v Liv-
ingston, 99 Mich. 5!)4.
Minority's Right. A deed conveyed property to certain
persons as trustees of the Associate Congregation of IMeas-
ant Divide, sid)ordinate to the Associate Presbyterv of
Iowa, subordinate to the Associate Synod of North America.
After the union of the Associate and the Associate Reformed
Churches, a majority of the congregation at Pleasant Divide
refused to assent to the union, wliile a minority organized
as a United Presbyterian Church under the union. It was
held that the trustees of the United Presbyterian Church
while representing a minority of the members of the former
association were trustees named in the deed, and were en-
titliMl to the possession of the property described therein.
McBride v Porter, 17 la. 204. See Associate Reformed
Church.
864
UNIVERSALISTS
Action, how to be brought, 865.
Bequest sustained, 865.
General convention, 865.
Pews, by-laws, 865.
Stock, subscription, 866.
Taxation, 866,
Transfer tax, 866.
Trust sustained, 866.
Unincorporated society, conveyance directed, 867.
Action, How to Be Brought. In an action l»y the society by
name, it was held that the action shonid have been bn»nght
in the name of the wardens and vesliynien, or trnstees as
such of the dmrch, nanun^' il. An action in the name of the
society was iin])roi»erly brought, hrniuheller v l-'irst rni-
versalist Chnrch, Tiercetou, 45 hid. I'TT).
Bequest Sustained. Teslator made a be«inest to the I'ni-
versalisl religions den(»niiiiation in Ihe connty to constitute
a permanent fund, (he use to be ai»|»lied annually Wn- the
sni)port of that <len(»niiiuiti<ni. Tlie be(juest was ludd to be
snfiiciently certain and definite, and the court provided for
trustees to administer the fund, b^irst (niversalist Society,
Xoi-th Adams and otiu'rs v Fitcdi. S (iray (Mass. i 121.
General Convention. The ('niversalist (ieneral Convenlion
was incorporated and organized under the laws of the State
of New York. A Virginia will contained a devis»' of a re
mainder to the (Jeneral Convention, the land (o l)e sttid by
the convention and the money applied in mission worU in
the T'nited States. The devise was sustained, and the ctui-
vention was held capable of taking and Inddin;; the property,
and selling it for tlir |mii poses specilicil in the w ill. .Jordan
v Universalis! (ienci-al Convention Trustees, H»T \a. TH.
Pews, By-Laws. This society whicii was incor|>orated,
865
8(;(; TUio CIVIL law and ^riii': cHrucii
orecte<l ji honsi* of \vorNlii|» mikI sold |k'\\s inidcr a contract
by whicli they were to remain the pioitcrly of the pnrchaHers
so lonj^ as all assessments thereon for expenses of the church
wore regularly jtaid, hut on default for om; year the pew-
was to revert to the society. Afterward by-laws were
adopted rejjiilatinj; the ])roceedin<rs relative to the assess-
nient and collection of taxes. Suhsecpiently the name of the
society was changed. It was held that the society had
])ower to make the by-laws, and that a jierson who purchased
a i)ew after the change of name, could not ol)je<t to the pro-
ceeding by which the name had been changed. Mussey v
Bulfinch Street Society, 1 Cush. (Mass.) US.
Stock, Subscription. The society made a by-law relative to
subscriptions to stock in support of the church, tixing the
price of each share at ^25, with a provision that a person
paying |3 more might receive a redeemable certificate. The
by-law was held valid, and a holder of a certificate issued
in accordance with the by-law was entitled to recover the
par value of the stock. Davis v Proprietors Second Uni-
versalist Meeting House, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 321.
Taxation. After the assessment for a given year in which
the church had been exempted, it ceased to be used as a
church. It was held that the board of revision had a right
to add the property to the receiver's list, charged with a
just proportion of taxes, corresponding to the unexpired
fraction of the current year. Moore v Taylor, 147 Pa. 481.
In Henderson v Erskine, Smith's N. H. Rep. 36. it was
held that Universalists did not constitute a separate sect
entitling them to exemption from taxation, for the support
of a Congregational minister.
Transfer Tax. A devise to a religious society of land and
buildings thereon, to be used exclusively as a parsonage,
was not subject to the succession tax under the Massa-
chusetts act of 181)1. First Universalist Society, Salem, v
Bradford, 185 Mass. 310.
Trust Sustained. A testator, by his will, bequeathed a fund
to trustees to be used for the erection of a hall in Sparta for
UNIVEIISALTSTS 867
the piirpose of establisbiiij^ ii L'liiver.salist churcli in that
town. The trustees were required to secure the incorpora-
tion of a Universalist society under tlie New Jersey law, and
erect a hall within one year after the testator's death, ami
in case of a failure so to erect the building the fund should
revert to (he testator's estate. By a codicil it was jtrondcd
that the fund was to be paid over to certain trustees tiicrcin
named, after they should have established a society (d' thr
Universalist denomination in S])arta, an<l also should have
been incorjjorated, and a part of the fund was available in
the discretion of the society for the employment of a Uni-
versalist i)reacher. These provisions were also to be carried
out within a year after the testator's death. It was held
that the executors having refused to pay over the fund, the
trustees named in the will and codicil were not in default,
and the bequest had not been defeated by any negligence on
their part. The society was incorporated within a year after
the testator's death. Cory Universali.st Society v Beatty, 28
N. .T. Kq. 570.
Unincorporated Society, Conveyance Directed. Land was
conveyed to three trustees in trust for an nnincorjiorated
religious society. A church edifice was afterward erected
on the land, and the society was incorporated. Two of the
trustees thereui)on conveyed the land to the corporation, but
one of them refused to execute a conveyance. In an action
brought to comjjel the conveyance he defended on the ground
that the society was largely indebted for exi)enses of erecting
the church edifice for which he was personally responsible,
and he objected to parting with the title until the debts were
l)aid. Notwithstanding this situation tlie court ordered the
execution of a i>ro]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]»ora<ed by a charter which provided
that all Old School rreshylei'ians were entith'd to member-
ship, and that a<lults who Imd, (hiring tiie year immctiialrly
prior to an election, conii-ihnle<l to the sujjjiort of the chnrch
a sum not less than |2 for a pew or ])ortion <)f a pew are
eligible as trustees and voters at sucii an election. Subse-
quently the ]>ews 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 liel<i «*iilitlejl to vote at
elections. An inspector of election wjis held eligible lis a
candidate. By-laws were sustained anthorizing the j)resi-
dent to a])|K)int insj)ectors of elections, and providing tliat
tickets should c<»ntain nothing ])nt names of candidates.
Common wealth v Woelper, 'A Ser. and R. (Pa.) 29.
In M'llvain v Christ (linrch, Reading, 8 Phila. (507), it
was held that a person was entitled to vote at an election of
vestrymen who at any time before the election had taken
a i)ew or sitting, and ])aid its rate, for the preceding year;
and it was not necessary that the pew or sitting should
have been taken and held for the year preceding the election.
Qualifications, How Fixed. If the qualifications of voters
at the election of otficers of a religions society are not pre-
scribed by statute, such qualifications may be determine<l by
each denomination. American Primitive Society v Pilling,
4 Zab. (N. J.) 65:i
Qualifications, in General. See People ex rel Sturges v
Keese, 27 Hun (N. Y. ) 483, holding that the New York act
of 1868 Ch. 803, amending former statutes relating to the
qualifications of voters did not apply to existing corpora-
tions unless the provisions of the act were adopted by the
vestry. These provisions had not been adopted by this
society.
Upon questions affecting the pro])erty of a religious
corporation, the right to vote thereon should not be con lined
to persons only who are members of the church. Those who
have contributed to its support, although not mend»ers,
should be allowed a voice in such matters. Niccolls v Rugg,
47 111. 47.
In Commonwealth v Cain, 5 Ser. and R. (Pa.l 510, the
court sustained by-laws limiting the right to vote to persons
who had been iiKMubers of the society twelve months, and
l»rolubitiug ])ers()ns from exercising the right who were in
arrears two years on pew rents.
VOTE lis S71
It havlnji- hccii |»i-()vi<le<l in the rourtli section of \\w ad
of incorpoi-atioii of Ilic Cliurcli of the Ilolv Trinii.v in tlwciiv
of Philadelphia ihai the iiieiiibers of liie ciuiich havini; siil»
scribed to the biiihliii<^ of the same, or who sliail iiereaflei-
contribute not less tlian lOs. annually toward the suppoi-t
of the church, shall meet at a time designated in the ac I.
in each year, at such jilace in the said city as shall be
apj)oiuted by the trustees, of which notice to be j^iven. and
choose by ballot eight lay trustees by a majoiity ol members
so qualified to vole; il was held that persons who only a
few days before the election, or less than a yeai- before it.
had coutributed 10s. or more to the support (tf the cliun h.
but who had not for several years before been cont libutors,
were not annual contributors within the meaning of the act,
and were not entitled to vote, either at the election for trus-
tees, or at the preliminary meeting for the election of (dllcers
to conduct it, though their contributions were nuide with a
bona fide intention of becoming members of the church.
Juker V Commonwealth ex rel Fisher, 20 Pa. St. 484.
In Weckerly v Geyer, 11 S. ami K. (Pa.i 35, it api>eared
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 <le<lai-iii^, in
oH'ecl, that eerlain vot<'s alle<;ed to l»e east for the siiccj'ssful
candidates were in fact iUe^^al. The rece]*lioii of the votes
by the insjieclors was coiiclnsive as to the v«)I«M''s ri<j;ht to
vote, and sncli certificate assniiiing to review and revise the
vote is a nnllitv. Hartt v Harvey, 32 Barb. ( N. V.) 55.
Stated Attendants. "A stated attendant is one who at-
tends statedly which is (hdined to be regnhiid}' at certain
times, not occasionally. "
Re<;nlar attendance at the stated times for worsliip as
established in the cliurcli, or societ}' or congregation, as
distinguishable from irregular or occasional attendance, is
wliat is necessary. This attendance must be i>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<lent and the l)e(|uest was invalid.
Booth V Baj)tist Church of Chrisl. i'onglikeepsie. r_*(i N. V.
215.
Constitutional Limitation. The const ihit ion ol" Missouri
made void every gift, sale, oi* devi.se of land exceeding one
acre in extent "to any minister, teacher, or preacher of the
gospel, as such, or lo any rrligious seel, ordci-, ur dciiomin.i-
tion."
A devise to Ihree persons in trust lor a religions society
to be organized and known as SI. Maiy's ("hurch, including
property intended for a i-ector's residence, the church and a
school, exceeding in amount the (Uie acre limited by the
constitution of Missouri, was held good as to an acre.
Barkley v Donnelly, 112 Mo. Hfll.
S7S tin: ('i\ii. law a.\i> tiii; cihkcii
The coiirl held lt» he iii\ali<l ;i devise t(» tlie socielv of ail
acr(^ of l;iii(l, .111(1 a lM'(|iiesl siip|)<>se(| 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<nided that "no jterson having a
husband, wife, child or jtarent, shall, by his or her last will
WILL S7!»
aud te.staiiK'iil, (Icxisc or iK-tpicatli lo any liciievoU'iit, cliai-
itable, literal y, scirutilic. religious, or iiiissioiiary associa-
tion or c-orpoialioii in trust or otlierwise more than one half
part of his or her estate, after the payment of his or lier
debts, and sucli (U'vise or bequest shall be valid to the extent
of one half and no more," was held not to apply to a Massa-
ehusetts testator; accordingly, it could not prevent a New
York corjioration from receiving a bequest from a uouresi-
dent testator witliout regard to the limit of amount. Healy
V Keed, 15:1 Mass. V,)l.
Dissolution of Society, Effect. A testator devised real estate
in trust, for the payment of the income in sui»port of a
pastor, or elder iu a church in the town where testator
resided, of a certain faith and practice so long as the mem-
bers of that church or their .successors should maintain the
visibilitj' of a church in such faith and order. Afterward
the only two members of the church at a meeting called by
public notice, voted and resolved that they would no longer
endeavor to maintain the appearance of a visible church, and
declared the church dissolved and extinct. It was held that
the church was thereupon dissolved, and ceased to be a vis-
ible church, and that the trustee held the estate as a result-
ing trust, for the testator's heirs-at-law. Easterbrooks v
Tillinghast, nOray (Mass.) 17.
Foreign Beneficiary. In Magill v Brown, Fed. Cas. No.
8,952 (U. S. (^ir. Ct. Pa.) (Brightly N. P. ;U7), it was held
that one of the privileges secured in eveiy State to the
citizens of the several States by art. 4, sec. 2 of the constitu-
tion of the United States, is that of exemption from the l:i\v
of alienage and the consequent riglit of enjoying i»roper(y
iu the several States; and, accordingly, a devise or be-
quest cannot be defeated on the ground that the beneficiary
is a citizen or a corporation of anotiiei- State tlian llie
testator.
In this case the will of a resident of rennsylvania con-
tained bequests largely for religious ]»nrposes (o persons,
societies, or institutions in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio,
sso Till'; (M\ii. LAW AM) 'I'm; (iii i;('ii
;iii(l \'irjj;iiii;i. Tlu'S(; hcijiicsls vvero siis(;iiiM'(| niidci- the
(■laime of the federal coiiHtitution wliicli piovideH tliat "the
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the i)iivilf'f^eH
and iimiiuiiities of citizens in the several States."
Foreign Society. A heiinest to a Massachusetts relij;ions
society by a resident of New York was sustained in Re Bul-
lock, (; Deui. Sur. Ct. (N. Y.) 3.35. The capacity of the
society to take was to be tested by the Massachusetts law,
under which the bequest wtis valid.
Identifying Beneficiary. It is not necessary tluit the name
of the devisee should be mentioned in the will ; it is enough
if the devisee be described by words that are sufficient
to denote the person meant by the testator; and to distin-
guish him from all others. Evidence is admissible to show
the beneficiary intended in case of doubt. Button v Amer-
ican Tract Society, 2.3 Vt. 336.
A devise to the Diocese of Central New York to be used as
a bishop's residence was sustained in Kingsbury v Bran<l-
egee, 113 App. Div. (N. Y.) 006, on the ground that although
there was no corporation by the technical name mentioned
in the will, the testatrix evidently intended to give the prop-
erty to the corporation known as the trustees of the Diocese
of Central New York.
The testator devised a portion of his estate to the Society
for Ameliorating the Condition of -Tews. At the time of his
death the only society of this class in existence was the
"American Society for Ameliorating the Condition of the
Jews," which was incorporated by the Legislature of New
York in 1820. This society was held entitled to receive the
devise. Brewster v McCall's Ex'rs., 15 Conn. 274.
The misnomer of a legatee or devisee, whether that legatee
be an individual or a corporation, will not invalidate the gift
or devise, if the true object of the testator's bounty can be
ascertained either from the will itself or by evidence aliunde.
It was competent to show that a bequest to ''St. Mary's
Roman Catholic Church of Coo])erstown, N. Y.," was in-
tended for the "Church of the Lady of the Lake, Coopers-
WILL <^S1
towu, N. Y.," that being the true name of the corporation.
Ke Foley Estate, 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 77.
Testatrix made a bequest to the treasurer tor llic tiinc
being of the Society for the J'ropagation of the (Jospel among
the Jews in ai<l of tlie general pnrjtoses of tliat society.
There was no society bearing that name. Tliere were two
societies organized for the same general purpose as that
named in the will, one "The London Society for I'romoting
Christianity among the Jews," and the other "The British
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel among the Jcnns."
Evidence was admitted to show ^^■hich of these societies was
intended by the testatrix, and the fact that she had sub-
scribed to the London Society was held to (urn the scale in
favor of that institution, and the legacy was made payable
accordingly. Re Fearns Will, 27 Wkly. Rep. ( Eng.) 392.
A will dated in 1820 devised a portion of the testator's
estate to the American Tract Society. The testator died in
1838. At that time there were two American Tract societies,
one in Boston, which was incorporated before the execu-
tion of the will ; the other was in New York, was not incor-
porated, and was organized after the execution of the will.
It was held that the Boston societ}^ was entitled to the devise.
Brewster v McCalPs Ex'rs. 15 Conn. 274.
A testator nmde a bequest to the Franklin Seminary of
Literature an<l vScience, New Market, New Hampshire.
There was no institution of that name, but there was an
institution incorporated by the name of the trustees of the
South Newmaikct Methodist St'ininaiT. It was held that
there was a latent and)iguily in the description of the legatee
in the will, which might be explained by paiol evidence.
South New Market Methodist Seminary v I'easlee. IT) N. H.
317.
What is sufficient description of corporations or societies
as beneficiaries? A corjioration or an individual entitled
to take by devise may take as well by description as by name.
American Bible Society v Wetmore, 17 Conn. 181.
Indefiniteness. A becpu'st of a ceitain sum to the Uuiver-
SSL' Till'] ("l\II. LAW ANI> '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<l lor unccflaint \ ;
and if no truslcc is named in llic will, ('(piily will a|»|toinl
li-nslccs 1o cNccnle llic trust, on a bill (il('<l hy tlic or<iani/cd
Uliivei'salisI soridics of llic <-onntv. I'ii-sl I 'nivcrsalisf
Socicly. Xorlii Adams, and others v I'itcli. S dray i.Mass. i
421.
A heipiesi was made to the rrolestant ('luircli liihle So-
ciety. So far as appeared in Ihe case, no such society ever
existed. The court said that it must be infei-red from tlio
bequest thai the testator meant a society whose objects were
charitable, as tlio clieap distribution of Bibles would be.
Tlie testator's object was lield to have failed, and a decree
was made directing the application of the fund according to
a scheme to be determined, Cottrell v Parkes, 25 T. L. Tt.
(Eng.) 523.
Testatrix bequeathed a portion of her residuary estate to
her husband for the purpose of making such distribution
among religious, benevolent, and charitable objects as he
may select. This was held void for indefiniteness. Hege-
man's Executors v Koome, 70 N. J. Eq. 562.
A testator made a bequest to a trustee to be used only
toward the erection of a church, and directed that it should
not be i)aid by the trustee until he is perfectly satisfied that
no debts of any kind whatever rest on said church property,
or until said amount with accrued interest, would place the
church entirely out of debt. The erection of the church was
begun in testator's lifetime, and completed three years before
his death. During the time of its building the testator
contributed various sums, but for other purjjoses than that
designated by the legacy. At the testator's death there was
a small debt against the church. It was held that the « huich
was entitled to the whole amount of the legacy, less the
inheritance tax. Keiper's Estate, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 5(58.
Devises for poor and needy jieople of a church who are
dependent upon their own labor for a livelihood, for religious
WILL S83
societies of a said city witliout regard to sect wlio prefer to
woriv foi- the good and well-being of mankind, and for luiild-
iiig and iiiaiiitaining of a fonndling iiosjiital to relieve
nnfortnnate females and protect their offspring, describe
beneficiaries with sufficient certainty. I'hillips v Harrow,
Ul\ la. U'2.
A testator made a bequest for the use of "Koiiiaii Catholic
priests in and near London." The legatee died during the
lifetime of the testator. It was held that the legacy <li(l not
lapse, but was iuten<led for the benefit of Koman Catholic
priests in aud near London both at the testator's death and
afterward; the legacy was not deemed indefinite because
of the use of the word ''near," for the reason that the court
might direct a scheme to be approved by the master.
Attorney-General v (iladstone, 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>ose<l of by the bishop (of I>id>u<piei and a]>ply 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 desigiiate<l. 1 1" there were
no difficulty in this I'espect, it is still uncertain whether the
testator inten<led his bounty should <;o to the <-hnrch or to
the poor cliildren. It is uncertain how much is to f?o to the
charity. The bishoj) is to determine not only the object, but
the amount of the fund it is to receive, aud how much it is
jiroper aud legal should be so ai)plied. It is uncertain
whether the bishoj) is to administer the trust in his ofTicial
or in his individual cajtacity, and whether the power is to
be exercised by him or his successors. Lepage v McNamara,
5 la. 124.
A devise of real estate, describing the devisees only as
"those members of the Society of the Most Precious Blood
who are under my control and subject to my authority at the
time of my death,'' is void because not pointing out with sulti-
cient certainty the persons who are to take. Society of
the Most Precious Blood v Moll, 51 Minn. 277.
A legacy in aid of a mission to be established in Africa by
the Protestant Episcopal Church was sustained in Domestic
and Foreign Missionary Society's Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 425,
although the objects of the bounty were not definitely de-
scribed. A legacy to a mission is sufficiently definite.
Testator, who died in 1800. made a bequest to the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church in America whereof Francis Asbury
is at present (the date of the will i the presiding bishop.
The bequest was held void for uncertainty. The Methodist
Episcopal Church of America was an aggregate body, com-
posed of a multitude of individuals not incorporated, and
was incom]»etent to hold property of any kind. Holland v
Peck, 2 Iredell Eq. (N. C.I 255.
Intention. A bequest to tlie "Baptist societies for foreign
and domestic missions, and the American and Foreign Bible
societies'' is valid aud sutliciently specitic; and if societies
WILL SS5
cau be fouud, which were organized aud known by tho>e
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<i;n coi-poratioii could not lake without
action npoti the part of th<* J>('<;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<lence was held voi<l, for the reason that the
Yearly Meeting was only an unincorporated voluntary asso-
ciation, and could not take by devise. Greene v Dennis,
t; (\)nn. 29:?.
Religion, Advancement. A bequest to te.stator's parents
with directions that on their death a sjtecitied sum should be
used "for the interest of religions, and for the advancement
of the Kingdom of Christ in the world." and for that purpose
the sum sjtecitied was t<> 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 resi<hiary
bequests and use them for the purposes expressed by the
testator. American Tract Society v Atwater, 'M Ohio St. 77.
Testator provided that his residuary estate after the <leath
of his widow, should be a]»pi-oi»riated by the executor for the
advancement of religion, in such manner as in his judgment
will best promote that object. In a proceeding to have this
provision declare<l void for uncertainty, the court held that
it was capable of execution by the executor, at the proper
time, and that the court could not anticipate that the ex-
ecutor would not properly applj' the bequest when the resid-
uary provision became effective. Miller v Teachout, 24 Ohio
St. 525.
A bequest made for the use of the Welch Circulation
Charity Schools as long as they should continue, and the
increase and improvement of Christian knowledge and ])ro-
moting religion, and to purchase Bibles and other religious
books, pami)hlets, and tracts as the trustees think tit, was
sustained, but a devise of the house in which such charity
should be carried on was declared void. Attorney General
V Stepney, 10 \'es. -Ir. ( I'^ng. ) 21.
Reward of Merit. A be(pu*st of a fund, the income of wiii( li
was to be use«l for rewai-ds of merit to })Oor puj)ils in the
parochial schools of Louisville was sustained in Colnnaii v
O'Leary, 114 Ky. :{SS.
Sailors' Home, Boston, Massachusetts. Testator gave a leg-
acy to the Sailors' Home in Boston. Two societies claimecl
the legacy, one called the National Sailors' Home, whicli
had no sailors' home in Boston, and the other, the Boston
Ladies' Bethel Society, which was maintaining a sailors'
home in Boston at the time of the testator's death. The
latter society was held entitled to the legacy. l"'aidi<nei v
National Sailors' Home, l."),") Mass. 458.
Nss 'I'lii; ('i\ii. LAW .\M» Tin: cm ijcii
Slavery and Intemperance. Lc;;;Mi('s were j^ivcn to lliis
society so Nmj; iis it slionid \u-.\v |»nhlic tcstiinony ;i}^;niist
sliivciT ;ni<l iiitciniKMMncc. AN'Iicii sucii |.iil>lic 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<le
WILJ. SS'.»
within one onlendjir month j)rioi- to the death of the (estat(»r.
The will was dated Felnnary 10, an<l tlie tcstatin- died March
1>. 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 e<lucation was
to be paid to I'rinceton College, and to be used for the educa-
tion of Presbyterian ministers. It was held that this was
not a trust prinuirily for religious uses, but that the primary
purpose was the education of the relative, and the testatrix
having died within one month after making her will, the
bequest did not become void under the Pennsylvania statute.
McMillen's Appeal, 11 Wkly Notes of Cases (l*a.) 440.
In Stephenson v Short, 92 N. Y. 43:J, it was held that the
two months clause relating to devi.ses and bequests to <-or-
porations, contained in sec. 0, chai). Ml!), of the Laws of 1S4S,
applied to all wills, and therefore that a bequest to a mis-
sionary society in a will executed two days before testator's
death, was invalid.
Under a Pennsylvania statute declaring void bequests
among other things for religious uses unless the will was
made at least one month before the testator's death, it was
held that a legacy to a church to be used in saying masses
for the rej)Ose of the testator's soul was void, it a]>pearing
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<i In* coiii-
])uted ill (his case iiioant Ihirly-oiu* full cakMidar <lays, Itcf^in-
iiiug wlioii October 8 ended, at niidnif^lit, and ending at the
close of Novend)er 8, at uiidiiij^ht. Concerning the ol)ject of
tlie statute makinji^ voi<l a will executed within one month
]trior to tlie testator's death, the court said that the statute is
lor the i)rotection of a testator of the last full calendar
month of his life against yieldin*; to any influences during
that period — so often a suscej)til)le one — which may unduly
lead him to divide his estate, or any portion of it, to religious
or charitable uses. Re Gregg's Estate, 213 Pa. 2i;0.
Simmons v Burrell, 8 Misc. (N. Y, ) 388, holds that a
residuary bequest to cori)orations made within two months
before testator's death, is invalid.
See. G of chap. 319 of the New York Act of 1848, declar-
ing invalid a will executed within two months prior to the
death of the testator so far as it affects a gift to a charitable
corporation, was not repealed nor amended by chap. 041 of
the laws of 1881. Matter of Conner, 44 Hun (N. Y.) 424,
1 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 144.
The i)rovisiou in the act of 1848, chap. 31 U. sec. G, prohib-
iting gifts to certain cor])orations by a will made within
two months prior to the death of the testator applies only
to corporations organized under that act, and it was, accord-
ingly, held that gifts to certain foreign corporations author-
ized by their charters to receive such gifts were valid.
Gifts to corporations described in the act are not against
public policy, and testamentary gifts to such institutions
are not condemned by any policy outside the statute, llcdlis
V Drew Theological Seminary. 05 N. Y. 1(U>.
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<l in the will.
This disposition of her property was sustained as a valid
gift, and was not within the prohibition of the Pennsylvania
statute prohibiting a legacy or devise for charitable pur-
poses contained in a will executed within one munlh
prior to the testator's death. Mc(;iade's Appeal, !)It Ta.
St. 338.
A legacy to a cjiurcli contained in a will made wiiliiii
thirty days of the deatli of the testatrix was licld valid
under the rennsylvania ad of 1855, for th(> 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(ui<litioii for charitable use. h
was held that, under the circunistances. the I»c(iuesi was to
the pastor as an indix idiial, ami was ii(»t subjcci to liic pro
SU'2 Till': CINII. LAW AM) Till; <'lll IM II
\ isioiis (»r llic slalutc iii:ikiii;^ Noid ;t hcrjiirsl tor rcli^^ioiis
purposes iiiiidc within the oik; iiiontli prioi- to the death ol'
tho tost:itrix. Kc ilodiiclt's llstiilc; O'licilly Ai.p«';il. l."l
Vi\. 485.
The t('st;itrix had no children and no descendants at the
time of executing' the will, wiiich was executed less than
ninety days before her decease, and whicli made the beqnest
to charitable uses. The will was held valid under the
Geor<;ia Code, which aj»plied the restrictive time limit only
to a testator leaving a Mite or children or the descendant of
the child. Reynolds v Bristow, 37 Ga. 283.
Trustee, Will Acknowledging Trust. Testator who was a
trustee of u fund for the payment of the salaiy of a minister
of this church, by his will acknowledged such trust as bind-
ing on him, and appointed trustees to hold, invest, and man-
age said fund, and pay its income on such salary, and be-
queathed the fund to them for that i)urpose. The bequest
was held valid. Morris Ivxecutors v Morris Devisees, -iS W.
Va. 430.
Undue Influence. A member of the society couveyed a large
amount of property to the pastor, nominally for the benefit
of the society. The burden was on the pastor to show
good faith in the transaction, although he derived no per-
sonal benefit from it, as the law presumes undue influence.
AVhere a person enfeebled by age and illness, and susceptible
to influence, conveys property- to his pastor, in trust for the
])arish, greatly in excess of its needs, in addition to ]>re-
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 di<l not swear to tiie tnith she would get
895
sue, 'v\\\: ('i\ II. LAW and 'iiii: cm ucii
into Iifll lilt'." Slic \v;is licid to he ((tiiijM'iciit . Draper v
l>r: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 an<l
effect of the provision of the general statutes, lS(;o, ehai).
131, sec. 12, were to render persons who were disbelievers
in any religion competent witnesses. :iiid to cause their dis-
belief to be ju'oved only l(» alVccI llieii- ci-edibility.
A person who docs not believe in llie obligation of an
oath, and a future slaic of icwnrds and punishments, or in
accountability after deatli. is not ;i fonipj-tenl witness; bni
every jx'rson who does so beliive. wiintevei- may be his reli-
S!>S 'nil; ('l\ IL LAW .\M> Till: (IN K'CII
^ions creed, is cuiiiiielenl , heiii;; sumii ncciddin;^ In lii:it
I'onii (>r <):illi \\lii<li lie lioMs lo lie ol»li;:;;it(»ry. <'iii-lis v
Siroiij;, 4 l)jiy (<\Min. ) ."il.
TIu' true test of (•()inj)eteiu\v is wlielliei- :i person Ixlieves
in the existence of a God who will punish iiiiii if he swear
falsely. Persons who believe that fiilnre punishnient is not
eternal are included in this rule. Cubbison v M'Creary, 2
Watts & S. (l»a.) 262.
In Connnonwealth v Barnard, Thach. (;rini. Cases (Mass.)
431, a person otiered as a witness at tirst testified that he
believed in a God, but that he considered an oath no more
binding on his conscience than a simple promise. He
attached no religions obligation or sanctity to an oath. He
further said that he had no idea of such a being as the one
living and true God, who knows the secrets of all hearts,
who takes knowledge of the actions of men, and who will
reward or punish them as their conduct in this life is good
or evil. He Avas held not conij)etent as a witness.
Neither belief in a Supreme Being nor in divine punish-
ment is requisite to the competency of a witness in Florida.
The common law rule does not apply in that State. Clinton
V State, 5.3 Fla. 98.
A person believing in the being of a God, and in his attri-
butes, as a righteous avenger of wickedness, and in the exist-
ence of a future state, is competent to be sworn as a wit-
ness. Commonwealth v Batchelder, Thach. Cr. Cas. (Mass.)
191.
A j)erson who is proved to have oi)enly and repeatedly
avowed that he had no belief in the existence of a God, can-
not be admitted to testify in a court of justice. Norton v
Ladd, 4 N. H. 444.
A person's religious belief or unbelief cannot render him
incompetent as a witness. Ewing v Bailey, 36 111. App. 191.
A person is not rendered incomi>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 Bein<i
who will punish false swearing is not a competent witness,
but the objection to his competeucy must be taken Ix'fore he
is sworn. After he lias testified his disbelief may be shown,
to atfect bis credibility. The People v McOarreu, 17 Wend.
(N. Y.) 4G0.
A person olfered as a witness is sid)ject to examination by
the court as to his religious belief. Commonwealth v Winne-
more, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 35G.
A ])erson is a competent witness who believes in the exist-
ence of a God, and that he will punish falsehood and jieijnry
in this world, although he does not believe in future rewards
and jmnishments. IJlockei- v Burness, 2 Ala. (N. S.) :554.
Deaf Mute. A deaf and dumb person who can be com-
municated with by signs is a competent witness under our
statute, if he has sullicient disci-etion, and understands that
perjury is punishable by law, though he has no conce[)tion of
the religious obligation of an oath. Snyder v Nations, 5
Blackf. (Tnd.) 205.
Evidence. In Connecticut, parol e\idence was admitted
to show that a proposed witness was an infidel and (li<l not
believe in the being of a (iod and in revealed religion. How
V Pai'sons, 1 Root (Conn.) 481.
Idolater. In Ormichund v Baiker, 1 \N'ils(»n K. \\. i Ijig. i
84, the case is stated as follows: An intidel, pagan, idolater
nuiy be a witness. It was held by the Lonl Chancellor,
assisted by Lord ('hief .Inst ice Lee, the Master ol the Koll.s,
the Lord Chief Baron, and .Justice Burnett, that an intidel.
pagan, idolater may be a witness, and that his deposition
sworn according to the custom and niannei- of the c(»untry
where he lives may be rea<l in evidence; set tiiai at this day
it seems to be settled that inliilelitv ol anv kind doth not
!»00 THE Civil. LAW AND THK f'HriU^H
<Xi) l(» llic ((tiiiix'h'iicy of ;i witness. In the dcltiilc of this
l)()int, IJydcr, the attorney-gcii('i;i], cited tlie covonaiil l)e-
t ween .Iiicob iind Liil)jni, Cenesis, clijip. IW, v. HU, i)'\, where
Jacob swore hy tlie Tiod of Altfjdiain, and Labaii swore by
the God of Nahor. \'i<le Psalin 11.",; IOC, v .".(I.
Immunity from Examination. A witness cannot be i-etjuired
to testify to his want of belief in any religions tenet, nor to
divulge his opinions uj)on matters of religious faiili. Dedijc
V Hopson, 02 Ta. 502.
Oath. An oath is an appeal to God, by the witness, for the
truth of wiiat he declares, and imprecation of divine ven-
geance upon him, if his testimony shall be false. The wit-
ness must believe in the existence of God. He must believe
in rewards and punishments after death, and a belief that
men will be punished in this life for their sins, but imme-
diately after their death be made happy, is not sufficient to
entitle a witness to be sworn. Atwoocl v Welton, 7 Conn. G6.
An oath is an appeal to God to witness what we say, and
we thus invoke punishment if what we say be false. Mo-
hammedans may be sworn on the Koran ; Jews on the Penta-
teuch, and Gentiles and others, according to the ceremonies
of their religion, whatever may be the form. Jackson v
Gridley, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 98.
Party, Religious Belief. A party has a right to be a witness
in his own behalf, and this is a civil right, protected by the
constitution. A party who claims the right to testify in his
ow'n behalf cannot be denied on the ground that he does not
believe God will punish perjury. State v I'owers, 51 X. J. L.
432.
Quaker. A Quaker's testimony on his affirmation is ad-
missible in an action of debt on statute 2 Geo. 11, chap. 24,
against bribery. Atchesou v Everitt, 1 Cowper (Eng.) 382.
Religious Belief. The proper question to be asked a wit-
ness in order to ground an objection to his competency is
not whether he believes in Jesus Christ, or the holy gospels,
but whether he believes in God and a future state. King v
Taylor, 1 Peake's N. P. (Eng.) 11.
WITNESS 901
Some kind of religious belief lia.s always been considered
indispensable, in order to the binding obligation of an oath
on the conscience of the one sworn. At times it has been
deemed an essential prerequisite that the person sworn
should believe in all the articles of the Christian faith. And
Mr. Starkie, in the last edition of his work on Evidence,
says, "All persons may be sworn who believe in the existence
of God, a future state of rewards ami punishments, and in
the obligation of an oath." "It is obvious that a sincere
deist, a Mohammedan, or a i)agan of a^iy name, if he believe
in the existence of God, may feel tlie sanction of an oath as
binding upon his conscience as the most devout Christian."
Arnold v Arnold, 13 Vt. 303.
This convent (Ursuline Convent) was destroyed by a mob
August 11, 1834. Twelve persons were indicted for capital
burglary and ca])ital arson, ^'arious questions arose dur-
ing the trial relating to the competency of witnesses, and the
admissibility of evidence, especially the right to inquire as
to the religious faith and prejudices of the witnesses and
jurors, and the manner of administering oath. Common-
wealth v Buzzell, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 153.
In order to be a qualified witness a i^erson must believe
in the existence of a Deity and a future state of rewards and
punishments. Perry's Adm. v Stewart, 2 Har. (Del.) 37;
Wakefield v Ross, 5 Mason (U. S.) 10.
In order to test (he com]>etency 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 un<ler the constitution
aiul laws witnesses of all relij^ious persuasions are ])laced on
the same footing, and each is to stand on his own individual
character.
One who does not believe in the existence of God is not
a comi)etent witness. Thurston v Whitney, 2 Cush. (Mass.)
104.
An acknowledgment of belief in God and his jirovidence is
sufficient to establish the competency of a witness who has
been objected to on account of defective religious belief.
Jones V Harris, 1 Strobh. Law (S. Car.) IGO.
"A person who believes there is no God, is not a comj)etent
witness." Scott v Hooper, 14 Vt. 535, citing Arnold v
Arnold, 13 Vt. 302.
In Bush V Commonwealth, SO Ky. 244, it was held that a
rule which excludes a witness in a criminal case on account
of his religious belief, or his disbelief in any system of reli-
gion is in violation of the constitution and the policy of
free government.
"One who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being,
and that (lod will punish in this world for every sin, though
he does not believe that punishment will be inflicted in the
world to come, is a competent witness." Shaw v Moore, 40
N. C. 25.
Evidence is admissible that a witness does not believe in
a God nor in future rewards and punishments. Arnd v
Amling, 53 Md. 102.
A person who does not believe in the existeme of a God
other than nature, nor in a future state of existence is not a
ct)inj)elent witness. U. S. v Brooks. 4 ('ranch C. C. (T. S.) 427.
WITNESS 00:^
A person wlio lias no i('li;;i(»us Ix'lief, wlio dot's ii(»t ac-
knowledge a Snprenie licini;, and who does not leel liiiiiself
accountable to any iiioial pnnishnient here or hereafter,
but who acknowledjics liis amenability to the criminal law,
if he forswears himscir. cannol become a witness. Central
Military Tract K. K. ('(.. v Kockafellow . 17 III. :>n.
Tn I'ennsylvania a belief in a fntnic slate of i'e\var<l and
jdinislimeiit is not essential to the com|»eteiicv of a witness,
nor is it cause of exclnsion (hat one does not believe in llie
inspired character of the liible. The test of com|tetency is
whether the witness believes in the existence of a (lod who
will punish him if he sweai-s falsely, lint wlietliei- the jmn-
ishment will be lemjiorary or eternal, inllicted in this \v(M'ld
or that to come, is immaterial ui>on 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 <li still ct ion, and objected to it, if this depart ni-e from
the usual form was inteinled oi- coiiM be ccnistrued as estab-
lishinjj an invidious dislinclion iiuainsl ('atholics. NN'here-
Up(Ml it was stated by the eonil. llial wlielhel- the oalli be
!)iii 'nil; ciN 1 L LAW A.\h 'i'lii; cmKcii
l;ik('ii ill IIk! iisii;i1 mode, \)\ iioidiii^ lip llic liaiid, or any
ollici-, il is ill I;i\\' ('(pi.-illy hiiKliii;:. ;iinl tliat l'jils(; test iiiiony
ill cillicr case would ('(piallv siilijcd ilic party guilty to the
punisliiiiciils <»r jicrjiiiy. It was also a rule of law, now
adopted in practice, tliat a witness in to l)e sworn, accord-
iiio to the loiiii wliicli lie Indds to be the most solemn, and
wliicli is sanctilied by the nsa^c of the country or of the sect
to which he belon<»s. It is well understood as a matter of
jiciieral notoriety, that those who profess the Catholic faith
are usually sworn on the Holy Evanjielists, and generally
regard that as the most solemn foini of oath, and for this
reason alone that mode is directed in this court, in case of
administering the oath to Catholic witnesses. This is done
by the witness placing his hand upon the book, whilst the
oath is administered, and kissing it afterward. The oath
was then administered to Bisliop Feuwick in this form.
TJniversalist. One who believes in the existence of a God,
who will pnnish him if he swears falsely is a competent wit-
ness. This includes a Universal] st who believes that future
])unishment will not be eternal. Butts v Swartwood, 2 Cow.
(N. Y.) 431.
YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
Auxiliary, 905.
Property, limitation, 905.
Taxation, 906.
Auxiliary. The Auxiliary of the Y()uii<i: Men's Clirisliaii
Association is a society composed of women, whose object
is to extend spiritual, intellectual, social, and financial liel[)
to the Young Men's Christian Association of Nashua. The
purpose of the latter association, as set forth in lis charter,
is to improve the spiritual, intellectual and social condition
of the young men of Nashua, and its property to tlie amount
of 125,000 is thereby exempted from taxation, it is deemed
a charitable institution, and its })roperty is exempt from
taxation and tlie Woman's Auxiliary belongs to the same
class. Carter v Whitcomb, 74 N. H. 482.
Property, Limitation. A corporation known as the Young
Men's Christian Association of Decatur, Illinois, was duly
formed under the Illinois statute, for the purpose of pro-
moting growth in grace and Christian fellowship among
its members, and aggressive Christian Avork, esi»e(ially by
and for young men, and to seek out and aid tlie worthy poor.
It prescribed no fo)-ni of worshij) and impo.sed no obligations
on its members in this respect. Tlie assotiation was not
subject to the limitation contained in the Illinois statute
prohibiting a religious corjxjration from liolding more than
ten aci-es of land, an<l therefore a devise of an undivided om*
half of 1(50 acres to the Association was sustainol.
Incidentally, the court observcMJ llnil (incslions relating
to the amount of j)roi)erty whieh a lorixualion might take
under statutory limitations were to be determined only on
the application of the State, and ii(»t of parlies interested in
the projjerty itself. Hamsher v Hanislier, i;'.2 111. 27:5.
yoo
!MMi 'nil'] ("I NIL LAW A M » Til I! »IM l.'<ll
Taxation. 'IMic ;iss()(i;i(ioii in AiiImiiii, ]\Liiii<', owntd i*-,\\
csLilc v;i1ii(m1 :iI .1?LMK0()(»; m |M»rli<>ii of I lie |iro|»citv \\;is N-t
r«»r ji l»(»;inliii^' Iionsc, :iii<l jinollicr portion lor stores. Am
jis.si'ssnn'nt ofsl(>,(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 Metho<l-
ist Episcopal Cluuch, 21; charter
cannot be amendetl without pn--
vioiLs notice, 21; action of Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, South,
relative to, 366.
Agent, when reliable on society
note, 1; when may mainlain
action for forcible entry and
detainer, 6; trustees giving i)rom-
i.s.sory note for materials. 14;
appointment on Sunday, when
valid, 745; unauthorized accept-
ance invalid, 745.
Alabama, declaration of rights, re-
ligious freedom, 625.
.Miuska, |)roperly of Lutherans, how
affected by cession to l'nile<l
States, 298; Russian toleration of
Lutherans in, 30().
.Vh'xander VL Pope, graiU of clnirch
jirivileges by, 685, (')S7.
.\mana Society, civil courts will
not settle differences in chmmI,
142; described, 167
.American Bible Society, contribu-
tion from Methodist I''.i)iscopaI
churches, 338; trust for, sii.s-
lained, 829.
.\merican Home Missionary Society,
becjucst sustained, 22; succeeded
by Congregational Home Mis-
sionary Society, 181.
.\meri<'an Uevolulioii, did not affect
right of P.ritish corjioralions to
holil property in I'niled Slates, 70.
907
!M)S
[\i)i:x
Amcriciiii Society for Ameliorating
the ( 'oiiditioii of I lie .Jews, en-
titled to lewiey, S80.
Atneriean Sunday School Union,
f<ubj«'et to taxation in Pennsyl-
vania, 793.
Amos, .John II., .Indue, what consti-
tutes religious worship, 6.54.
Andrew Chapel, Savannah, note on,
367.
Annual Conference, Evangelical As-
sociation, 241, 244; FA'angelieal
Association, status of adherents
of Philadelphia Conference, no
power to ai)y)oint ministers, 247;
United Brethren in Christ, 8.5.5,
8.57; Wesleyan Methodist, 875.
Aj)peal, none in Baptist Church, .34;
from decision of church ju-
dicatui-e, when civil courts may
exercise jurisdiction, 130.
Arbitration, church rule, 23; when
conclusive, 128; question of sale
of church property cannot be
submitted to, 346; trustees, title
to office cannot be determined
by, 346; award on Sunday, void,
746, 758.
Archbishop, of Cashel not a cor-
poration, 47; deed of burial
ground to, eflfect, 59; may direct
use of bequest, 80; when mort-
gage by, void, 417; bequest for
masses sustained, 471; when may
appoint directors of corporation,
6.58; title to property, 6.59; as-
signment for creditors, 663; Inde-
pendent society cannot be com-
pelled to transfer property to,
672; general powers, 681; when
utterances concerning priest con-
stitute slander, 727; moral trust,
826.
Architect, action for plans, 2.
Arminians, alleged persecution of
Lutherans, 304.
Arminius, doctrines noted, 250.
Articles of Religion, description, 24.
Asbury, Francis, bishop Methodist
Episcopal Church, noted, 884;
devise to him for Methodist so-
ciety and a school, unincorpor-
ated, invalid, 893.
Asbury Park, liquor license invahd
if sale within one mile from Ocean
Grove, 55.
As.sociate Reformed Church, history
.'ind form of goveniment, 25;
des(ribe<l, 26; synod, power, 27;
union of Assfx-iate and .X.ssociate
Reformed Churches, 27; union
with Presbyterian C'hurch, 28;
mi.ssions, bequ«'sts sustained, 29;
synod of New York, 25, 26;
general synods of the west, 25;
general synod, 25; government
Presbyterian in form, 20, 28;
merged in Presbyterian Church,
merger invalid, 26; Theological
Seminary establi.she<l, 28; will
relating to, 512; Theological Semi-
nary, transfer of trast funds
denied, 838.
Association, Baptist, powers and
functions, 33.
Auburn Theological Seminary, be-
quest for, sustained, 826, 876.
Avigsburg Confession, basis of cer-
tain religious doctrines, 269;
adoi)ted by Lutherans, 300;
adopted by the Norwegian Evan-
gehcal Lutherans, 425; described,
545.
B
Baldwin, Henrj', Judge, decision on
legacy to unincorporated society,
267; opinion, rehgious toleration
in Pennsylvania, 676.
Baltimore Church Home and In-
firmarj', note on, 549.
Baltimore Conference, Methodist
Episcopal Church, status, prop-
erty rights considered, 336; 338,
357; joins Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, 362; new Confer-
ence organized, attached to orig-
inal church, 362.
Baltimore Yearly Meeting, Friends,
noted, 262.
Baptism, place of, injunction denied
restraining interference with, 283.
Baptist Church, articles of faith
may be altered, 30; Baptist
Association, 31; congregation,
powers, 32; creed, 32; English
toleration, 32; government, 33;
m.ijoritj' may control property,
34; minority, right to control
property, 35; missions, 36; offi-
cers, 36; pastor, how settled. 37;
property, control of, 37; Texas
iNi»i:x
!Mi:i
general ronvcntion, 37; local so-
ciety indt^iK'ncicnt, 31 ; iissocia-
tion, Hjosscnger, funcrtion, 31;
local society a deniocracy, 33, 30;
no const itvif ion, 33; pjustor and
deacons only ofTicc'rs, 3(5; two
elements, church and society, 37;
proiMTty, cfjnli'oiled hy conj^rega-
tion and tiMistces, 37; deacons,
ex officio tnist(>es, 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; rea<iing in school in M;issa-
chusetts, 713; Texius, use in i)ublic
schools sustained, 717; reading in
school constitutes sectarian in-
struction, 71S; quoted a.s to form
of oath between .Jacob and
Laban, 899.
Biim's Meeting, Kriends, note on,
202.
Bishop, first Protestant Episcopal
in America, 47; leg.acy to est.ab-
li.sh in America, 47; office not a
corporation, 47; witness, meaning
of canon, 48; beque^st for chari-
table purpose, ofFiciid not i)er-
sonal, 79; ]iro(;edure and charges
against rector, 222; Evangelical
Association, 241, 244; Evangelical
As.sociation. depo.sed, 242; Meth-
odist Ejii.scopal Church, pow«'r
to consolidate" .societies, 339; con-
.sent of needed for mortgage, 418;
(ieorgia, property held in trust,
.500; Roman Catholic Church,
relation to priest, 0.59, 678; au-
thority, 000; control over priest,
000; liability on contract, 661;
not liable for priest's salary, 001;
general jjowers, (iOl; general su-
pervision, (502; title to i)rop<'rty,
0(>3, ()()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, note<l, 410.
Board of Publication, I'A'angelical
A.sso c i a t i o n, composit ion and
j)owers, 242; fixing meeting i)lace
of (leneral Conference, 243, 24(5.
Iiona|)arte, Napoleon, cession of
Louisiana, exacted religious free-
dom for inhabitants, (521.
Bohemian Roman Catholic Central
Tnion, member, susjx'nsion, tt-
fe<-t, (570.
Book Concern, Methodist Epi.scopal
Church, established, .340; interest
of Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, in, 340, 3(53.
Book of Doctrine and Covenants,
Mormon, noted, 409; marriage
covenant, 412; revelations noted
in, 414.
Boston Young Men's Marine Bible
Society, designated by court to
.administer trust, 8;i5.
1110
ixi>i;.\
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(Kiati<jn, 54;
Sunday admi.ssion fee, .55; taxa-
ti(jn of y)roj)erty, 55; temperance,
50; title to jjroperty, 50; traffic,
limitation, 50; di.sturbing, 205,
213; religious worship at, 651;
erection of public buildings and
cottages, 729; (;ompul.sory pay-
ment of admi-ssion fee violates
Sunday law, 751; jK-nsons may
lawfully travel by railroad on
Sunday to attend, 780.
Canada, United Brethr(;n in Christ,
note on, 853.
Canon Law, authority limited, 173;
instituted by apostles, 232.
Cary, Rev. George, superintendent
Methodi.st Mission in Oregon, 352.
Catholic Knights of \\'isconsin, note
on, 667.
Cayuse War, Oregon, note on, 354.
Cemetery, mechanic's lien cannot
be enforced against, 8; acce.ss to
lot, 58; adverse pos.session, 58;
chiuch yard, 59; disinterment,
state control, 59; ecclesia.stical
jurisdiction, 60; free burial
ground, 60; legislature, power to
direct sale, 60; lot o\\Tiers right,
61; mechanic's lien, 63; nnmicipal
ordinance, t)3; park, taking fur,
64; Roman Catholic, religious
test, 64; sale, appUcation of pro-
ceeds, reinterment, 64; suicide,
65; title, lea.se or fee, 65; title
of grantee of lot, 65; town,
English rule, 65; tomb owners'
right, ti5; tombstone, title, 6<j;
removal of remains, legislature
may authorize, 05; may restrict
interments and authorize re-
moval of remains, 00, 04; injunc-
tion restraining interference with
access to lot, 283: granted to
prevent sale of lot, 284; Catholic,
mandamus refused for burial of
Freema.son, 308; bishop's title to
land, 003; when land subject to
taxation, 666; Roman Catholic,
ixi)i:x
!)11
Frcc'ma.son not ontillol to Ixirial
in, G67; rocoivcd for prico of lot,
effect, GGS; Roman Catholic, sui-
cide not entitled to burial in, GG9;
New York, exempt from taxa-
tion, 79:5.
Center (yollegc, Danville, Kentucky,
fiuestion a-s to election of trus-
tees, 483.
Central New York Diocese, Prot-
estant Episcopal Church, note on,
550; legacy for, sustained, cS80.
Chancel, bequest for repair sus-
tained, 71.
Chapel, defined, 67; bequest for
sustained, 71; Massachusetts, be-
quest for in Ireland sustained,
I'.i; Unitarian, becjuest for sas-
tained, 82; cannot become inde-
pendent of parent church, G3().
Charitable Use, defined, 68; de-
scribed, 69; history, 60; bene\-
olent institutions. 69; bread aTid
education, 70; J5rilish cor])ora-
tion, how affected by Am(>rican
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.><ent or
future, 84; defined, 84; history,
84; discretion of trust<'es, 84;
Di.s.senters, 85; donor's intention,
86; foreign coriioration, 86; iden-
tifying beneficiary, 87; indefinite,
S7; Irving society, 87; I'arlia-
mentary restriction. 8.S; ])oor 8.S;
principles universal, 88; religious
exercises and .self-<ieniai, 89; re-
ligious instruction, 89; trustees to
account, 90; uncertainty, fre<'
churche-;. 90; unincorporated so-
ciety, 90; Spiritualists, sastained,
730; beciuest for care of cemeterv
lots invalid, 827.
Charles V, lOmperor of C}erman>',
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<l to be instructed in re-
ligion of parents, 500; parental
neglect, note on, 597; a.s members
of corporation, 610; i)arental duty
ti-s to rights of con.>^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.-<e
propertv owned bv other .socie-
ties, .530.
Christ ianilv, Christian, defined, 97;
blasf)heiny. 98; Ilngland. 98; law
of the land. 9S; Sla.'^saclnwtts.
99; nation. 99; New York, 99;
Ohio, 100; Pennsylvania. 1(K);
scope of influence. 100; part of
common law, 113; .synonymoua
!»r_'
[.\hi:x
with (j;()s|i('l, 277; tcacliiiin nut
|)iohil)i)('(l ill (iininl ( 'oIIckc, .')'.i\.
('Iiristiiin Missioriiiry Socirty, ln-
(|iu's( .siisliiiiK'd, 102.
( "lirisliaii Science, (lescrified, KKJ;
expulsion oi memlx-rs, \()'.',; Iieulei-,
kiiowledjie re(|uiie<l, lO.'J; iiiedicul
attendance, religious In-lief, Ui'.i;
Missouri const it iil ion, 104; Penn-
sylvania constitution, 104; Sun-
day school treasurer, 10;").
Christmas Festival, not a ineetiiiK
for worship, 201 ; when a re-
ligious service, 201.
Church, defined, 10(1; Universal and
Particular, 108; authority over
members, 108; church purpose,
109; church, separate from so-
ciety, 109; classification, 109;
Congregational, defined, 109; con-
secration, 110; cnM'd and polity,
110; discipline, subordinate to
state law, 110; division, 110;
doctrinal controversy. 111; ele-
ments, 112; expulsion of members,
112; extinct, what constitutes,
112; house of worship, 112; incor-
poration, efTect, 113; independ-
ence, 113; lectui'e room, 113;
legislative power, 113; liquor tax
law, 114; majority, power, 114;
merger, 115; minister, liability
for libel, 115; organic law, 115;
property, beneficiaries, 110; rela-
tion to congregation, 11(3; rules
and regulations, effect, 116; sew-
ing circle, 117; temporalities de-
fined, 117; territorial limitation,
117; union, 117; \'irginia, cannot
be incorporated, 117; who con-
stitute, 117, (')45; building u.sed
for social gatherings, effect, 113;
differs from parish, 181; juris-
diction over belief of members,
223; Scotland, Kirk, status of,
230, when doctrines may not be
changed, 253; ecjualitj' of mem-
bers, 318; relation to corporation,
321; separation from state, 32(3;
investigations, when not binding
on civil comts, 1341; should .sup-
port religious teachers, 399; when
cannot be consolidated with an-
other denomination, 584, 600;
relation to state, 590; members
originally had exclusive right of
siilTrage, .591; m.iy not contract
lor excursion, (M)2; dcnomiii.'i-
tional character, (iOI; when not
liable in damages for injury
icceived by ••mployee, 607; f)rop-
erty liable to assessment for local
ini|)rovements, 61;'; cotnpul.sory
attendance proliibitrd, 625; may
change denominational n-lations,
630; when minority controls, (5:^6;
freedom of organization, 637;
individual rights, (V.iH; members,
when inflividually liable for debts,
(»4I; self government, 642; se|>-
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
<letermine propriety of priest's
expulsion, (579.
Clarke and I'j.skine College, trust
.s||iistained, 832.
Clarkson's Portraiture nf (Quaker-
ism, quoted, 2(50.
Classis, German Reformed Church,
273; examination of candidates
for ministry, 380; supervision of
ministers, 380; Reformed Dutch
Church, 579, 583; chussis of 1822,
580.
Clergjnian. See Pjustor, Priest, Min-
ister; Church of England, 120;
who niav pro.secute for neglect of
duty, 120.
Clock, injuni'tion restraining strik-
ing of, 40.
(,'oal, action for digging and re-
moving. 17.
!»1
iM)i:\
Coke, Sir Edward, doscribcH phuc
of worship, 113.
Colson, Krcflcrick D., Librarian
New ^'ork State Law Library,
ackiiowlcdKnioiits to, v.
C- o 1 II in I) i a Conference, appoints
trustees of Corvallis CoIlcKe,
:m.
Committee, tenure, 431, 432; gen-
eral powers, (i31; aetion against,
731 ; when agents of subscribers,
734.
Conmion Law, applicable 1o trusts
in Pennsylvania, 70; aj)plicable to
charitable uses in Penn.sylvani;i,
71; Vermont, bequest for cliari-
table uses invalid, 81 ; Christianity
in New York, 99; Ohio, status of
Christianity, 100; Pennsylvania,
Christianity in, 100; Christianity
a part of, 113; church open to all
parishioners, 116; Church of Eng-
land not a corporation under, 122;
disturbing religious meeting, 202;
King head of church, 222; ecclesi-
astical law and courts part of,
222; quorum at corporate meet-
ing, sic
Communion, Church of England,
120.
Community Societie.s, Amana So-
ciety, 167; Harmon}' Society,
organization, 168; Jehovah Pres-
bytery of Zion, Preparation,
Iowa, 171; Oneida Communitv,
171; Order of St. Benedict. 172;
Separatists, 173; Shakers, 175.
Compromise, members may settle
suit, 3.
Concordat, defined, 677.
Concord Female Charitable Societj-,
bequest sustained, 832.
Confession of Faith, Cumberland
Presbyterian (Inirch, alteration
s u s t a i n e d, 143 ; defined, 1 76 ;
Westminster, Cumberland Pres-
byterian Church dissents from,
190.
Congregation, Baptist, sole legis-
lative and judicial body of church,
32; Baptist, control of property,
37; Campbellite, powers and func-
tions, 51; relation of church to,
116; public, defined. 177; defined,
177; government, 178; Cumber-
land Presbyterian Church reprc-
Hcntation in seswion, 194; tcm-
|)oraI affairs not subject to church
judicatory, 229; uhcn vicar may
not adjourn mr-cting, 234; cor-
porate meeting, when not affected
by society meeting at same time
and place, 239; Creek Church no
|)Ower to choo.s(? priest, 279;
right to control religious s<;rvicf»
in church, 287; Lutheran, powers
and functions, 301; exclasive
))ower to admit or exclude mem-
bers. 318; call of minister, 373;
Presbyterian Church, powers, 484;
Presbyterian Church, calling a
minister, 499; Protestant, defined,
545; Reformed Dutch Church,
right to withdraw, .581 ; relation
to corporation, 631; division, ef-
fect, 632; union with another
denomination, effect, 645; asage
as to rehgious worship, 655; when
may control property held by
bi.shop, 664, 665; Roman Cath-
olic, relation to church, 669;
authority over property, 822;
trust invalid for part only of
members, 834.
Congregational Church, minister,
bequest of income for, 72; Dem-
ocratical in character. 109; def-
inition, 179; described, 180;
organization, general principles,
183; advisorj- councils. 183; dea-
cons, status, 183; Home Mis-
sionary Society, 183; minister,
mode of settlement, 184; minister,
contract of settlement, 1S4, 376;
mi.ssions, 185; platform. 185;
republican government. 185; Say-
brook platform, 185; each church
independent, 180; origin of asso-
ciations, 180; deacons are a
corporation. 181; method of se-
lecting minister. 181, 398; legnl
cliaracter of, 181; local society
independent, 185; minister, when
exempt from taxation. 400; min-
ister, new town, status, 438;
societies, how composed, 632;
majority may control, 696.
Congregational Home JNIissionary
Society, entitled to receive be-
(juest to American Home Mis-
sionary Society, 1S4.
Congregationalists, in England same
ixi)i:x
:ti:.
as Inclc|)('ii(lciil,s, 179; separation
from Presbyterians and other
sects, 179; .Scriptures only stand-
ard and test of relif^ions truth,
179; origin from Independents,
282; early association with Pres-
byterians, 483.
Connecticut, bequest for religious
services and charitable use, 77;
religious toleration, 647; towns,
support of public worship, 800.
Con.science, rights of, constitutional
establishment in Massachusetts,
99; government no control of,
100; rights of, not violated by
law restricting practice of med-
icine, 103; right inalienable, 1S7;
rule, 188; cannot be coerced, 024;
Sunday observance, frcM'dom of,
757.
Consistory, German Reformed
Church, 273; power of exynilsion
limited, 319; Reformed Dutch
Church, 579, 581, 583.
Consolidation, churches, when mav
be set aside, 293, GOl; three
Methodist P^piscopal churches,
sustained, 142, 339, 342; Presby-
terian Church, when invalid, 484;
l)ower limited, GOO; when in-
valid, 633; when societies in
different denominations may not
consolidate, 821.
Constant ine, Em{)eror, law relating
to church jjropert}-, GS2.
Constitution, M;i.s.sachuse(ts, limita-
tion on action for ministers'
salary, 10; Baptist Chiurh has
none, 33; Michigan, when Bible
readings do not violate, 44;
Pennsylvania, reading Bible in
schools no vif)Iation of, 45; Ohio,
does not j)rcvent or re(iuire read-
ing religious books in school^.
45; Wisconsin, reading Bible in
schools a violation of. 45; .Ma.s.'<:i-
chusetts, statute prohibiting bhf^-
phemy not repugnant to, 49;
does not prevent amending char-
ter and altering trust, .SI; har-
mony with Bible, 101; .Mis.souri,
refusing charter of Christian
Science Society, 104; national and
State binding on duirch, IIG;
acquiescence of church for fift\-
years conclusive on courts. 142;
of churcli recognized by civil
couits, 142; right of cons<-ieiice
inalienable, 187; church, liefined,
effect, 189; statutes iigainst dis-
turbing meetings sustaine<i, 214;
Friends, no provision for decision
on basis of ninnbers, 2G1 ; adoi)ted
by Methodist l-^|)i.sct)pal Church,
334; Norwegian lA'angelical Lu-
theran Church, 42(); Presbyterian
Church, atlopted, 481; Presby-
terian ("hurcli, general a.ssembly
subject to limitations, 491; Wis-
consin, will reciuiring legate*' to
attend church, sustained, G19;
religious society, limited charac-
ter, (134; Missoiui, Westminster
College act did not violate. 511;
Reformed Dutch Church, .")79,
585; United States relation to
religious quest ioas. .592, G25;
Ohio, insures religioiLs freedom,
595; constitution and by laws
make contract, GOl; Pennsyl-
vania, religious freedom, G23;
Iowa, u.se of Biljle in .sciiooLs,
713; Kan.s;is, wlien religious e.xer-
ci.ses in school do not constitute
religious worshij), 713; Nevada,
sectarian defined, 714; Nebnuska,
what constitutes religious
worshi|), 714; Ohio, note on
religious instruction in schools,
714; Kentucky, when pniyer
not sectarian instruction, 715;
South Dakota, secfarian aid pro-
hibited, 7ir>; 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.<byterian
Church, 191. 194: courts, notes
on juj-i.sdiction, 192; doctrine,
how changed, 193: Pre.sbyter>-,
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 1<S3; jjromissory
note, when void, 1<S3; Methodist
Episcopal Chiuch, status, 391;
included in term minister imder
tax law, 3(K); Shakers, not to ho
sued for communitj' properiy,
719; Shakers, action by, 721;
Shakers, election and duties, 725.
Debts, when (;hurch property liable
for, 5; when members individually
liable for, S; when judgment
against trustees for not a lien
on projx'rty, 17; wIkti members
not liable for, G03; reimburse-
ment, ()()4; dissenters liable be-
fore withdrawal, ()34; when mem-
bers individually lial)le for, G4I.
Decatur, Ilfinois, report of union
of Presbjierian churches adopte<l
at, 191.
Declaration and Teslimonv, Pres-
byterian Church, g<'neral :i.s.sem-
bly noted, 131; Presbyterian
Church, character and efTe«'t,
486.
Dedication, see properly, 523; for
hou.se of worship, sustainefl, 829.
Deed, conveyance to truste<>s 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 iiish<jps, 243.
Dickson County, 'lenncsseo, Cum-
berland Presbyterian Church or-
ganized in, 190.
Diocese, Protestant I'^piscopal
Chm'ch ilescril)etl, 550, ,552.
Di-scijiles of Christ, government.
198; meeting, powiTs of minoritv,
198. ^
Discipline, Evangelical .Association,
242, 244; (krman Itefornuxl
Chureii, 274; Methodist Cimrcli
of Canada, 331; Methodist I'.pis-
copal Ch<n-ch, 334; Metho(|ist
Episcopal C'hurcii, consolida'ion
of societies, bishoi)'s power, 3;!'.l;
Methodist Episcopal Church
property to be li<l<l in tru>i,
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.n1<V:im Mel IkmIJ.-,! ,
,S74.
Dissciilcrs, Lady Hewley's charity
for, Sa; l)('(]U('st for, 80; Church
of Miinhmii c'liiMot rcfu.so to burv,
12'J; Kiik1:iiu1, V.M.
Disturbing Hclijiious Meeting, ;uk-
souihly, wliat constitutes, 2(M);
camp pround, trafhc, 201; Clu-ist-
miis festival, 201; Christmas troe
celebration, 201 ; church trial, 201 ;
common law, 202; con(hict, 202;
(lamafies, not recoverable, 202;
decorum required, 202; defined,
202; described, 203; dispersion of
conp;n>p;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, <i27; changr- of, efTcct
on ijroperl>' riglits, <)30; when
change do<'s not affect slat as of
society, 636; .s<jciety may control,
637; change of, may forfeit legacy,
885; when testator'.s religi(;us
f)pinions may be considered in
construing will, 888.
Domestic and I'fjreign Mission-
aiy Society, Protestant Episcopal
Church, note on, 550, 553.
Donor's Opinions, when considered
in construing will, 72, 77.
Dordrecht, Synf)d of, note on, 580.
Dowieism, leadershij), question of
succes.sion, 216; religioiLs belief
a.s excuse for parental neglect,
216.
Dowie, .John Alexander, successor,
civil courts decline to detennine,
148; founder of sect, 216.
Drew Theological Seminary, be-
quest sustained, 69, 344; e<luca-
tion of ministers, 380.
Drum, beating of in streets, when
may be prohibited, 621, 691;
beating not an act of worship,
691.
Dubs, Rudolph, Bishop, Evangel-
ical A,s.sociation, susj^ended and
reelected, 243.
Dunkers, deed, license, trust, 217;
.separation, effect, 697.
Dunkirk. N. Y.. Presbyterian
Chiuch at, note on, 377.
Dutch Reformed Church of Hol-
land, deacons, election, when
court will not inquire into, 149.
E
Ea^sement, for camp meeting, when
perj)etual, 54; church yard used
for burial, 59.
East Pennsylvania Annual Confer-
ence, Evangelical Association,
designates Philadelphia as meet-
ing place of General Conference.
246.
Ecclesiastical Council, defined. 219:
described, 219; minister, change
of religious tenets. 219; when
called H) consider change of miu-
i.\i)i:x
u\u
istcr's belief, .'571; pinel ice rel-
ative to call of, ;57!>; 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-
f<M-(>nco, place of in<'i'tinn, 24(>;
niinisler, power of appointment,
247; secession, when seceders <!an-
not control i)roperty, 247; bishops
^ deposed, 242.
Evangelical Association of North
America, General (Conference of
1S91, api)ointnient a church ques-
ti(jn only, loo; note on, 243.
Evanfielical Ba|)tist Benevolent and
Missionary Society, bequest sus-
tained, ','A\.
Evangelical Lutheran, historical
sketch, 240; division of society,
effect on projjcrty rights, 240.
Evangelical Lutherans, pastor must
be member of svnod, 0; historv
noted, 297.
Evangelical Lutheran Seminary, l)e-
quest to, 80.
Evidence^ election of trustees, bur-
den of i)roof, 234.
Ewing, Finis, one of the founders
of (Ui m b e r 1 a n d Presbyterian
Church, 190.
Excursion, church may not mak(>
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 <lisapproved, 29.'{; consolida-
tion, when may lie set aside, 29:<;
dismissal of le.acher, 29;}; may
take oath on ( )1<1 l"<'-tamenl , loO;
legacy to, suslaini'd, 468; Civil
War claim, allowed, 1(4.'); must
observe same rule as Christians
relative to Sabbath observance.
76:i, 769; poor families in New
Haven, be(|uest sastained, 8;J7.
John Street Church, New York,
note on, M').
Judgment, against trustees for <lel)t.
when not a lien on property, 17;
ma\' be for cori)oration in action
by trustees, 19; ec(4esia'^l ic.il
courts, effect on civil courts, 22-1;
ecch'sia-stical court, how enforced,
22(); when ccmclasive, 227; ecclci-
lustical court, scope of sentence,
229; ecclesiastical courts, not
l)iiiding on state, 2;jl.
Judicial Notice, I'rotestant Epis-
copal Church, institution and in-
duction, court will not t.-ike
.judicial notice of meanine, l')2;
Koman Catholic Church, civil
lights an<l powers, couit will ?iot
take judicial notice of. 1.52; char-
acter of American Congn-gational-
ism, 182; various religious mat-
ters, 40t); Mormon doctrine of
celestial marriages, 4(M): that
certain acts constitute religious
worshi]), ().54; pope's posit io!i im-
der International I^aw, 677; not
that smoking cigar by habitual
smoker is a necessity. 7r)2.
Julius II, Bope, grant of church
privileges by. (■)8."). ()S7.
■Juror, when not dis(|ualifie<l, 6.
.Justice of the Peace, when may c.dl
meeting. 2.?"), ;U."). 6.'?9; when
caimot call pew holders' mei'lini:.
4(iO.
Justinian's Coile, cited, 682.
K.msas, reciting Lord's Braver and
'2'.U\ I's.alm in school d<M's not con-
stitute public worship, 7K^
Kempei-. .Jackson. Bishop. Memorial
Chiu-ch. l."):5.
Kendrick. Peter Bichanl. .\rih-
bishoj). appoints directors of cor-
|)oration, 6.")S.
Kentucky, form of prayer u.se<l in
school not .sectariiin instruction,
71.").
Kentucky liaplist Kducalion So-
<-ietv, sub.scription for valid,
7:'.7!
!H'4
iNi)i:\
K (• II t u <• k y Cliri.slian Missionary
Oouvciilion. See ChriHiian Mis-
sionary Society.
Kinji, li(>;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<i-
{)2(;
iMn;\
ors of ( 'uiiil)('rlaii(l I'rr'shvlfri.'in
Chuirli, V.H).
Mrcliaiiic's Lien, uhcii ;ictioii to cii-
forcp may he inaiiitaiiu'd, 7, S;
wlicn IK) act ion against imincor-
jioratcd society, S; clnifcli is
huildiiifi mulcf Lien Law, 8; can-
not !)(' cnfofccd af^ainst ccnictcry,
<S; pastor also a nioohanic, when
may enforce lien, 11; on church
edifice, cannot bo enforced Jigainst
(iraveyard, 03; subject to prior
mortfiiific on land, 417.
Meelitifis, by laws, .'^14; chairman,
.'^14; majority, ;}14; notice, 315;
(|Uorum, 315; silence on taking
vote, efTect, 31G; when may be
called by justice of the peace, 235,
639; presiding officer, casting
vote, 558, 5G7; New York rule,
568; notice of annual meeting
necessarj', 639.
Melanchthon, Phihp, relation to
Protestant reformation, 545.
Members, admission, eiTect of by
laws, 317; Baptist, powers of
congiTgation, 31 S; dismissal, 318;
dues, efTect of nonpayment, 318;
equality, 318; excommunication,
efTect, 318; expulsion, 319; exj^ul-
sion, damages, 321; expulsion,
evidence required, 321 ; exinilsion,
notice, 322; expulsion, rules, no-
tice, 323; general duties, 323; how
constituted, 323; judicial control,
324; law governing, 324; letters
of dismission, effect of, 324; liabil-
ity for debts, 324; powers, 325;
quahfications, how determined,
325; relation to society, 32t);
rights, 326; .stated attendant, ef-
fect of nonat tendance, 327; sta-
tus, how determined, 327; town
.society, 327; transfer bv Legis-
lature, 328; withdrawal. 328;
withdrawal, effect, 328; incorpo-
ration, efTect, ()09; expelleil, no
claim for damages against cor-
poration, 609; corporation may
sue, 4; may compromi.M> 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 <li-bt,
8; when not liable lo [KTsonal
judgment, 14; «>(|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 un<ler rules of, valid-
ity, 23; origin, historical sketrh.
359; organization, 3t)l; Baltimore
Conf(M-ence, 3t)l; Book Concern,
Church North, .sharing proceed-^.
3()3; border society, :5()3; chunli
edifice, change of site, eficct, 3til;
Corvallis College. Oregon, :{<i4;
liability for loi'al debts, 3ti4; mis-
sions, 305; property, division of
general church, effect. 3()5; prop-
i-rty, when witiidrawing members
cannot ch:uig<' title, 3()7; prop-
erty, who m.iy enforce trust, 'M\S;
pul)lishing house, taxation, 3tkS.
Methodist Preachers' .\i<l Society,
Baltimore. M.uyland, bpcpH'st
su.stained, 34t).
Methotlist Prolest.int Ciiurch, Cen-
eral ConferiMice, when enfitle<l in
properly of i-xlinct church, 370;
property, forfeiture. fnM^ .-^'ats,
!>L'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 Hefonne<l
Church, bequest sustained, 29;
Maine Baptist Missionary Con-
veiuioM, .31); be(iuest for, 74; Con-
gregaiional Cliurch. note on. 1.^5;
Methodi.--t lipiscopal Church,
South, devise sustained, 365; mi.-<-
sion defined, 103; mL-ysioimry de-
fined, 403; l)e(|uesl. uncertain,
404; legatee not capable of taking
bequest, 404; la.x.ation of be<|Uest,
exemption, 404; testator's inten-
tion, 105; legacy sustained, l(>9;
!»;;(»
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|)b<!llites,
singing school not permit I e<l in
church building, 52; befpiest for
singers, 80; Christian Church,
organ use discontinued, 94;
Christian Science, organ, liability
of treasurer for funds collected
for, 105; singing, when not di.s-
turbance of meeting, 214; choir,
when singing not disturbance of
meeting, 214; bequest for, when
valid, 422; country choirs, 422;
instrumental, 422; organist, 422;
instrumental prohibited in Scotch
Presbyterian Church, 505; organ
in service, minority may not
introduce against majority's pro-
test, 653; musical instruction
when not worship, 653.
N
Nation, Christian in policy, 99.
Nebraska, Roman Cathohc Church,
status of, 675; when u.se of school-
house for Sunday School does not
make it a place of public worship,
694; religious worship described,
714.
Necessity, under Sunday Law, de-
fined, 752.
Nevada Orphan Asylum, a sec-
tarian institution, 714.
New ]""ngland "Nearly Meeting,
Friends, note on, 262.
New Hampshire, to\\'n, parochial
powers, 802.
New Jerusalem Church. See Swe-
denborgians.
New Thought Church, described.
424.
New Testament, only rule of faith
and practice, 30; used in adminis-
tering oaths, 41.
New York, trustees, must sue in
name of corporation, 18; statute
of Elizabeth not in force, 77;
Christianity the religion of the
iNi)i:\
i»::i
people, 99; questions of faith and
practice not subject to review bj*
civil courts, l.i7; rule as to
membership in corpoiation, tUO;
status of religious societies under
act of 1813, G40; Uoinan Catholic
churches, how incorporated. G76;
Society of Shakers, not a religious
corporation, 722.
Nonconformists, Ladj' H e w 1 e y 's
charity for, 85.
North Carolina, Protestant Epis-
copal Chui'ch, division of diocese,
effect, 554.
Norwegian EvangeUcal Lutheran
Church, organization and form of
government, 425; independent so-
ciety, division of property, 426;
property, division, effect, 427;
tiustees, controversy over elec-
tion not a .schism, 428.
Northwest Texas Conference, rela-
tion to Waco Female College, 3G4.
Norwich, Connecticut, three Meth-
odist Episcopal Churches consol-
idated, 339, 342.
Nui.sance, when ringing of church
bells not, 40; damages, 429.
Oath, defined, 430, 900; Jew, 430,
!»()(); idolater, 899; Mohammedan,
on Koran, 900; Gentiles, mode of
taking, 900.
59tj; Methodisi Kpisropal Chiinli
incorporated in, 350.
Ohio Yearly Meeting, Kriends, note-
on, 2(jl.
Old Ladi<'s' Home, Protestant Epis-
copal Church, bequest su-stained,
555.
Oneida Community, described, 171.
Order of St. Menedict, described,
172.
Oregon. leligious freiHlom guaran-
teed, ()23.
Oregon Mission, Methodist Episco-
|)al Church, note on, 351.
Orphan Asylum, betiue.st for sas-
tained, 77; when not place of
worship, 653; Hrooklyn, not a
common school, ()7t); St. Mary's
Boys' Orphan .Vsylum. Roches-
ter, status, 70S.
Orthodox (Inck Catholic Ru.ssian
Chm'ch, comparison with other
CJreek chinches. 27S; injunction
preventing transfer of property
to, 279.
Old Testament, used in administer-
ing oaths to Jews, 42.
Overholtzer, Rev. John, leader of
faction of Mennonites, 329.
Overeeers, Quakers, title to office,
how determined, 158; Friend.s,
method of selection, 258.
O
Ocean Grove Association, restric-
tion on sale of liquor not affected
by A.sbury Park licen.se, 55.
Officers, de facto, what constitutes,
18; ptustor and deacons in Baptist
Church, 36; (Christian Church
constitute corporation, 95; when
action of subject to judicial in-
quiry, 156; Quakers, overseers,
title to office, how determined,
158; may remove disturbers of
meeting, 212; committee, tenure,
431; de facto, 431; eligibility,
when presumed, 431; holding
over, 432.
Official Board, I'nited Brethren in
Christ, functions, 856.
Ohio, constitution does not reslniin
nor recpiire reading religious l)ool\'<
in schools. 45; status of Cliri'^-
tianily, UK); religious freedom in,
P
Papinian, quoted, use of church
property, 682.
Parent and Chikl, when father may
not di-lurl) meeting by forcibly
removing child, 212.
Parish, differs from church, 181;
church members usually inhal)-
itants of, 181; minister, how .se-
l(>cte(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<l, 43:5;
clerk, 433; committee, conlnicl,
434; defined. 434; di.ssolution. ef-
fect, 434; division, effect, 434;
ecclesiiustic.'il council, 435; Mas^sa-
chu.«etts, 435; Mjussachusctts, his-
tory, 435; imH'ling liouse, m.-iy l)e
Ica.sed, 436; meeting house, title
!»;!l'
l\hi:.\
.'iftcr division of town, 4',i(\; mem-
l)cr.s. liability for debt, 4:3();
iii('inl)(r, it'iiril)iir.sciiiciil for claim
paid, VM; m('iiil)orslii[t, VM; inin-
Lstcr, 4;j7; niinisltT, how ap-
point cd, 4.'JS; minister's titlo tf)
property, 43S; minor, taxation,
4;38; parishionor, 4.'i.S; parsonage,
439; poor parish, 4"}1); powers,
4:59; I' r o t e s t a n t Ej)iacopal
Church, defined, 439; Roman
Catholic, 440; taxation, 440;
Massachusetts, rule as to title
to i)roperty, 534; rtjuister, how
available tus evidence, ()7<).
Parish (Jommittee, when minister's
salary fixed by, conclusive, 12.
Parishioner, defined, 43S.
Park, cemetery may be taken for,
64. ;
Parsonage, minister occupying,
ejectment against, 5; division of
local society, effect, 305; under
parish .system, note on, 439;
Mas.sachusetts rule, 441; mini.s-
ter's occupancy, 441; town land,
442; trust for, when invalid, 443;
use, 443; when exempt from tax-
ation, 796; see Taxation, sub-
titl<> 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 describe<J,
395; defined, 395; opinions sub-
ject to denominational control
nnd di.scipline, 395; st!ife<^l supply
!s not a, 396; relation to church,
397; statedly ofhciates, meaning
of, 398; salary, land may be sola
to pay, 534; Protestant I'jpLscopal
("hurch, status of reader, 556.
Patronage, right of, lloman Cath-
olic Church in America, possessed
by Spani.^h sovereigns, 688.
Peace, breach of, defined, 749.
Penn, William, Christianity estab-
lished in Penasylvania, 100; note
on, 267; declaration on religious
toleration, 650, 676.
Pennsylvtjnia, C(jnstitution, reading
Bible in schools no violation of,
45; statute of EUzabeth not in
force in, 70; common law prevails
as to charitable u.ses, 71; Chri.-*-
tianity part of common law, 100;
Christian Science charter refusetl,
105; lay control of church prop-
erty, 531; rehgious freedom, 623;
religious toleration, (i49; religious
garb in ])ubhc schools, 626, 715;
})ov,ers of trustees, 817.
Penasylvania Convention, member-
ship and powers, 555.
Perkins, PL K. W., Rev., establishes
Indian mi.ssions in Oregon, 352.
Perley, Ira, Judge, opinion. Congre-
gational associatioiLs, ISO.
Perpetuity, ma.sses, bequest for
when invaUd, 76, 476.
Persu;ision, defined, 187, 197; Con-
gi-egational defined, 376.
Pews, when church judicatory may
not regulate sittings, 229; injunc-
tion denied recon.st ruction and
rearrangement, 290; free, when
not affected by sale of property,
370; vestry may assign, 569;
owners may form corporation,
611; society, bj' laws may provide
for assessment of, 808; distribut-
ing, power of trustees, 822; Uni-
versalist Church, by laws relative
to, 865; historical note, 446;
assessment for exisenses, 447;
changing, injunction refused, 447;
iM)i:x
it:;: 5
church uticd for {jcnonil purposes,
447; distribution, 447; disturbing
possession, 448; easement, 449;
English custom, 458; execution,
sale, 454; forfeiture, 454; incoi-
poreal hereditament, 455; indem-
nity for loss, 455; locking pew,
457; loose bench, 457; Louisiana
rule, 457; mandamus, 457; Massa-
chusetts rule, 457; new building,
458; new pew, 459; parish prop-
erty. 4()(); ])(M-pctual lease, 4(10;
pew holder's corjioratc rigiits, 4(10;
posM'ssion, mandamus, ItiO; ])rc-
scription, KK); pn^sumption, itil;
real estate, 401; rent, char-
acter of debt, 4G2; rent, when
preferred debt, 4()2; ropaii-s, 4((J;
Honian Catholic, 4(V2; sale of
l)roperly, 4()4; sale, 4(14; laxation,
4lU; termination of right, K)5;
title, 405; title transferable, 4(i»);
trespass, 46t); archbishop's rela-
tion to, 659; sale of to apply on
building contract, 733; i)ew hold-
ers' share in trust for sustained,
841.
Phel7)s Mission, could not be con-
solidated with a Presbyterian
( hurch, 484.
Philadelphia, Evangelical Associa-
tion, General Conference, meet-
ing, 1891, 242, 246.
Philadelphia Episcopal .Vcademy,
property exempt from taxation,
555.
Philadelphia Orphan ^V-sj-lum, Prot-
estant I^piscojial Church, j)i()p-
crty exempt from taxation. 'ti\(y
Philadelphia Society for Organizing
Charit}', entitled to bequest for
care of i)oor, 87.
Philadelphia Yearly Meet ing,
Friends, status of, 2.56, 262; de-
clared to be a corporate body. 2(')3.
Philippine Islands, status of Roman
Catholic Church, 677; Sjjanish
approjjriation for support of
church, ()85.
Philips Academy Divinity School,
bequest sustained, 8.'57.
Philomath College, rnitcnl lirethren
in Christ, note on, 862.
Pierre Vniversity, Presbyterian
school, a sectarian in.st itut ion,
716.
Pious Uses, defined, 467; described,
467; Jews, 468; land, devLsed,
right of possession, 468; minis-
terial land, 468; minister's sup-
port, 468; nu.ssionarii«, 468; poor,
469.
Place of Worship, defined, 718; iis
to what constitutes tilace of wor-
ship s(H' items unaer Sectarian
Instruction.
Political Differences, in local so-
ciety, when not to affect property
rights, 704.
Polyganu', i)roliibited, 407; a crime,
()23; state may i)roJiibit, (>48.
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<l as
head of I'nited Creek Church,
278; no civil authority in Louisi-
ana, ()73: position under Inter-
national Law, t)77; -Vlexander \ 1
and .Julius II, grant of churcli
privileges by, 685; grant to Sjian-
ish sovereigns of control of church
in -Vmerica, 685, ()87.
Porto Rico, status of Roman Cath-
olic Church, 678; .\merican occu-
pation, 685; Spanish approiiria-
tion for support of church, ().85.
Poverty, vow of, vali«l. 172.
Prayer, liasis of Christian Science
practice, 103; form of, not sc<'-
tarian instruction, 715.
Prayers for tiie Dead, affirmative,
470; negative, 474; Church of
England, 47*'); general, 47t); per-
petuity, 476; religious us<>, 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, merge<l in, 2t»; aristoerat-
ical in character, 109; organic law,
(leneral .\s.>iembly, 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;r<rs-
sion, church, 512; synod, powers,
513; tru.stccs, 513; imconstitu-
tional deliverance on political
questions, 513; AWstminster Col-
lege, 514; in<lei)endenl local
government, 482; early a.s.sociation
with Congregat ionah.st.s, 48^3;
Foreign Mi-ssionary Society in-
corporated in Pennsylvania, 488;
right of separation, 705; Pierre
University, South Dakota, a .sec-
tarian iastitution, 716; election
by noncontributors, invalid, 868.
Presbyters, Associate R e f o r m ed
Church, defined. 25.
Presbytery, of whom compo.sed.
25; Cumberland, organization of,
190; jurisdiction over .sessions,
192; Ciunberland Presbyterian
Church, representation in Gen-
eral Assembly, 192; Cumberland
Presbyterian Church, how con-
stituted, 193; illegal exclusion of
members, 221. 223; Buffalo, de-
poses pastor of Dunkirk church.
377; stated supply, ai)pointment
of, 396; Presbyterian Church de-
scribed, 481 ; Presbyterian (Church,
power to divide society. 486;
Presbyterian Church, rehition to
call of minister. 494; Presbyterian
Chiu-ch. of whom composed. .502;
Presbyterian Church, cannot dis-
solve corporation. .502; Presby-
terian Church, whether sale must
be ai)proved by, query. .539;
Reformed Presbyterian Church,
Philadelphia, suspends relations
to (Jeneral Synod. .587.
Presiding Elder. Methodist Episco-
pal Church, note on, 347.
Priest, profession his property, 145,
396; may remove distui'ber of
meeting, 212; Greek Church, how
chosen, 279; injunction against
exercising fimctions in contraven-
tion of bishop's order, 291;
i.\in:x
!):;:
excomnumication, not question
for civil courts, 'iS7; not to en-
gage in secular enijiloynient, 399;
right to rent pews, 4()4; intruder
not entitled to execute bequest
for masses, 476; deposed, not
entitled to occupy property, 535;
relation to l)ishop, (559, 078;
removal by l)ishop, GGO; no claim
against bisliop for salary, (jtil;
action against foi' slander, ()7S;
authority limited, when liable for
assault, ()79; bishop may remove
or suspend, (579; maintaining
order at meeting, ()79; when not
bishop's agent, (580; obligation
described, (580; when not i'(>moved
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
t<j another denomination, 250;
diversion, elTec^t, Free Church of
Scotland, 253; secession, minor-
ity's right, 253; when title not
forfeited by removal of building,
267; diversion, change of iloc-
trine. 269; diversion, right of
minority, 271; diversion, who en-
titled to temporalities, 274; joint
occui)ancy, effect, 274; Greek
chur(;h, diversion restrained, 278;
diversion, injunction against, 284;
sale, trustees cannot on own mo-
tion in.stitute proceedings for,
346; sale, question cannot be
submitted to arbitrator, 34(5;
changing site of church edifice,
effect, 3(54; secession, effect, 365,
370; church, belongs to corpora-
tion; minister's right limited, 38S;
Presbyterian Church, when di-
videcl l>etween 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 <jues-
tioii (Ictermiiii'cl, 90.'>: 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; trust<M's,
general rights, 544; imincorjjor-
ated society, 544; vestry room,
544; unincorporated society, title,
567; cannot be transferred to
another denomination, 5S4; when
de facto corporation may hold,
604; effect of change of doctrine,
630; title following division of
society, G3(j; test of right to con-
trol, 642; unincorjwratod society,
right of, 644; when archbishop
has title to, 659; bishop's title
to, 663, 664; lioman Catholic
Church, independent society, can-
not be (compelled to transfer prop-
erty- to archbishoj). 672; Louisi-
ana, church wardens legal owners
of, 673.
Protestant, denies authority of
pope, 97; minister d«-firie<|, :J96;
.Augsburg Confession, 545; con-
gregation, 546; I'ink's .\syluni,
546; Heidelberg Catechi.sm, 540;
vital principle oi, 547.
I'roteslant Kjjiscopal f'hurch, Sea-
bury first American bishop, 47;
Domestic and Foreign Mi.s,sionary
Society, bequest to, 74; monar-
chical, 109; institution and induc-
tion, court will iKjt take judicial
notice of meaning of terms, 152;
rector, .status when not a question
for civil courts, 155; vestry, when
civil courts will not interfere with,
157; procedure on charges against
rector, 222; parish, definerl, 439;
Baltimore Church Home and
Infirmary, 549; bishop. 549; C'en-
tral New York Diocese, 549;
curate, 550; described, 5.50; Do-
mestic and Foreign Missionary
Society, 550; elections, rector's
power, 551 ; English origin, 551 ;
glebe land, sale, 551; governing
body, 551; government owner-
ship disapproved, 552; Criswold
College, 552; guild, 553; Iowa
diocese, 553; Long Island Diocese,
553; missions, 553; North Caro-
lina, legacy apportionment, 554;
Old Ladies' Home, trust for sus-
tained, 555; Penn.sylvania Conven-
tion, 555; Philadelphia Episcopal
Academy, 555; Philadelphia Or-
phan A.sylum, 556; property, title
of general denomination. 556;
reader, status, 556; rector, call,
dissolving relation, 556; rector,
cannot be excluded from prop-
erty, 557; rector, title of local
society, 557; rector, ca.sting 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 church, 5(>2; 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<h
ciety, cannot take title to land,
567; vestry, cannot act without
ineetinfj;, ')()7; vestry, casting
vote, 567; vestry, actinp; without
formal resolution, 5(58; vestry,
increasing, 568; vestry, meetings
568; vestry, powers, 569; vestry,
promissory notes, 570; Virginia,
early church, 570; Vii-ginia, Edu-
cation Society, 571; wardens and
vestry, status, 572; W'arfield Col-
lege, 572; ^Vestern Xew York
Diocese, 572; widows' and or-
phans' fund, 572; worship, rec-
tor's authoiity, 57;>; 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.-<e
for Sunday schof>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, ilefine<l,
617.
Religiou.s Freedom, when civil
courts cannot interfere with (lues-
tions relating to cliun-h organ-
ization, creed and discipline. 144;
comment on, 151, 152; note on.
592; American rule, 61S; charita-
ble institutions, 61S; civil courts,
limitation of power, 619; civil
courts, 619; compulsory church
attendance, 619; discrimination
not allowed, 620; limitation, 620:
Louisiana, 621; Massachusetts,
621; memorials, ))22; minor chil-
dren, 622; officer. 622; Oregt)n.
623; Penn.sylvania, 623; polyg-
amy, 623; .s(>ctarian 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<hi-
g.an, 684; .sexton's salary, (3,S4;
Sisters of St . Francis, (5S4, slandir,
e.xcommunicalion, tiS.5; Spanisli
.America, 685; Spanish America,
limitation of Papal authority,
('i.S(>; Spanish sovereignty, (3,S7;
Spanish supremacy m coloni«'s,
(1S7; students, voting n*sidenee,
(ISS; Tex:us, 688; unincorix>rat»«<l
church, trust .•«ustain«'d, ('>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.<sa(Iui.setts,
713; meanin'g. how determinetl,
714; Nebraska. 714; Ohio, 714;
Pennsylvania, 715; prayer, 715:
South Dakota, 716; taxpayers
presumption of consent, 716;
Texa-s, 717; Wisconsin, 71S.
Separatists, described, 173; aidisl
by (Quakers, 173; suit against,
partition denietl, 174.
Sermon, bequt^t for on .Ascension
Day, 80.
Se.s.sion, when members not en-
titled to maintain action, 18;
Associate ReforuK'd Church, 25;
juri.sdiction of Presbyter^-, 192;
( "umberlaiid P r e s by t e r i a n
Church, powers, 193; (\mib«'rlaii(l
Presbyterian Church, relation lu
congregation, 194; of whom com-
po.sed, 194; Presbyterian Church,
exclusive jurisdiction of f|ue:5tion.s
relating to worship, 422; IVesby-
terian Church de.scribetl, 4S1, 493;
Presbyterian Church, jjowers con-
sidered, 493; Presbyterian
Church, membership and powers,
509.
Seventh Day, ob-servance ;\.s Sab-
bath, no excuse for violating
Sunday Law, 7S1.
Sewing Circle, funds belong to
church, 117, 541.
Shakers, deacon.s may maintain
action for tresp:uss, 16; note on,
80; noted, 175; comnmnity of
interest, no action for i>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, <S81.
Spain, King, supreme patron of
Roman Catholic Church in Amer-
ica, 685; control of church in
Spanish America, 086.
Specific Performance, action on con-
tract for sale of church property,
16.
Spelman, Sir Henry, quoted, He-
brew courts on the Sabbath, 758.
Spiritual and Philosophical Temple,
division, minority's right, 728.
Spiritualists, camp grounds, 729;
devise rejected. 729; trust sus-
tained, 729; unincorporated so-
ciety, cannot take bequest, 7.30.
Starkie on Evidence, quoted, com-
pel enc}' of witness, 901.
State, not bomid by decisions of
ecclesiastical courts, 230; separa-
tion from church, 326; relation
to church. 590; duty relating to
religion, 592; recognition of re-
ligious worshij). 651; Christian
Sabbath a civil institution, 766.
Stated Attendants, defined, 872;
rule applied to Wesleyan Method-
ist, 875.
Statedly Officiates, meaning of, 398.
Stated Supply, selection and super-
vision of, 396.
State Law, superior to church dis-
cij^line, 110.
Statute of Limilutions, a{jph<;H lo
mini.sler's chiirn for .scrvHtes, 13.
S I e w a r d h, Meliiodist KjjLscojjul
Church, functions, 34S.
Story, Joseph, Judge, comment on
Ciirard will, 594.
Strong's Relat if ms f)f Civil Law to
Church Pf)lity, fjuoted, 663.
Subscription, ffjr minister's salary,
society must u.se due fiiligence tfj
collect, 10; building committee,
action b}', 731; cfjndition ac-
ceptetl, 731; condition, variation,
732; conflition, sjiecified amount
to be rai.sed, 733; con.sideratif)n,
733; defective incorporatif)n,
when a defense, 733; e.xLsting
debt, 733; lial)ility is .several, 734;
mutuality, 734; pei-formance by
society, 735; i)fTpetual liabiUty,
736; promi.ssf^ry nf)te, 736; revt>-
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<l
for, (i94; when u.m" of school-
hou.se for does not make it a
place of public worship, ()9I;
relation to church, 789; treasurer,
when res])onsible to ])arer)l s(>-
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, .\.<sociate Reformed Church.
25; liow constituted. 25; officers
of, 2(); procedure, 26; CiimlM-r-
l.ind I'resbyteri.in ('liureh, how
constituted, 194; when derisions
not conclusive, 226; Cerman He-
formeil Church, 273; various
l/iilheran .synods not«><i, 2'.J7, :{07;
.Norwegian l!v.ingelic.il F,iit|ieran
j»4(;
INDEX
('hunh, i'if); P r o s b y t o r i ii n
Church dcscrilx'd, 481; Rcformorl
Dutch Church, oTO. oS;}; Re-
formed I'reshyterian Church, 587.
Synod ol liulTiilo, Lutherans, rule
JUS to confe.s.«ion of sins, 300.
Synod of Dort, denounces Lutheran
tenets, 304.
Synod of New ^'ork, A.s.'^ociate
Reformed Church, 25; composi-
tion and juris(Hction, 26.
Synod of Ohio, Lutherans, rule ius
to confessioTi of sins, 300.
SjTiod of Ru.ssia, of whom com-
posed, 278.
Synods of the \\'o,st. Associate R(v
formed Church, 25.
Taxation, for public worship, when
minister cannot recover tax, 11;
camp meetin}? property, 55; when
minister exempt, 399; minor, in
what parish taxed, 438; yiarishes,
440; pews, 464; legacy for nuisses,
when subject to transfer tax, 479;
when projierty exempt, .543; par-
.sonagc, when subject to, 585; for
support of ministers, 591; prop-
erty liable to assessment for local
improvements, 613; Young iMcti's
Christian Association, not a re-
ligious corporation, 616; Young
Women's Christian j^ociation,
exempt from inheritance tax, 61();
plaice of worship, exemption, 653;
when cemetery land suliject to,
666; Roman Catholic Church in
Mexico, supported by, 674; mem-
bers of unincorporated society
maj' be exemjjted from assessment
for support of parish church, S44;
American Sunday School Union,
793; camp meeting a.*.sociations,
793; cemetery, 793; corporate
securities, 794; dissenters, 794;
Georgia rule, 794; Illinois rule,
794; land adjacent to building,
794; liquor tax law, 795; masses,
795; member, exemption, 795;
member, liability, 795; membei-s,
support of church, 795; member,
when liability arises, 795; minis-
ters, 796; see Minist»»rs, Taxation,
Exemption, 399; New Hampshire,
796; ownership and u.se, 796; par-
sonage, 796; Pennsylvania rule.
798; resulting Ixiiefit.s, 798; Sun-
day .school building, 798; transfer
tax, 798; use for other purjjoses,
799, 851; worship, Hf)ston, 79*i;
Young Men's Christian A.s.«ocia-
tion, 799; use of church dl-scon-
tinued, app«)rtionnieTit of tax, 866;
Univer.salist Church, when not
exempt from suj)i)(>rtiiig Congre-
gational minister, S()(>.
Tax Law, u.se <jf church building,
elTect. 114.
Tenet, when court may inquire con-
cerning, 145, 158.
Temporalities, defined, 117; Civil
Courts may prevent diversion of,
144; courts will protect, 163; di-
version, who entitled to posses-
sion, 274; truster's have general
charge of, .503; trustees chgrged
with care of, 810, 816, 823.
Tennessee Annual Conference, be-
quest to invalid, 358.
Territorial Limitation, note on, 117.
Texas, Roman Catholic Church,
title to property, 674; religious
toleration in, 674; revolution and
independence, effect on Mexican
titles, 688; use of Bible in public
schools sustained, 717.
Texas General Convention, exclud-
ing member of, 37.
Theological Seminary, Associate'Re-
formed Church, New York and
Princeton, 29.
Thompson, Charles B., founder of
Jehovah Presbytery of Zion,
Preparation, Iowa, 411.
Toleration (see also Religious Tol-
eration), of Bapti-sts in England,
32; scope of, 49, 50.
Tomb, rights of owner, 65; grant
for repair not a charitable use,
82.
Tombstone, title of owner, 66; see
Monument.
Town, settled minister, when may
maintain action for salary, 12;
bequest for rehginus purposes, 72;
rehgious society in, status, 328;
division into parsonages, effect on
title to meeting house, 436; land
held for parsonage, note on, 442;
ministerial land, status, 468; sup-
i.\in:x
!M'
))()rt of public worship, Ml; rc-
cmirod to provide placo of jjiiblic
worship, 591; ("onncctirut, ccclc-
siastical afTairs, S()0; Maino, paro-
chial powers, iSOl ; Ma.'-sachusctis,
parochial [jowers, SOl ; New
Hainpshiro, gosjx'l land, SO'i;
Now Haiiipshirc, i)arochial pow-
ers, 802. !
Treasurer, custjodian of coriiorate
seal, 15; C'hrii<iian Science, liabil-
ity of treasur(?r for funds collected
for organ, lO.Tj; when society liable
for debt contiacled by treasurer,
fi03; priest, ffcneridly is, 730;
Koneral duty; S()3; liability, 803;
power to ht)rnjw money, 804;
liability for society funds, S4(i.
Treaty of I^arLs, 1S98, recognition
of Roman Catholic Church, G7S;
1703, recognition of ancient Cath-
olic organizations, 084.
Treaty of I'eace, Knglaiid, proiwrly
of British subjects protecttKl bv,
70.
Tre.sjja.ss, Shakens, deacons may
nuiintain action, 10; aition for
digging and removing coal, 17;
when society caiuiot maintain.
17; by setthnl minister. 17.
Trinity Chun-h. New ^'ork, dosing
St. John's ("hapel, action sus-
tained, 141; note on. :50l; ch.u-
ter, 5<)5.
Trust, when may not be impaired
by trustees, 7; when may n(jt
be altered, 84; for support of
minister sustained, 8(5; Theo-
logical (|uesti()ns not considered
by civil courts, 101; courts will
provcnl perversion of, 1()3; when
courts will ituiuire into reli-
gious opinions, 1()5; special effect,
541; Protestant I'lpiscojjal Church,
l)ishop of (leorgia, note on, 5(U'i;
testator's intention, 577; when
affected bv deviation in doctrine,
580; Hcformed Dut'-h Church,
conveyance sustained, .")S0; effect
of Knglish toleration act, 592;
c.annot be diverted, 1)05; when
corporatirMi may execute, 014;
sustained :is to Uom.an C.alholic
unincorporated society. 0.88; se-
ceilers not entitled to share in
funds, 700; Shakers, note on, 72.3;
library for study of Spiritualism,
sustained, 730.
Trast<H's, when not liable on build-
ing contract, 3; may be sue<1 by
cori)oration, 4; constitute cor-
poration, 4; c<jnveyance to them
conveyance to society, 5; when
cannot maintain action for for-
cible entry and detainer, (>; 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<l society,
de facto may maintain action.
20; Baptist (Jhurch, control of
property, 37; of charity mu>*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«"<iuitx for
s:ile of prop<'rty,' 34(i>^ille in
ollice laiuxit be deliniun<-<l by
arbitration, 310; \\|i<ii m:i\ li.il<l
:»is
iMn:x
I)r()|)('it y ju-^ iiKainsI corporiitioii,
'.n\; inorln.'mf hy, viilidity, 4IS;
no jurisdiction of (iiicslioii.s rc-
latiun to piil)li(; worship, 422;
condovcrsy over elect ion <i(M'H
not constitute schism, 42S; nuiy
control distribution and use of
pews, 448; I'n^shyterian (Jhurch,
relation to call of minister, 499;
Presbyterian Church, 513; con-
trol of property, 544; cannot act
for two societies, 5G(), 001; ciusl-
ing vote. New ^'ork rule, 5()S;
(juo warranto, only remedy to
test title to office, 574; when act
not binding on corporators, 602;
making jn'omissory note, when
society not liable on, 607; no
power to expel member of so-
ciety, 609; must meet to act, 611,
615; element of corporation. ()13;
general f)owers, 614; directors,
archbishop may appoint, 658; se-
ceding, status, 706; Shakers, note
on, 721, 722; of unincorporated
society, protected by court, 846;
abandonment of offi(!e, 806; ac-
tions, de facto, 806; actions,
Illinois rule, 806; actions, pre-
organization contracts, 807; ac-
tion, trespass, S07; appointment
by coui't, 807; appointment by
minister, 807; borrowing money,
807; building committee, 808; by
laws, 808; by laws, assessments
on pew holders, 808; closing
church, 808; control of property,
808; conveyance, 809; conveyance
by, when required, 809; corporate
character, Maryland rule, 809;
corporate control of, 809; cov-
enant of waiTanty, 810; de facto,
810; diversion of property, 810;
election, 811; election, burden of
jM'oof, 812; election, place, 812;
employment of coimsel, 812;
excluding minister from church
edifice, 812; forcible entry and
detainer, 812; holding over, 813;
individual liability, SI 3; joint in-
lerest, 814; liability, property
sold to piustor, 814; meeting, duty
to attend, 814; meeting necessary,
814; mingling charitable and other
funds, 815; minister's emiilov-
incut, 815; occupj-ing property
after termination of contnicf, S15;
official term, H16; official title
must })e shown, H16; oust«T,
efTe<t, 816; possession of i)ro|)erty,
SKi; i)owers, (leorgia rule, 817;
|)owers, Maine rule, K17; powers,
New York rule, 817; powers,
Pennsylvania rule, 81S; presumj)-
tiou of official title, SI 8; |)rom-
issnry note, 818; projH'rty, trus-
tees cannot distribute, 819; quo-
rum, S19; fiuo warranto, 820; re-
ligious services, 820; rc-moval, 820;
rej)resentativ(! character, cannot
act in two capacities, 821; repre-
sentative character, 821; Roman
CathoUc, how chosen, 822; seat-
ing, power to regulate, 822;
statas, 822; statute of limitations
cannot be waived, 823; temporal-
ities, 823; title to office, 823; title
to office, necessary to maintain
a(!tion, 823; United Brethren in
Christ, how appointed, 857.
Trusts, advow.son, 825; archbishop,
moral frvLst, 825; Auburn Theo-
logical Seminarv, 826; beneficiary,
how determined, 826; bishop, 826;
cemeteries, 827; charitable, de-
fined, 827; church, incapacitv,
827; Chri-stmas presents, 827;
church hbrary, Sunday school,
828; corporate capacity, 828;
court to administer, 828; dedica-
tion of land for religious purposes,
829; denominational limitation,
829; denominational u.se, 830;
discretion of trustees, 830; diver-
sion, 830; donor's intention, 831;
equity jurisdiction, 831; for-
eign, unincorporated society, 832;
fundus, how applied. 832; home
for aged persons, 833; implied
from bequest or conveyance, 833;
indefinifeness, 833; IvCgislature
cannot modify, 834; legislative
power, 834; limitation, 834; Ma-
rine Hible Society, 835; mis.-^ions,
835; object, how ascertainetl, 835;
other states. 836; parol, when
insufficient, 836; pai-sonage, 8.37;
rhih|>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. <S44; incor[)()ra-
tion, effect, <S4.'i; incorporation,
effect on title to land, 84.'); mem-
bers, liabilit}", H4.5; projx'rtv, how
held, 840; right to suej 840;
Roman Catholic, 846; trustees,
protected, S40; when trustees
may be compelled to execute
conveyance, S07.
Unitarians, chajx'!, bequest for
sustained, .S2; hc(|uest sustained,
847, 803; doctrines and wor.<hip,
schi.sm, 847; taxation, 8')1.
I'nited Haptist Church, formation
of, 444.
United Hrellircn in (Christ, revision
of const it 111 ion .•md conft'-s-^ioti of
faith subj(^ct to revi<'w by civil
courts, 100; .secession from local
society, ciTccI, 7(M); amcmied <-on-
stitution and confession of faith,
S.')2; amending coast it ut ion, 1885-
1880, 8.53; Canada, K.-»3; division,
855; government, S'^]; hi.story,
850; history and fonn of govern-
ment, 800; maioritv's right, 801;
Philomath College,' 802.
United Kvangeli(;al Church, noted,
24(i.
United Clerman Lutheran Churches
of New York, note on, 305.
United CJreek Church, fliffers from
other Creek churches, 27S.
Unite<l Presbyterian Church, union
with Free Church of Scotland,
252; note on origin i>f, .512; organ-
ization, SO-1; minority's right, St'A.
Uniteil States, religioiLs fre<Hlom,
025; relation to lioman Catholic
Church, 009.
Universalist, minister, Mas.sju'hu-
setts, limitation of action for
s:U:u-y, 10; voluntarv iusso«'iation,
teacher not entitleil to share in
public money, (5.55; bequest for
<stablishment of church, sas-
tained, S42; legacv to Herk.-^hire
Society, sustainetl, S.S2; action,
how to be brought, S05; becjUesL
siLstained, S()5; general conven-
tion, 805; pews, by laws, 805;
stock, subscription, HiMi; taxa-
tion, 8(}0; transfer tax, 80(»; trust
sastained, Htiti; unincorixirali-*!
society, conveyance dire<'ted, SO";
competency as witnes.s<>s, 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-
<l(>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<K); jiartv, religious belief,
9(X); Quaker, 900; religious Ix-
lief, 9(X); Roman Catholic, oath
how administered, iM)3; I'niver-
salist, 904.
\\'oodstock College, be(|uest sUi>-
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