Boyles v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 22 October 1909
• Citation: 121 S.W. 805,222 Mo. 613
• Parties: CHARLES A. BOYLES et al. v. J. L. ROBERTS et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

121 S.W. 805

222 Mo. 613

CHARLES A. BOYLES et al.
v.
J. L. ROBERTS et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri

October 22, 1909 ^[*]

[121 S.W. 806]

Rehearing Denied 222 Mo. 613 at 691.

Appeal from Cooper Circuit Court. -- Hon. Wm. H. Martin, Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

Robt. M. Reynolds and Jas. A. Kemper for appellants; W. C. Caldwell of counsel.

(1) From the year 1810 the "Cumberland Presbyterian Church" has been an independent ecclesiastical body or society whose spiritual and temporal existence was presumed and intended to continue on and on throughout time, and its organizations and government were formed and established with that aim and to that end, as best its founders could devise. (2) It began by the association of a few members into an organization or society, which formed what was denominated, a "church." These and other members of like faith formed and established other churches, which were later united into a presbytery. Other churches were organized and presbyteries formed, till the presbyteries created what was called a synod, the membership was extended into different states, presbyteries were established therein and synods formed, till, in 1829, all the presbyteries were organized into a general body, called a general assembly. The first law or discipline of said church was adopted in 1814. (3) The confession of faith, constitution and other ecclesiastical standards assumed their present form in 1883, and said church or society has been subject to the provisions of said laws since said time. (4) The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, with its Westminster Confession of Faith and other ecclesiastical standards, has existed since 1789, and has been governed by fixed and established laws, and is now subject thereto. (5) The courts or judicatories of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, as well as of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, are creatures of the constitutions of their respective churches, and their authority is limited to the powers expressly granted therein, and where no power or authority to do a thing exists in the law, it will be prohibited, and the only way to accomplish said end will be by amendments to the constitution so as to authorize the same, in the way and manner prescribed by the constitutions themselves. (6) The so-called scheme or plan of "union" or "reunion" was without any constitutional authority -- either in the laws of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church or in the laws of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, was, and is therefore null and void. Watson v. Avery, 2 Bush 332; Bear v. Heasley, 98 Mich. 279, 24 L. B. A. 623; Bunn v. Gorgas, 41 Pa. St. 446; Krecker v. Shirley, 163 Pa. St. 634, 29 L. R. A. 481; Gartin v. Penick, 5 Bush 110; Kerr's Appeal, 89 Pa. St. 97; Deaderick v. Lampson, 11 Heisk. 523; Watson v. Garvin, 54 Mo. 379. (7) The sovereignty of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church is in the organization as a whole, and not in any of its parts. It is in the people, that is, the membership at large -- official and non-official and ministerial -- and not in the church courts, singly or collectively. Moore's Digest, Presbyterian Assembly, 465; Baird's Digest, 722; Discussions by Dabney, vol. 2, Evangelical, pp. 261-297, Constitution Presbyterian Church in the United States, sec. 62-IV, Form of Government, Alexander's Digest and Supplement, 1897, pp. 412-432, 454-458; Davis v. Congregation, 40 A.D. 424. (8) The constitutional authority to consummate and effectuate the alleged union or merger by the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, must be shown by those asserting it. The constitutionality of said movement has been challenged from its inception and no such authority has ever been cited, but on the contrary, the illegality and unconstitutionality of said movement have been openly declared, and no contrary contemporaneous construction of said constitution ever offered in justification of said movement. Kerr's Appeal, 89 Pa. St. 97; Schnorr's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 138, 5 Am. Rep. 415; Watson v. Avery, 2 Bush 332; Gartin v. Penick, 5 Bush 110; also, Mr. Redfield's note to this case, 9 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 210, 221; Chase v. Cheney, 10 Am. L. Reg. N. S., and Mr. Fuller's note to latter case, page 308; Bear v. Heasley, supra; Free Church of Scotland Case, L. R. App. Cases (1904) 312, in which several of the judges expressed views on this point. (9) The action of the majority of the commissioners of the General Assembly in May, 1906, at Decatur, Illinois, in passing the final resolutions on union and merger and declaring the general assembly adjourned sine die, and without naming a place for the next meeting, was in violation of their authority and in violation of section 41 of the constitution of the church, and their action was, therefore, inoperative and void. General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland v. Lord Overton, L. R. App. Cas. (1904) 687; Schweiker v. Husser (Ill.), 34 N.E. 1022; Kreuher v. Shirley, 163 Pa. St. 534, 29 L. R. A. 470; Auracher v. Yerger, 90 Iowa 558. (10) The minority, in self-defense and in their effort to protect their rights and to perpetuate the existence of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, acted in accordance with their commissions at Decatur in 1906, and preserved the church organization. (11) The culmination of the so-called union movement is not a union or reunion of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, but is a merger and absorption of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church into and by the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and completely exterminates the same. C. P. Min. 1904, p. 62a; P. Min. 1904, p. 136; P. Min. 1906, pp. 139, 140, 145-150, 152, 840-900; Successive Steps, 15, 70-78, 83, 89, 90, 91, 94, 102-106, 107, 108, 110, 112-114; C. P. Min. 1906, 67-71, 81; P. Min. 1907, 140, 245, 247, 280; C. P. Min. 1907, 18-22, 57b-59b; Associate Ref. Church v. Seminary, 4 N.J.Eq. 77. (12) The steps taken by the general assembly, culminating in the submission of the proposed basis of union to the presbyteries and the action of the presbyteries thereon, did not effect an amendment to the constitution of the Cumberland Presbyterian church, and thereby authorize the merger of that church into the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Bear v. Heasley, 98 Mich. 279; White v. Brownell, 2 Daily 329; Venable v. Baptist Church, 25 Kan. 177; Hydes v. Woods, 2 Sawy. 655; State v. Williams, 75 N.C. 134; Protchett v. Schaefer, 11 Phila. 166; Lamb v. Cain, 14 L. R. A. 528; State v. Foraker, 6 L. R. A. 422; Rottman v. Borthing, 22 Neb. 375; Schlichter v. Keiter, 156 P. A. 119; Hochreter's App., 93 P. A. 479; State v. Swift, 69 Ind. 505; Phillomoth v. Wyatt, 26 L. R. A. 78; Clask v. Brown, 108 S.W. 431; Russie v. Brazzill, 128 Mo. 107; sec. 60, Const. C. P. Church; Prohibitory Amendment Cases, 24 Kan. 709; In re Constitutional Convention, 14 R. I. 651; Smith v. Stephens, 10 Wall. 326; Bunn v. Gorgas, 41 Pa. St. 446. (13) The action of the general assembly throughout all of the proceedings leading up to and consummating in the alleged union or merger were not judicial in their character, and had not the effect of a judicial determination of any of the matters by it considered or sought to be determined. (14) The civil courts treat the constitutions of ecclesiastical bodies or societies as a civil contract between the membership thereof, and in passing upon questions of property rights, arising out of the violation of its terms, apply those established rules that govern in other civil controversies. Hyde v. Woods, 2 Sawy. 655, 94 U.S. 523, 24 L.Ed. 264; White v. Brownell, 2 Daly 239; Ebbinghousen v. Worth Club, 4 Abb. N. C. 300; Leech v. Harris, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 571; Venable v. Ebenezer Baptist Church of Atchison, 25 Kan. 177; State v. Williams, 75 N.C. 134; Innes v. Wylie, 1 Car. & K. 262; Protchett v. Schaffer, 11 Phila. 166; Brine v. Board of Trade, 2 Am. L. R. 268; Bear v. Heasley, supra; White v. Brownell, supra. (15) The real estate and other property involved in this controversy belonged to the members of the Warrensburg congregation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and the Presbyteries, synod or general assembly of said church, nor the members of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, had any interest whatever therein, nor right to the use or the control thereof, nor any authority or power to deprive said members of their said interest, so long as they continue members of said church. Gibson v. Armstrong, 7 B. Mon. 489; Deaderick v. Lampson, 11 Heisk. 529; Bridges v. Wilson, 11 Heisk. 458; Rodgers v. Burnett, 108 Tenn. 173; Newman v. Proctor, 10 Bush 318; Brown v. Monroe, 80 Ky. 443; Gartin v. Penick, 5 Bush 112; Harper v. Straws, 14 B. Mon. 39; Watson v. Garvin, 54 Mo. 343; Mount Helm Baptist Church v. Jones, 79 Miss. 488; Finley v. Brent, 87 Va. 103, 11 L. R. A. 214; McBride v. Porter, 17 Iowa 207; Godfrey v. Walker, 42 Ga. 562. (16) The real estate or property involved herein belonged to the membership of the Warrensburg congregation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and each member has a substantial interest therein, and cannot be deprived thereof so long as he continues a member of said church, except by due process of law. The effect of the so-called union and re-union would be to transfer the property of the said congregation to the Warrensburg congregation of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America without "due process of law," and is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Missouri and void. Sec. 30, art. 2, Const. Mo.; Watson v. Garvin, 54 Mo. 366; Schnorr's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 138; Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 50; Dabney's Discussions, 275, 291; Gartin v. Penick, 5 Bush 123; Ferravia v. Vasconcellos, 31 Ill. 25. (17) The property...