Danforth v. Foster

Decision Date20 July 1911
Citation139 S.W. 520,158 Mo.App. 94
PartiesP. C. DANFORTH, et al., Appellants, v. B. F. FOSTER et al., Respondents
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Greene Circuit Court.--Hon. Alfred Page, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Wright Brothers for appellants.

(1) Defendants openly avowed their severance, which was a withdrawal from the lawful organization of the church and the forfeiture of any rights to continued membership and control of the property. Brundage v. Dearorf, 55 F. 839; Boyles v. Roberts, 222 Mo. 654. (2) The distinction between the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A. is vital. Boyles v Roberts, 222 Mo. 654. (3) Adherence to a particular body requires adherence to both creed and polity; abandon or repudiate either is to abandon or secede from the body whose authority is thus disregarded. Kruker v. Shiver, 163 Pa. St 534.

E. D Merritt for respondents.

(1) The evidence on all controverted points was oral. The weight to be attached to this evidence depends largely on the character, experience, fairness and intelligence of the witnesses. This evidence was patiently heard by an experienced and judicious chancellor. He was in a much more favorable position to wisely determine its preponderance than any appellate court could be. There was no suggestion or semblance of prejudice or unfairness on the part of the chancellor who tried the case. No declarations of law were asked, given or refused. Following a long line of precedents in this State, this court will under the above state of facts, largely defer to the opinion of the chancellor who tried the case. Carter v. Dilley, 167 Mo. 571; Chance v. Jennings, 159 Mo. 560; Arn v. Arn, 81 Mo.App. 140; Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 336; Erskine v. Lowenstein, 82 Mo. 309; Chapman v. McIlwrath, 77 Mo. 43. (2) An injunction cannot be issued to allay the fears and apprehensions of plaintiffs. They must show that the acts against which they seek protection are not only threatened but will in all probability be committed to their injury, unless prevented by injunction. Lester Co. v. St. Louis, 169 Mo. 227; Schubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 182; Business Men's League v. Waddill. 143 Mo. 495; Aetna Iron Works v. Transit Co., 95 Mo.App. 565.

OPINION

GRAY, J.

September 12, 1910, the plaintiffs instituted this suit in the Greene county circuit court. The petition recites that about the year 1810, there was organized the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and thereafter the Christian colored people of the United States of America formed themselves in a body known as the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored, and those who became members of said church were adherents to the doctrines taught by the Cumberland Presbyterian Church; that the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored, at all times had its governing bodies, to-wit: The General Assembly, the Synods, the Presbyteries and the Sessions; that many years ago a congregation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored, was organized in the city of Springfield, Missouri, and was and is known as the First Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored, of Springfield, that many Christian people of the colored race are members thereof; that said members are adherents to the religious doctrines of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored; that said doctrines are in many respects, different from the doctrines of any other Presbyterian Church; that said colored Presbyterian Church was incorporated several years ago, and is the owner of certain real estate in Springfield, and has erected on said property a large and commodious church edifice and other buildings for the use of the church and its members; that on the 7th day of August, 1910, the defendants and those interested in common with them, renounced the religious doctrines of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored, and their allegiance to said church, and declared themselves no longer members of said church, but declared themselves to be members of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, a separate and distinct religious church organization; that by reason of said action, the defendants declare themselves no longer members of said Presbyterian Church, colored, and are not now members of the said church; that the plaintiffs and their said associates have remained in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored, and are now the only true and lawful beneficiaries of said property, and are entitled to the exclusive possession, use and control of said ownership, and that defendants and their associates have lost all their rights and privileges in said church, and to its said property; that the said defendants and their associates continue to hold religious services in said church, although denying that they are holding such services as Cumberland Presbyterians, and said defendants are denying to plaintiffs and their said associates, the right to occupy said church building and property as Cumberland Presbyterians, and are denying them the right to worship in said church building as Cumberland Presbyterians, and are denying the plaintiffs and their associates the right to use and occupy the church building as a congregation of Cumberland Presbyterians, and that the defendants and their associates claim to be the owners of said property as Presbyterians.

The petition then concludes as follows: "Wherefore inasmuch as plaintiffs and their said associates have no adequate remedy at law, they pray for an order of injunction to issue out of this court directed to the defendants and those interested in common with them, enjoining them and restraining them and each of them from using and occupying said land and church building and other buildings on said land, and from holding services of any kind in said church building or on said premises, and from interfering with or molesting the plaintiffs, and their said associates who adhere to the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored, and the religious doctrines thereof, in the use, enjoyment, possession and exclusive control of said land and the church building and other buildings on said land and from delivering the possession of said land and building to any other person or persons."

The answer admitted the allegations of the petition in regard to the organization of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored, and also the local church, and admitted that said church was the owner of the property described in the plaintiffs' petition, and denied that defendants or any of them had any thought, purpose or intent of withdrawing from said Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored, and affirmatively alleged that defendants at all times mentioned in plaintiffs' petition, were members of said Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored, and with no present thought or purpose of withdrawing from said church.

The cause was tried on the 23d day of September, resulting in a dismissal of plaintiffs' bill, and from such judgment, they have appealed to this court.

The Cumberland Presbyterian Church, colored, is a separate organization from the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and was in no wise involved in the contest between the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, considered by the Supreme Court in Boyles v. Roberts, 222 Mo. 613, 121 S.W. 805.

The evidence on all controverted points was oral, and therefore it is apparent that the weight and credit to be given to the same depends largely on the character, appearance, fairness and intelligence of the different witnesses. All of the witnesses appeared in person before the trial judge, and he was in a much better position to determine the controverted facts than this court is with nothing but a copy of the evidence before us. Under such...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT