Berry v. Bruce

Decision Date17 April 1947
Docket NumberNo. 58.,58.
Citation27 N.W.2d 67,317 Mich. 490
PartiesBERRY et al. v. BRUCE et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Theodore J. Richter, Judge.

Suit by Chester Berry and others against J. Herbert Bruce and others to enjoin defendants from disposing of any assets of church and from interfering with plaintiffs or other members of church in performance of their rights as members, and for an accounting, wherein the defendants filed a cross-bill for injunctive relief. From an adverse order, the defendants appeal, and the plaintiffs move to dismiss the appeal.

Mortion to dismiss denied, order reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.

Before the Entire Bench.

Ralph E. Helper and John G. Balose, both of Detroit, for plaintiffs and appellees.

Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, for appellants.

CARR, Chief Justice.

This suit was started March 11, 1946, for the purpose of obtaining equitable relief by way of an injunction and an accounting. The defendant Bruce was the pastor of the Olivet Missionary Baptist Church, located in the city of Detroit, and the other defendants were officials of the church. Plaintiff alleged in their bill of complaint that were members of said church; that it had formerly existed as a corporation; that, through the carelessness and negligence of the defendants, the corporate charter had been lost on August 31, 1944, because of the failure to file an annual report; that the defendants had failed to conduct the affairs of the church in accordance with the rules and regulations by which it was governed; that they had allowed the church property to become badly in need of repair; that the members of the church were denied their rights and privileges as such; and that defendants had failed to account for moneys that had been collected by them. Plaintiffs asked that defendants be enjoined, temporarily and permanently, from selling, assigning, mortgaging or otherwise disposing of any of the assets of the church, and from interfering with plaintiffs or other members of the church in the performance of their rights and duties as members. An accounting was also prayed.

On the filing of the bill of complaint an order issued requiring defendants to show cause why an injunction should not be granted in accordance with the prayer of the bill. A provision was inserted in said order restraining defendants from encumbering or disposing of any of the property in question, and from interfering with plaintiffs or other members of the church in the exercise of their rights and duties as such.

By answer to the bill of complaint, defendants denied the charges of misconduct made against them and further denied plaintiffs' right to relief. They admitted that the corporate charter had been lost, as alleged in the bill of complaint, denying, however, that such loss was the result of negligence or carelessness on the part of defendants. The answer alleged in this regard that it is a matter of common practice among certain churches not to continue at all times a corporate form of organization, and that the membership of the church had tacitly consented to the carrying on of religious services as an unincorporated association. By amendment to the answer, subsequently filed, defendants further alleged that the Olivet Missionary Baptist Church had been conducted in accordance with its constitution and by-laws, and also in accordance with ‘The New Directory for Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox.’ The parties seem to be in accord that the government of spiritual matters within the church is prescribed by the Hiscox manual.

Defendants also filed a cross-bill, charging in substance that the plaintiffs and cross-defendants had conspired together for the purpose of unlawfully usurping the functions of the church, and that, in the attempt to carry out such purpose, plaintiffs and cross-defendats by indulging in improper and disorderly conduct had interfered with the holding of church meetings. Defendants and cross-plaintiffs asked for injunctive relief restraining such alleged conduct on the part of plaintiffs and cross-defendants. In accordance with such prayer an order was issued containing a temporary restraining order of the character sought, and further requiring plaintiffs and cross-defendants to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue as prayed in the cross-bill.

The orders to show cause, issued on the bill of complaint and on the cross-bill, were brought on for hearing before the court on March 28, 1946. On April 24, following, the court made an order requiring the defendant Bruce to call a special meeting of the membership of the church, to be held the evening of May 6, such meeting to be presided over by the pastor, defendant Bruce, until the meeting reached the consideration of the question of removing the pastor. The order further directed that such meeting should be open only to members of the congregation of the church holding regular membership cards, or entitled to hold such at the time of the commencement of the suit on March 11, 1946; and that in all particulars the business to be considered at the meeting should be conducted in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the church and the Hiscox manual. The order further provided that the membership of the church might consider the question of removing the pastor and that on the consideration of such question the pastor should retire as presiding officer, his place being taken by a chairman elected by the members present. Provisions were also inserted in the order enjoining plaintiffs and cross-defendants, and also defendants and cross-plaintiffs, from interfering with the meeting or creating any disturbance in connection with it, and from conveying or disposing of any of the church property. Except as covered by the provisions of the order the petitions for temporary injunctions presented by the parties to the case were denied.

In accordance with the direction of the court, as set forth in the order of April 24, a church meeting was held on May 6, 1946. The record indicates that some dissension occurred at this meeting, and that action was taken by those present and participating in effect refusing to prefer charges against the pastor for the purpose of bringing about his removal. Plaintiffs and cross-defendants, asserting that the court's order had not been complied with in conducting the meeting, filed a petition, supported by affidavits, asking that defendants and cross-plaintiffs be adjudged guilty of contempt of court and punished accordingly. It was claimed specifically that a number of members of the church who were entitled to participate in the meeting had been wrongfully excluded, and that defendant Bruce had improperly refused to accept as chairman of the meeting a person proposed for that position. A hearing was had on said petition, testimony being presented at some length. At the conclusion of the proofs the trial court determined that defendants and crossplaintiffs had not been guilty of wilful contempt, but that the order, pursuant to which the meeting was held, had not been followed because of a misunderstanding as to its construction and intent. It is a fair inference that there were some differences of opinion as to the amount of weekly payments required to be made by members of the church in order to maintain themselves in good standing as such. Thereupon the court, under date of June 4, 1946, entered a further order dismissing the motion to punish defendants and cross-plaintiffs for contempt of court and directing the holding of another meeting. The specific provisions with reference thereto are as follows:

‘II. It is further ordered that the pastor of the said Olivet Missionary Baptist Church, J. Herbert Bruce, shall call a meeting to be held on the 10th day of June, 1946, and that said meeting be held at the Olivet Missionary Baptist Church at 554 Winder Street, City of Detroit, County of Wayne and State of Michigan, and that said meeting be held in accordance with the rules and regulations of Hiscox's Baptist Manual and under the constitution and by-laws of the Olivet Missionary Baptist Church, and that all members who possess membership cards in the Olivet Missionary Baptist Church as of March 11, 1946, when this suit was commenced, be permitted to attend this meeting and take part in said meeting, and further they shall be permitted to vote and in all respects to participate in the said meeting as full fledged members of the said Olivet Missionary Baptist Church;

‘It is further ordered that persons not having possessed membership cards of the Olivet Missionary Baptist Church as of March 11, 1946, and persons not members of the Olivet Missionary Baptist Church shall not be permitted to attend said meeting or enter the said church or the premises where the said meeting shall be conducted;

‘III. It is further ordered by this Honorable Court that the pastor, J. Herbert Bruce, shall call the meeting to order and shall open the meeting with the usual prayer of the said Olivet Missionary Baptist Church and shall thereupon leave the chair and declare the said meeting open for the election of a member of the said Olivet Missionary Baptist Church to preside at the said meeting, and that the said pastor, J. Herbert Bruce shall not take any further part in or in any way interfere with the conduct of the said meeting;

‘IV. That at the said meeting to be held on the 10th day of June, 1946, the said Olivet Missionary Baptist Church shall consider and shall prefer charges in accordance with Hiscox's Baptist Manual, against the said J. Herbert Bruce, pastor of the said Olivet Missionary Baptist Church, and the said church, in accordance with Hiscox's Baptist Manual, shall consider the removal of the pastor, J. Herbert Bruce; that if the said church determines that the pastor should be removed then the said charges against the pastor shall be referred to an ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Winkler v. Marist Fathers of Detroit, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 27, 2017
    ...and that "judicial interference in the purely ecclesiastical affairs of religious organizations is improper." Berry v. Bruce , 317 Mich. 490, 499, 27 N.W.2d 67 (1947). See, e.g., Smith v. Calvary Christian Church , 462 Mich. 679, 684, 614 N.W.2d 590 (2000) ("Under the ecclesiastical abstent......
  • Smith v. Calvary Christian Church
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • December 4, 1998
    ...application of religious doctrine or ecclesiastical polity, 2 the court ceases to have jurisdiction. Davis, supra; Berry v. Bruce, 317 Mich. 490, 500-501, 27 N.W.2d 67 (1947). The United States Supreme Court has defined religious doctrine as ritual, liturgy of worship, and tenets of faith. ......
  • Bennison v. Sharp
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • February 16, 1983
    ...the rule that judicial interference in the purely ecclesiastical affairs of religious organizations is improper". Berry v. Bruce, 317 Mich. 490, 499, 27 N.W.2d 67 (1947). "[W]here the determination has been made that the church is one of a representative form of government the Court will no......
  • Dlaikan v. Roodbeen
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • September 6, 1994
    ...organizations. But jurisdiction is limited to property rights that can be resolved by application of civil law. Berry v. Bruce, 317 Mich. 490, 27 N.W.2d 67 (1947); Maciejewski v. Breitenbeck, 162 Mich.App. 410, 414, 413 N.W.2d 65 Reference to the form of the claim may oversimplify the issue......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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