Middleton v. Ellison

• Decision Date: 30 June 1913
• Citation: 78 S.E. 739,95 S.C. 158
• Parties: MIDDLETON et al. v. ELLISON et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

78 S.E. 739

95 S.C. 158

MIDDLETON et al. v. ELLISON et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 30, 1913

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; Geo. E Prince, Judge.

An action by E. Russell Middleton, as bishop of the Reformed Methodist Union Episcopal Church, and the Reformed Methodist Union Church, a corporation under the laws of the state of South Carolina, commonly known as the Reformed Methodist Union Episcopal Church, against J. A. Ellison and others. From an order granting a temporary injunction, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The opinion of the trial judge is as follows:

"This is a suit for injunction brought by E. Russell Middleton as bishop of the Reformed Methodist Union Episcopal Church and by the Reformed Methodist Union Church, a South Carolina corporation commonly known as the Reformed Methodist Union Episcopal Church. The action is brought against certain individuals, named as defendants herein who it is alleged, are claiming and assuming to be the regular church, are using the corporate name of the church and are conspiring to injure and destroy the church and church government of the plaintiffs; it is further alleged that the defendants are creating disturbances and have caused conflicts to take place in some of the churches and congregations of the plaintiff corporation, and are interfering with and undertaking to take possession of certain of the church property; it is also alleged that the defendants have undertaken to hold meetings in the name of the plaintiff corporation and have called a meeting for November 4, 1912, to consider making certain changes in its charter.

"The matter comes before me now on an application for a restraining order pendente lite under a rule to show cause issued by me and duly served on the defendants, and under the return of the defendants and sundry affidavits submitted by both sides.

"Many points and questions of fact have been raised at the hearing before me which I do not consider it necessary or proper for me to pass upon at the present time. The action being for injunction, the matter to be decided here is whether under the showing made by the affidavits submitted and by the pleadings the plaintiffs have shown that there are substantial questions to be decided, and that the status of affairs existing at the commencement of the action should be preserved.

"Without going into a discussion of the facts or of the questions involved, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs under the showing made are entitled to a temporary restraining order. The question which requires more consideration is as to what property the restraining order should apply, and on this point there is great conflict between the statements made by the contending parties. The controversy concerns itself with a schism in the Reformed Methodist Union Episcopal Church, which is a religious organization made up of numerous congregations and with a large membership in this state and in Georgia. Each side claims to be in possession of certain of the churches and to have certain congregations with it, and affidavits are submitted by each party to sustain its respective contention.

"While there seems to be a dispute that plaintiffs represent the original organization, yet prior to the spring of this year the defendants were acting as a part of the plaintiff organization under Bishop Middleton. The organization has been known as the Reformed Methodist Union Episcopal Church for many years during which defendants were members of and identified with it. Under these circumstances, the defendants will not be heard now to question its right to use this name nor will the court undertake to inquire into its ecclesiastical acts. In such cases the courts of law are accustomed to inquire which party or division maintains the church organization as it existed and to recognize this party. While not undertaking to decide finally this question at the present time, it has become necessary to consider the matter from this point of view, in view of the conflicting statements of the affidavits submitted.

"It appears that

...