Arthur v. Norfield Parish Congregational Church Soc

• Decision Date: 29 May 1901
• Citation: 73 Conn. 718,49 A. 241
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ARTHUR v. NORFIELD PARISH CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH SOC.

49 A. 241

73 Conn. 718

ARTHUR

v. NORFIELD PARISH CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH SOC.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 29, 1901.

[Copyrighted material omitted.]

Appeal from court of common pleas, Fairfield county; Howard J. Curtis, Judge.

Action for damages on acontract by Charles M. Arthur against the Norfield Parish Congregational Church Society. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. No error.

John J. Walsh, for appellant.

Louis K. Gould and Robert H. Gould, for appellee.

BALDWIN, J. In 1895 the Norfield Congregational Church in Weston became acorporation, pursuant to Pub. Acts 1893, c. 44, and was thus invested, assuch, with all the rights, and subjected to all the duties, of an ecclesiastical society. Shortly afterwards it extended a call to the plaintiff to become its pastor, which he accepted. The terms of settlement were expressed in a writing signed by both parties. The plaintiff was to be paid $46 a month from June 1, 1896, together with the use of the parsonage, so long as he should continue to be pastor; and a"donation" was also to be made "some time during the year," which was to be "considered as an addition to the salary." "In the event of uneasiness on the part of the congregation," he was to "give up the desk" three months after a notice of such uneasiness had been "duly given." The plaintiff entered upon his duties, and became a member of the church. Pursuant to Pub. Acts 1893, c. 43, the defendant then adopted a constitution for its government. Among its provisions were these: Under the head of "Officers": "The pastor shall hold his office without limitation of time. In the settlement of a pastor the church shall act by an ecclesiastical council, called in the usual manner, and such council shall be mutually called by the pastor and the church to act on the question of his dismission, whenever the pastor shall desire it, or the church shall so vote in a meeting notified on the preceding Sabbath for that specified purpose." Under the head of "Discipline": "In cases of difficulty, the advice and aid of a council may be sought." And under the head of "Meetings": "Business may be transacted at any regular meeting of the church, or at a special meeting called by a majority of the regular officers of the church, or by the written request of five adult members; notices of which shall be read from the pulpit on the preceding Sabbath. Regular meetings may also be appointed by the church. Besides the regular public services of the Sabbath, the church shall hold a weekly meeting for prayer and conference, and special religious meetings shall be held at such time as the pastor or the church shall designate." On January 1, 1898, several members of the church presented a written complaint to it, charging the plaintiff with misrepresentation, tyranny, immorality, intimidating members of the church from voting at church meetings, and general unfitness to serve as pastor of a Congregational church; stating that they had been, by his action, deprived of the rights belonging to them as members; and asking it to unite in calling a mutual council "to investigate the past record of the said Mr. C. M. Arthur, and all his relations with this church since he came as pastor, and to advise as to what ought to be done." The church, having taken this request into consideration, voted to "decline to ask advice of a mutual council until it has itself investigated the allegations and determined the facts, or finds itself in doubt as to its duty, and the difficulties surmount the wisdom of this church." Thereupon some of those who had joined in the complaint issued a call for an ex parte council of Congregational churches to consider the matters so complained of, "and any others belonging essentially thereto, and to advise as to what ought to be done in the premises." Such a council, consisting of twelve churches and one Congregational clergyman not settled over any parish, was accordingly convened at Weston on January 18, 1898. Meanwhile the church had voted, during the regular public services on Sunday, January 8th, "that the pastor, the Rev. C. M. Arthur, be employed one year from April 1, 1898," and on January 18th he notified the church that he accepted this invitation. The following proceedings of the council appeared upon its minutes: Having made ineffectual efforts to obtain the consent of the church to make it a mutual one, it took evidence, and came to certain conclusions. A committee was appointed to formulate them, and an adjournment taken to January 24th. On that day it was again adjourned, the plaintiff and other members of the defendant church having appeared before it, and stated that the church was now willing to unite in a mutual council. A form of letter missive for that purpose was drawn up, and on January 26th the church resolved "that the church and pastor unite with the aggrieved party, and call a mutual council, as per letter missive read." The paper was signed on the next day, and read as follows: "The Congregational Church in Weston to the Congregational Church in —hendeth greeting:

Dear Brethren: Differences and disagreements having arisen within this church, some of which are connected with charges on the part of certain members of the church that the pastor is unworthy to hold that office, and that the affairs of the church have not been, and are not being, conducted in accordance with approved Congregational usage, which difficulties and disagreements disturb our peace and harmony, and for the adjustment of which we desire your Christian counsel, this is to request your presence by your pastor and delegate at our church In Weston on the 8th day of Feb., 1898, at 10:30 in the forenoon, to advise us on the following points: (1) Has the conduct of the Rev. C. M. Arthur prior to and during his present pastorate been such as to indicate that he is worthy to act as the pastor of a Congregational church; and should his name stand in the list of Congregational ministers in good and regular standing? (2) Have our affairs, as conducted under his pastorate, been conducted in accordance with approved Congregational usage? (3) Are those who called the recent ex parte council and their associates unreasonably disturbing the church? (4) Have they and their associates just grounds for complaint, or any standing to make it? Wishing you grace, mercy, and peace. [Signed] C. M. Arthur, Ebenezer Fitch, Vanderbilt Godfrey, Committee for the Church. D. L. Coley, Jr., Edward H. Ferguson, J. S. Lane, Committee for the Aggrieved. Weston, Jan. 27, 1898." The following churches called in council: "Bridgeport 1st, Stamford, New Canaan, Round Hill, Georgetown, Greenfield Hil, Darien, Norwalk 1st, Green's Farms, Sound Beach Pilgrim, Ridgefield, Black Rock, Danbury 1st, Bridgeport 2d, Brookfield Center, Wilton, Westport, Southport, South Norwalk, Redding, Greenwich 1st, Bridgeport West End, Bethel, Fairfield." Of these 24 churches, 12 had been included in the ex parte council. The following proceedings, among others, of this council appeared upon its minutes: "Rev. C. M. Arthur having expressed the desire to be represented by his legal adviser, Curtis Thompson, Esq., the council adopted the following resolution: 'While this council is not in favor of the admission of attorneys, as such, into Congregational councils, yet, in view of the exigencies of the present ease, be it resolved, that the services of Curtis Thompson, Esq., be admitted to this case for the present.' * * * Curtis Thompson, Esq., presented the case of the church. * * * Mr. Arthur and the counsel of the church declared that they had presented all the evidence which they desired to present." At an adjourned session on February 14, 1898, "a request of Mr. Arthur that he be allowed to present evidence received by him since the preceding session was entertained, and it was voted that both Mr. Arthur and the committee for the aggrieved be admitted to present such evidence as fully as they might choose. Mr. Arthur presented two items of such evidence. Mr. Lane, for the aggrieved, waived further hearing." On February 15, 1898, a final "result" was unanimously reached, sustaining the charges made in the original complaint, finding the plaintiff manifestly disqualified for the Christian ministry, and advising him to withdraw from it permanently, and to resign his pastorate immediately; in which latter event the church was advised to make such financial arrangements with him as should be just and equitable. On March 1, 1898, the ex parte council, at an adjourned meeting, adopted a similar result, embodying the conclusions reached by it on January 18th. Upon the same day the defendant voted to accept the advice of the mutual council to dispense with the services of the plaintiff from that date, and to pay him a sum equivalent to his salary to June 1st, if he would accept it in full settlement, and agree to vacate the parsonage by the latter date. The plaintiff was not thereafter permitted to act as pastor, but he offered his services, and stood ready to render them, until April 1, 1899, and could obtain no employment elsewhere during that period. This suit was brought early in April, 1898. In the first count he asks for his salary to April 1, 1898, and for damages for not giving a promised donation party. In a second count he alleges an employment on January 18, 1898, to act as pastor from April 1, 1898, and a refusal to allow him so to act.

The original contract between the parties constituted a settlement for the term of the plaintiff's life, subject to the provision for terminating the pastoral relation on three months' notice, and also to any right which the church might have to terminate it for cause, in conformity to the rules and usages of the Congregational denomination of Christians. Whitney v. Brooklyn, 5 Conn. 405, 414; Gibbs v. Society, 38 Conn. 153, 166. The vote of the church on Sunday, January 18, 1898, proffered...