Bailey v. Washington

• Decision Date: 01 December 1938
• Docket Number: 5 Div. 283.
• Citation: 185 So. 172,236 Ala. 674
• Parties: BAILEY ET AL. v. WASHINGTON ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

185 So. 172

236 Ala. 674

BAILEY ET AL. v. WASHINGTON ET AL.

5 Div. 283.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 1, 1938

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; W. B. Bowling, Judge.

Bill by L. H. Bailey and others against G. W. Washington and others to enjoin trespasses upon church property. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

D. T Ware, of Roanoke, and Chas. S. Moon, of Lafayette, for appellants.

H. T Burns, of Wedowee, for appellees.

KNIGHT Justice.

Bill in equity filed by complainants, appellants here, styling themselves Elders and Trustees of the Church of Christ at Haywood, in Randolph County, Alabama, against the appellees praying injunctive relief against certain alleged trespasses committed by the respondents in taking possession of the church building, and excluding the complainants therefrom.

In the bill it is averred that the said Church of Christ "owns a church building and grounds upon which said church building is located and that the said Church of Christ is an organization of Christians and said premises is (are) used by said church for the worship of its members and said complainants are the custodians of said described property."

The equity of the bill is grounded upon the following averments, which we here quote:

"Complainants further state and aver that George Washington, Arthur Washington, Lula Washington and Dovie McRight, the respondents, have, without the consent and over the protest of the complainants, taken possession of said Church and conduct services to their own pleasure in same and use same for any purpose that they see fit and complainants further aver and state that said respondents are not members of the Church of Christ and are trespassers upon the property of the Church of Christ of which your complainants are the duly elected and selected officials and complainants further state and aver that said respondents have locked the doors to said church, nailed down the windows and your complainants are precluded from the free use of their property and control of same.

"Your complainants further state and aver that they have no other remedy in which to obtain the free use of their property for worship as desired, that a court of equity and an injunction to restrain respondents from interfering with the rights of ownership, control and custody of said property is necessary for complainants to obtain the free use, control and custody of said property."

The prayer of the bill is as follows: "The premises considered, complainants pray that a writ of injunction may be granted by this court restraining and enjoining the said George Washington, Arthur Washington, Lula Washington and Dovie McRight individually, or any agent or servant of said respondents collectively or separately, from conducting services in said church or the use of same for any purpose, or from going upon or trespassing upon said property, and complainants further pray that this Court will grant a temporary injunction restraining and enjoining said George Washington, Arthur Washington, Lula Washington and Dovie McRight from going upon or trespassing upon said property, or from conducting services in said church or using same for any purpose pending a final hearing in this cause and upon a final hearing of this cause complainants pray that said respondents as above named be forever enjoined and restrained from going upon said property, or conducting services of any nature or character upon same, or the use of said property for any purpose."

In their answer, the respondents denied the material allegations of the bill, and called "for strict proof thereof."

Upon final hearing, upon the pleadings and proof, the court dismissed the bill, reciting in its decree that the complainants had not made out such a case as entitled them to the relief sought. From this decree the complainants prosecute the present appeal.

It does not appear any where in the bill whether the church in question is an incorporated body, or merely a voluntary association of religious worshippers, nor is the church made a party to the proceedings. The bill also wholly fails to describe the property upon which the trespasses are alleged to have been committed, and against which relief is sought.

The church, whether an incorporated body, or a voluntary association of persons, is a necessary party to any proceedings affecting its properties. If simply a voluntary association, it may nevertheless sue or be sued in its association name. Code, §§ 5723, 5724; Sentell et al. v. Friendship Baptist Church, 214 Ala. 584, 108 So. 517. Likewise, the property upon which it is alleged the trespass was committed should have been described, otherwise a decree undertaking to grant relief could not be made operative.

This Court is firmly committed to the proposition that, as regards the purely ecclesiastical or spiritual feature of the church, the civil courts are without jurisdiction to hear and determine any controversy pertaining thereto. Hundley v. Collins, 131 Ala. 234, 32 So. 575, 90 Am.St.Rep. 33; State ex rel. McNeill v. Bibb Street Church,

84 Ala. 23, 4 So. 40; Christian Church of Huntsville et al. v Sommer, 149 Ala. 145, 43 So. 8, 8 L.R.A.,N.S., 1031, 123 Am.St.Rep. 27. But, on the other hand, the civil ...