Boyles v. Roberts

Decision Date08 June 1909
Citation121 S.W. 805,222 Mo. 613
PartiesBOYLES et al. v. ROBERTS et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

The constitution of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church provides that, upon recommendation of the General Assembly by a two-thirds vote of the members thereof, the Confession of Faith, Catechism, constitution, and rules of discipline may be amended or changed, when a majority of the Presbyteries, upon the same being transmitted for their action, shall approve thereof. A plan for the union of the Cumberland Church with the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America involved the surrender of the name and organization of the Cumberland Church, and also the acceptance by the Cumberland Church of the doctrines and Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, as revised in 1903, and of its doctrinal and ecclesiastical standards. The only part of the plan, however, submitted to the Presbyteries of the Cumberland Church, was embraced in the question, to which they were required to return a categorical answer, whether the Presbyteries were in favor of the union on the basis of the revised Confession of Faith, etc. Held, that, under the Cumberland constitution, its General Assembly had no power, without submitting the matter to the Presbyteries, to surrender the name and organization of the church and to dissolve it by consenting to its absorption by the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America.

14. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 34) — UNION — RIGHT TO GO INTO OTHER CHURCH.

The powers given by the constitution of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church to its General Assembly to concert measures for the enlargement of the church and to receive "under its jurisdiction" other ecclesiastical bodies whose organization conforms to the doctrines and order of that church, when fairly construed, mean, first, that by work in different ways the General Assembly shall strive to secure individual members to join and thus enlarge the church, and, second, to receive other bodies of a similar faith and government; and the constitution, having mentioned the specific way by which mergers or unions can be formed with the church—that is, by receiving other bodies "under its jurisdiction" —excludes the idea of enlargement by the Cumberland Church going in under another organization, and does not admit of a surrender of its organization, name, or creed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

15. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 34) — UNION — POWER OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

There having been nothing in the original act of organization of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church that indicated a purpose to unite with or become merged into the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, it cannot be implied that the power to effect such a union or merger was given to the Cumberland General Assembly at the beginning of its organization, and there have been no additional powers given since.

16. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 34) — UNION — VALIDITY.

The theory that the power of the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was derived, not from the people composing the church, but from the Divine Founder, cannot be invoked to sustain an otherwise unauthorized union of the Cumberland Church with the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, involving the surrender of the name and organization of the Cumberland Church, and also the acceptance by it of the doctrines and Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, as revised in 1903, and its doctrinal and ecclesiastical standards; for the church has its laws written by men, and the courts can only interpret them as the work of men.

17. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 28)—ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNALS.

The interpretation put upon its dogmas by the church itself is binding on its own members, but not on those who are not members; and a person outside may put his own interpretation on them, and govern himself accordingly.

18. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 24)—ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNALS—REVIEW BY COURTS.

In a case involving title to property, if a question arises as to the meaning of clauses in the Confession of Faith of a church and if the parties litigant are all members of the church, the courts will adopt as conclusive the interpretation which the highest ecclesiastical court of that church has put upon the clauses; but, if the parties on one side are not members of the church, the courts must take the Confession of Faith and interpret it as they would any other instrument.

Woodson and Lamm, JJ., dissenting.

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Cooper County; Wm. H. Martin, Judge.

Action by C. A. Boyles and others against J. L. Roberts and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

W. C. Caldwell, E. B. Green, Robt. Reynolds, W. G. & G. T. Pendleton, and Jas. A. Kemper, for appellants. J. W. Suddath, O. L. Houts, W. M. Williams, and J. M. Gaut, for appellees.

GRAVES, J.

This is one of the numerous cases in the different states which resulted from what is called a union between the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, alleged to have been consummated in the year 1906. Both were voluntary, unincorporated religious societies. The Presbyterian Church of the United States of America has for its foundation the Westminster Confession of Faith, known alike to profane and ecclesiastical history. In what was known as the "great revival" of 1800, which spread over Kentucky, Tennessee, and other portions of the South, and in which Dr. McGready was one of the leading spirits, so great was the demand for the Gospel, that the more educated and intelligent laymen of devout character were called and did preach. This revival, as we gather from the early history of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, was opposed by many of the straighter-laced Presbyterians, and the same opposed the uneducated ministers, who in the course of this great revival had buckled on their armor and hied to the field of action. In Cumberland Presbytery the "Revival Party," as it was called, was strongly in the ascendency, and this Presbytery had dared to send forth some of their educated laity to preach. In 1805 the Synod of Kentucky, under whose jurisdiction was the Cumberland Presbytery, appointed a commission of ten ministers and six elders to meet at Gasper River meeting house and investigate the proceedings of Cumberland Presbytery. The "An...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Barkley v. Hayes
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • August 16, 1913
    ...in this case does not measure up to that standard. Finally, it is urged that the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri in Boyles v. Roberts, supra, should be binding this court in the cases at bar. That decision cannot be accorded such force. There is identity neither in parties, subjec......
  • Holiman v. Dovers
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1963
    ...merger with another denomination, the local church has a right not only to secede but also to retain its property. Boyles v. Roberts, 222 Mo. 613, 121 S.W. 805. Thus the differences in the form of church government do affect the procedure by which a property dispute may reach the courts, bu......
  • Heartland Presbytery v. Gashland Presbyterian Church
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 2012
    ...to determine property rights. If for that purpose it should be required, our constitutional duty is to so investigate. Boyles v. Roberts, 222 Mo. 613, 121 S.W. 805, 811 (Mo. banc 1909); see also id. at 813 (“in such investigation of property rights the courts will take and compare the two c......
  • Gudmundson v. Thingvalla Lutheran Church
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1914
    ...the new doctrine, if any, is not taught by any Lutheran church. Bennett v. Morgan, 112 Ky. 512, 66 S.W. 287, headnote 1; Boyles v. Roberts, 222 Mo. 613, 121 S.W. 807. Even the defendants had adopted a new doctrine of inspiration, it could not be regarded as a substantial departure, as adher......
  • 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