Bunnell v. Creacy

• Citation: 266 S.W.2d 98
• Parties: BUNNELL et al. v. CREACY et al. CREACY et al. v. BUNNELL et al.
• Decision Date: 19 March 1954
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 98

266 S.W.2d 98

BUNNELL et al. v. CREACY et al.

CREACY et al. v. BUNNELL et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 19, 1954.

Nicholas & Wilson, Munfordville, Terry L. Hatchett, Glasgow, for Bunnell and others.

Davis Williams, Munfordville, C. B. Larimore, Munfordville, for Creacy and others.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

A division arose in the membership of the Church of Christ at Green's Chapel, in Hart County, and the controversy reached the circuit court in the form of litigation over the right to use the church property. The court adjudged that one group, which for convenience we will call the 'Populists,' was in the majority, and was entitled to first choice in the selection of a worship hour, but that the other group, which we will call the 'Royalists,' also was entitled to use the church for worship services, having second choice in the selection of a worship hour. The 'Royalists' were enjoined from interfering with the 'Populists' in the conduct of the latter's services. Both groups have appealed from the judgment. Motions to dismiss the appeals have been overruled.

It is agreed by all concerned that the Church of Christ at Green's Chapel belongs in the 'congregational' category, in the sense that the local church is supreme in governing its affairs, there being no parent body or superior church authority having jurisdiction over it. See Thomas v. Lewis, 224 Ky. 307, 6 S.W.2d 255. However, there is a very sharp disagreement as to whether the elders are to rule the church, merely seeking expressions of opinion from the congregation, from time to time, on church affairs, or whether the members of the congregation, under a democratic form of government, have the right to vote and to govern the church through the voice of the majority. The 'Royalists' maintain that the church is a 'monarchy,' ruled by the elders by divine right, whereas the 'Populists' insist that the church is a democracy. All of the controversy centers around this one basic disagreement.

The deed by which the church property was conveyed to the trustees of the church does not impress a specific religious trust upon the property, so we are not faced with a question of enforcement of a trust. See Martin v. Kentucky Christian Conference, 255 Ky. 322, 73 S.W.2d 849.

The 'Populists,' who were the plaintiffs below, contend that as a majority of the congregation, they are entitled to control and occupy the church property exclusively, and that KRS 273.120, providing for apportionment of the use of the property in case of a 'division' in a religious society, is not applicable. They rely on the cases, such as Jones v. Johnson, 295 Ky. 707, 175 S.W.2d 370, and Bray v. Moses, 305 Ky. 24, 202 S.W.2d 749, which hold that the statute does not apply to religious societies having the congregational form of government. They also contend that the leader of the 'Royalists,' R. L. Dunagan, has been excommunicated, and therefore neither he nor the preacher selected by him have any right to use the church property.

The 'Royalists' maintain that the 'Populists' have departed from the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Christ, and therefore, under the rule stated in Parker v. Harper, 295 Ky. 686, 175 S.W.2d 361, the 'Royalists,' even though they constitute a minority, are entitled to the church property.

We think it is clear that the court erred in...