Carr Et At v. Union Church Of

• Decision Date: 09 June 1947
• Citation: 42 S.E.2d 840,186 Va. 411
• Parties: CARR et at. v. UNION CHURCH OF HOPEWELL et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

186 Va. 411

42 S.E.2d 840

CARR et at.

v. UNION CHURCH OFHOPEWELL et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 9, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of Hopewell; J. J. Temple, Judge.

Suit by Lewis Carr and Att Claiborne and others against Union Church of Hopewell and others, to set aside all orders and judgments entered in a declaratory judgment proceeding. From an adverse decree, the plaintiffs appeal.

Modified and affirmed.

Before HOLT, C. J., and HUDGINS, GREGORY, BROWNING, EGGLESTON, SPRATLEY and BUCHANAN, JJ.

Hill, Martin & Robinson, of Richmond, for appellants.

Jones & Jones, of Hopewell, for apellees.

GREGORY, Justice.

The appellants claim to be aggrieved by two decrees of the circuit court of the city of Hopewell entered on the 16th day of September, 1946, in which demurrers were sustained to certain allegations of the original bill of complaint and certain allegations of the amended and supplemental bill filed in the cause, and dismissing the latter as to certain of the respondents.

On the first day of May, 1946, the Union Baptist Church of Hopewell, an unincorporated religious association, through its representatives, filed in the circuit court an application for a declaratory judgment against Lewis Carr, Att Clairborne and Walter Shands, in their own right and as the banking committee of the church, and the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Hopewell. In the notice it was alleged that there was an actual antagonistic assertion and denial of right between the parties. The plaintiff asserted that the church had entered into a contract with one J. W. Enochs to construct a church building at a cost of some $10,000, and that this was a valid and binding contract between the church and the said Enochs. It also alleged that the banking committee of the church, composed of Carr, Clairborne and Shands, had refused to obey the orders of the church and had refused to withdraw $3,000 from the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Hopewell and turn it over to be applied as a part payment on the construction contract. The plaintiffs further alleged that the congregation of the church had discharged the banking committee and had appointed in its place another committee composed of Walter Johnson, Walter Shands and Jessie Sessoms, and that the new committee had the right and was vested with the authority to withdraw the said $3,000 from the banking institution, and turn it over to the building contractor.

Carr and Clairborne filed an answer on their behalf in which they acquiesced in the procedure that had been adopted. They did not deny that there was an actual antagonistic controversy existing between the parties, but did deny that there was a valid contract between the church and the con-tractor, Enochs. They also denied that the old banking committee had been legally discharged and the new committee legally appointed. They asserted that the new committee had no authority to withdraw the funds of the church from the bank and to pay them over to the contractor.

The matter was set for hearing on the 29th day of May, 1946, at which time all parties appeared in court in person and by counsel, and were prepared to present numerous witnesses and other evidence. However, the parties agreed that there were only two issues to be decided and that they could be rightfully decided by the church congregation. Thereupon, at the request of counsel for both sides, the court entered a consent order endorsed by them on May 29, 1946. In the order it was agreed that there should be submitted to the congregation, first, "Is it the will of the congregation of said church that the banking committee of said church shall turn over to the building committee of said church forthwith the sum of $3,000 to apply on the acquisition of land and the building of a church as is set forth in the contract between the church and the contractor, Enochs?" and secondly, "Is it the will of the congregation of the church that Lewis Carr and Att Clairborne be replaced on the banking committee by Jessie Sessoms and Walter Johnson?"

In accordance with the agreed order the church held a meeting of the congregation at the time and place agreed upon and voted on the two questions. The result of the vote was overwhelmingly in the affirmative and the minister, in acordance with the agreement of the parties, reported to the court that the vote of the congregation was in favor of the banking committee turning over to the building committee forthwith the sum of $3,000 to be applied on the purchase of the land and the costs of the construction of the church in accordance with the contract with Enochs, and that it was also the sense of the congregation that Lewis Carr and Att Clairborne be replaced by Jessie Sessoms and Walter Johnson on the banking committee.

Thereafter the appellants filed a petition in said cause alleging that at said meeting they were not permitted to ask questions explain their positions to the other members of the congregation, or to present their views to said congregation, and therefore the meeting had been unfairly conducted. For this alleged reason they withdrew from the meeting and refused to participate therein. The court, on June 18, 1946, denied the said petition and adjudicated that the appellants had been ousted from their office, and they were ordered to deliver to the building committee the funds.

There was no provision in the consent order of submission to the congregation for a discussion of the two issues nor for the right to...