Cheshire v. Giles

• Decision Date: 18 March 1926
• Citation: 132 S.E. 479
• Parties: CHESHIRE et al. v. GILES et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

132 S.E. 479

CHESHIRE et al.

v.GILES et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

March 18, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County.

Suit by G. A. Giles and others against J. W. Cheshire and others. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Gravely & Carter and John R. Smith, all of Martinsville, for appellants.

Taylor & Broaddus, of Martinsville, and Hooker & Sanford, of Stuart, for appellees.

PRENTIS, P. This is an unfortunate controversy between the members, or former members, of the Martinsville Primitive Baptist Church as to the ownership of the church building. Those who profess faith in a common Lord and Master have for slight reasons prolonged an unfortunate controversy, instead of waiving their relatively inconsequential differences of opinion and agreeing to live in peace as brethren.

This, a suit in equity, was instituted by G. A. Giles, J. W. Shumate, and J. B. Wade, claiming as trustees of the Primitive Baptist Church of Martinsville, for themselves and all other members of that church of like faith and order (who will hereinafter be called the Giles or minority faction), against John W. Cheshire and others (who will be called the Cheshire or majority faction). Cheshire is the only surviving original trustee named in the deed conveying the property. The deed recites that the property is conveyed to the trustees of the Primitive Baptist Church of Martinsville and their successors forever.

The bill alleges that a contention and division has occurred in the congregation, primarily over points of doctrine and articlesof faith, and secondarily over its rules of practice and government, and the complainants allege that they, together with many other members of the congregation, are contending for what they consider the true rules of government and the true doctrines of faith of the Primitive Baptist Church, while the other faction denies these doctrines of faith and rules of government.

The specification of this general averment is that on September 3, 1923, the Cheshire faction elected a moderator, and seated in its councils, and authorized to preach to its congregation, Rev. J. R. Wilson, who a short time before had been excluded from membership in the Primitive Baptist Church because of his departure from the true doctrines, faith, practice, and rules of government of a Primitive Baptist church, and because of his contemptuous conduct towards those in the church who opposed him. They then allege that by implied, if not express, agreement, the differences between these two factions were submitted to the Pigg River Association, and that this association reported in favor of the Giles, or minority, faction; that the Cheshire faction has the keys to the church building and exclusive possession of it; and they pray thus:

"Your complainants are advised that the test of true membership of any church is the acceptance of its faith and conformity to its rules of government; that the aid of a court of equity cannot be invoked to decide exclusive ecclesiastical questions of doctrine, faith, practice, and rules of government. And they are advised further that if said church property was conveyed in trust for the use and benefit of the Primitive Baptist Church of Martinsville, and that if they and all other members of like faith and order are recognized and declared by the proper ecclesiastical authority as being the orderly Primitive Baptist Church of Martinsville, which your complainants reiterate that said district association is the recognized authority to decide such questions, then your complainants are the rightful owners of said property, and it should be so declared by this honorable court."

There was a demurrer to the bill, which we think was properly overruled, because in substance it charges a diversion of the trust property. Wade v. Hancock, 76 Va. 627.

The evidence fails to support many of the intimations and allegations of the bill. For instance, there is little as to the differences between the two factions over points of doctrine and articles of faith, and that little is difficult to comprehend. The real controversy grows out of the fact that Wilson, who was already the moderator or pastor of the Martinsville church, had been excluded from membership in his own church at Danville, and after Wilson's explanation before the Martinsville church the majority permitted him to preach to them and continue as their pastor. It is abundantly shown in the record that each congregation in this denomination is independent and has absolute control over its property and internal affairs. Each congregation is an independent sovereign body, subject to no higher ecclesiastical authority, and each is the final judge of the true faith, doctrine, and practice of the church. Primitive Baptist associations, on the other hand, are mere voluntary associations of a number of churches for the purpose of worship and consultation through delegates to the association, and have no power as to differences between members of the individual congregations except to advise. This independence is thus expressed in Hassell's History, at page 292:

"Especially does the language of Christ in Matthew 18, 15-18, demonstrate that the church is the highest and the last ecclesiastical authority on earth; that there can be no appeal, under the law of Christ, from the decision of the church to a presbytery, or a synod, or general assembly, or conference, or convention, or priesthood, or prelacy, or papacy, or association, or any other earthly authority."

This independence and the relation of each independent church to that association is thus expressed by Rev. Randolph Perdue, moderator of the Pigg River Association:

"A Primitive Baptist association is an agreement of churches coming together in unity of faith and doctrine for mutual spiritual benefit, and is...