Cheshire v. Giles

• Decision Date: 18 March 1926
• Citation: 144 Va. 253
• Parties: J. W. CHESHIRE, ET ALS. v. G. A. GILES, ET ALS.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 253

144 Va. 253

J. W. CHESHIRE, ET ALS. v. G. A. GILES, ET ALS.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

March 18, 1926.

Absent, West, J.

1. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES — Division in Congregation — Property Rights — Demurrer to Bill — Case at Bar. — The instant case was a suit in equity, instituted by complainants claiming as trustees of a church, against the only surviving original trustee named in the deed conveying the property and others. The bill alleged that a division had occurred in the congregation and that complainants were contending for the true doctrines of the church while defendants denied these doctrines. Complainants alleged that they were the rightful owners of the church property and prayed that they should be so declared by the court. There was a demurrer to the bill.

Held: That the demurrer was properly overruled because in substance the bill charged a diversion of the trust property.

2. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES — Division in Church — Property Rights. — The instant suit was a bill by a minority faction in a church against the majority faction, to recover possession of the church property. Each congregation of the church was an independent body subject to no higher ecclesiastical authority. The minority faction was sustained by a number of associations of the church excluding the majority faction and their parson from fellowship and recognizing the minority as worthy of continued association and fellowship.

Held: That as each congregation was independent, the decree of the trial court in favor of complainants, the minority faction, and that the majority must surrender the property, was error.

3. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES — Section Forty of the Code of 1919 — Division of Church Property. — Where no breach of trust or diversion of church property on the part of the majority faction of a church is shown, section forty of the Code of 1919 providing that in case of division in an independent church, a majority of the members of such congregation shall decide the right, title and control of the property of the congregation, governs the instant case, a proceeding between contending factions of a Primitive Baptist Church.

4. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES — Division in Independent Church — Limitation on Rights of Majority. — If a trust is confided to a religious congregation of the independent or congregational form of church government, it is not in the power of the majority of that congregation, however preponderant, by reason of a change of views on religious subjects, to carry the property so confided to them to the support of new and conflicting doctrines.

5. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES — Division in Independent Congregation — Burden of Proof. — In a suit between contending factions of an independent congregation, a Primitive Baptist Church, where nothing has been done or said by the majority faction which could by any fair construction be held to indicate any substantial change in their views as to the fundamentals of the Primitive Baptist doctrine and faith, the burden of proof is upon the minority faction, the complainants, to show such change. The distribution of the property is controlled by section forth of the Code of 1919.

6. APPEAL AND ERROR — Religious Societies — Contest Between Factions of a Church — Remand for Attempts of Reconciliation. — The instant suit was between two contending factions in an independent church, and as under section forty of the Code of 1919, the majority faction was entitled to the control and disposition of the church property, this conclusion logically would lead to a reversal of the decree in favor of the minority and a dismission of the bill. Inasmuch, however, as the minority faction has been recognized by the association of churches of the denomination which possibly entitles them to be further heard, and as there is nothing in the record from which it could be concluded that a reconciliation in whole or in part of some of these unhappy differences is impossible, the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the decree but remanded the cause for further proceedings, this course being in accordance with the rule that when a court of equity has once acquired jurisdiction it may proceed to a complete adjudication.

Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Henry county. Decree for complainants. Defendants appeal.

The opinion states the case.

Gravely & Carter and John R. Smith, for the appellants.

Taylor & Broaddus and Hooker & Sanford, for the appellees.

PRENTIS, P., delivered the opinion of the court.

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 articles of 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, the 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...