Christian Church of Huntsville v. Sommer

• Decision Date: 05 February 1907
• Citation: 43 So. 8,149 Ala. 145
• Parties: CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF HUNTSVILLE ET AL. v. SOMMER ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

43 So. 8

149 Ala. 145

CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF HUNTSVILLE ET AL. v. SOMMER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 5, 1907

Appeal from Chancery Court, Madison County; W. H. Simpson Chancellor.

Suit by the Christian Church of Huntsville, Ala., and others, against Daniel Sommer and others. From a decree sustaining demurrers and a motion to dismiss for want of equity, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

This is a bill filed by the trustees of the Christian Church of Huntsville, Ala., against certain members of a church alleged to be an independent church and having no connection with or right to the church building concerning which this bill is filed. It is alleged that the Christian denomination, known as the Disciples of Christ, is congregational in its nature and creation, with no sovereign power independent of its own membership, but that it is governed exclusively by the will of its members in good standing, with no superior or directing power other than is found in the government of the church by its own membership. It is alleged that the defendants were formerly members of the congregation worshiping in the church building concerning which this bill is filed, but that they voluntarily withdrew from said congregation, releasing their membership therein, two years or more ago, and since their said voluntary withdrawal they have no connection with the said congregation, with no right of association therein, and no duties and obligations of said congregation resting upon them. It is further alleged that since their withdrawal from the congregation worshiping in the said church building, they have associated themselves into an independent church relation, wholly disconnected from the church building owned by orators, and have been conducting worship in the City Hall and elsewhere in the city of Huntsville. It is further alleged that Cambron, one of the defendants, is an elder in the church; that he resides in the state of Tennessee, but that for several months he has been preaching and has had charge of the Christian Church at Dallas, a suburb of Huntsville, and has also had charge of the independent church worshiping in the City Hall at Huntsville. The defendant Daniel Sommer is alleged to reside in the city of Indianapolis, but that he is temporarily in the city of Huntsville by invitation of the members of the independent church organization preaching to them; that the defendants Cambron and Sommer, under an assumed authority but without legal right or excuse, demanded of orators the keys to the church building, but were refused said keys whereupon the defendant and other members of said independent church organization forcibly broke into said church building on Sunday April 10, 1904, and unlawfully entered therein. The said defendants, under pretense of holding a church meeting and worshiping God, proceeded to change the locks on said church building, and without authority or legal excuse, and in the absence of the congregation entitled to worship in the said church building, attempted to depose the legally elected and constituted trustees of the said church organization, a corporation as aforesaid. The said defendants, after the commission of the trespass upon said church property, locked the doors of the church building, and denied admission to the legally constituted trustees (orators), and the said defendants proposed to elect trustees and oust the legally elected trustees of the said Christian Church; that defendants do threaten and have threatened a further trespass upon said church building, invading the rights of orators and defying the rights of said trustees, and claiming the right to hold worship in said church building, and to expel your orators from said congregation, and to depose them as trustees of your orator the Christian Church of Huntsville Ala. It is further alleged that a demand has been made to open the doors of the church by the defendants, and that, if the demand is not withdrawn, there will be a breach of the peace in the house of God; that every attempt of the constituted authorities to hold a meeting for the worship of God is interfered with by defendants. An injunction is prayed to restrain any further trespass, and to restrain any interference with the legally constituted authorities in the management of the property, etc. The motion to dismiss for want...