Davis v. Ross, 4 Div. 607
| Decision Date | 17 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 607 |
| Parties | DAVIS et al. v. ROSS et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Douglas Brown and Val L. McGee, Ozark, E. O. Baldwin, Andalusia, and Crews Johnston, Clayton, for appellants.
W. R. Martin and Chas. O. Stokes, Ozark, for appellees.
This appeal is from an interlocutory decretal order overruling a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction restraining two of the appellants from conducting services in, or going upon, the church building of Haven Chapel A. M. E. Church of America.
As finally amended the bill was filed by M. Ross and some twenty-five other individuals, as members and trustees of Haven Chapel A. M. E. Church of America, a voluntary unincorporated religious society. The defendants are A. A. Davis, David Hamilton and three other individuals. Davis is a presiding elder and Hamilton a preacher in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Conference, alleged to be nonmembers of Haven Chapel A. M. E. Church, and nonresidents of the county in which the suit is brought and the church and its property are located. The other three defendants are members of the Haven Chapel Church.
Some years previous to the events giving rise to this litigation, the Haven Chapel congregation withdrew from a church under the jurisdiction of and connected with African Methodist Episcopal Church Conference, acquired a tract of land and erected a church building and began and continued to function as an independent congregational church, without affiliation with any highter judicatory. Subsequently a schism or division arose in the society with respect to the then pastor of the church, one Burkett. The pastor was deposed, but the difference persisted between factions of the membership. Finally a meeting of the society was called by the complainant trustees to be held in the church to consider, among other things, possible affiliation with another, perhaps local, union. Due to activity on the part of Burkett and his wife prior to the meeting, the meeting was attended by a large number of persons, members and nonmembers, including the Burketts, Davis and Hamilton. All of these, it is alleged, had conspired together to accomplish the affiliation of Haven Chapel Church with African Methodist Episcopal Church Conference, to make it a subordinate body under jurisdiction and control of said Conference, its pastors to be selected by the Conference rather than by choice of the society, and to effect the transfer of Haven Chapel Church property to said Conference. In carrying out such purpose the pro-affiliating faction, members and nonmembers, dominated the meeting and obtained a vote in agreement with their purposes. By the unlawful and unauthorized manner in which the meeting was conducted, it is alleged, the will and wish of the loyal and faithful majority of the society was overriden and denied. Thereafter, the pro-affiliate faction proceeded to elect new trustees and other officers of the church and to take over by force and unlawfully the church property, excluding the complainants from the use of the property they had themselves, with other members, acquired and had used for religious purposes. Davis and Hamilton, it appears, took possession of the church property by breaking locks which had been placed thereon by complainant trustees.
The bill sought a temporary injunction restraining Davis and Hamilton, individually, or any agent, servant, employee or appointee of African Methodist Episcopal Church Conference from conducting services in said church building belonging to Haven Chapel A. M. E. Church of America, or using the same for any purpose whatever, or from going upon or trespassing on said property in any manner whatsoever. The bill contained a prayer for this and other relief on final hearing of the cause. The temporary injunction was granted as prayed. Defendants filed answer denying the allegations of the bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Tatum (Ex parte Tatum)
...Separation of Church and StateCourts refrain from inserting themselves into disputes between rival church factions. Davis v. Ross, 255 Ala. 668, 671, 53 So.2d 544, 546 (1951). "As is the case with all churches, the courts will not assume jurisdiction, in fact ha[ve] none, to resolve dispute......
-
Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church
...was conducted so improperly as to render its results void. See Barton v. Fitzpatrick, 187 Ala. 273, 65 So. 390 (1914); Davis v. Ross, 255 Ala. 668, 53 So.2d 544 (1951); In re Galilee Baptist Church, 279 Ala. 393, 186 So.2d 102 (1966); Abyssinia Missionary Baptist Church v. Nixon, 340 So.2d ......
-
Parker v. EBSCO Industries, Inc.
...of the injunction on the one hand, or its dissolution on the other. State v. Simonetti, Inc., 273 Ala. 571, 143 So.2d 444; Davis v. Ross, 255 Ala. 668, 53 So.2d 544. Apart from the question of the area or territory, we think it is apparent from our statement of the allegations that the bill......
-
Williams v. Jones
...use and possession of church property. Christian Church v. Sommer, supra; Ashworth v. Brown, 240 Ala. 164, 198 So. 135; Davis v. Ross, 255 Ala. 668, 53 So.2d 544. In Harris v. Cosby, 173 Ala. 81, 55 So. 231, it is pointed out that courts, following the United States Supreme Court in Watson ......