Elston v. Wilborn

• Decision Date: 26 March 1945
• Docket Number: No. 4-7568.,4-7568.
• Citation: 186 S.W.2d 662
• Parties: ELSTON et al. v. WILBORN et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

186 S.W.2d 662

ELSTON et al. v. WILBORN et al.

No. 4-7568.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 26, 1945.

Rehearing Denied April 23, 1945.

Appeal from Woodruff Chancery Court; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor.

Action of ejectment by Harvey Lee Wilborn and others against Jesse Elston and others, claiming that plaintiffs were entitled to possession of church building and property, wherein defendants filed a cross-complaint and moved to transfer the case to equity, which was done. From an adverse decree, defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

Ross Mathis, of Cotton Plant, for appellants.

W. J. Dungan, of Augusta, for appellees.

McFADDIN, Justice.

This appeal involves a dispute between rival factions of a Negro Congregation in Cotton Plant, Arkansas. Many questions are mentioned by appellants, such as the calculation and disposition of the tithe, the form of church government, the right of the pastor to "disfellowship" a member, and other issues of doctrine. Judicial tribunals must leave such matters to ecclesiastical writers. In the United States of America, where Church and State are separate, the courts have steadily asserted their refusal to determine any controversy relating purely to ecclesiastical or spiritual features of a church or religious society. The courts intervene only to protect the temporalities of such bodies, and to determine property rights. 45 Am.Juris. 768.

The decree of the chancery court held that the church here involved — i.e., the Church of God in Christ at Cotton Plant — was a congregational church; and in that one finding both sides seemed to agree.

So far as we know, churches in the United States may be classified, as regards the form of church government, into four groups: papal, episcopal, presbyterial, and congregational. See Encyclopedia Britannica 14th Ed.: Vol. 17, p. 194 et seq.; Vol. 8, p. 659; Vol. 18 p. 440 et seq.; Vol. 6, p. 246 et seq.; see also Encyclopedia Americana 1937 Ed.: Vol. 21, p. 251; Vol. 10, p. 429; Vol. 22, p. 540; and Vol. 7. p. 501. This is a controversy between factions in a congregational group, and nothing herein relates to religious societies or churches governed by any one of the other forms of church government. In congregational groups the affairs are determined by the vote of the majority of the members. The rule is stated in 45 Am.Juris. 764: "Thus, when a church, strictly congregational or independent in its organization, is governed solely within itself, either by majority of its membership or by such other local organism as it may have instituted for the purpose of ecclesiastical government, and holds property either by way of purchase or donation, with no other specific trust attached to it than that it is for the use of the church, the numerical majority of the membership of the church may ordinarily control the right to the use and title of such property. The principle of majority control is, however, limited to independent or congregational societies, and is not to be extended to societies belonging to an ecclesiastical system."

For cases in our own court involving congregational church government, see Monk v. Little, 122 Ark. 7, 182 S.W. 511, and Young v. Knox, 165 Ark. 129, 263 S.W. 52. With the above as background information, we proceed to this case.

The appellees are Harvey Lee Wilborn, James Prator, and Otis Hampton. They filed this action in ejectment in December, 1941, claiming to be the trustees of the Church of God in Christ at Cotton Plant, and, as such trustees, to be the owners and entitled to possession of the church building and property. These plaintiffs alleged that the defendants wrongfully withheld possession. Defendants (appellants here) were Jesse Elston, Johel Leaks, and J. E. Bowe. There were other defendants, but they are not interested in this appeal. The defendants filed answer and cross-complaint, and moved to transfer the case to equity, which was done; and issue was joined on which group — plaintiffs or defendants — represented the majority faction in the church.

The chancery court, after hearing the evidence, made an order on June 13, 1944, calling an election to determine the majority faction. Commissioners were appointed to hold the election, and it was set for August 13, 1944 at the church building; and only those persons who were members of the Church of God in Christ at Cotton Plant on June 1, 1941 were eligible to vote in the election. The purpose of the election was to name three trustees of the congregation. On September 11, 1944 the report of the election was received by the court, and on that report the chancery court entered a final decree holding the appellees to have been duly elected, and awarded the appellees, as such trustees, the church property because of the said election. From that decree there is this appeal.

The issue to be tried in the chancery court was whether the plaintiffs, at the time of filing the suit, were the duly elected trustees of the church. If they were, they had the right to maintain this suit. Section 11369, Pope's Digest. Otherwise the...