Evangelical Lutheran St. Paul's Congregation v. Hass

• Decision Date: 11 April 1922
• Citation: 187 N.W. 677,177 Wis. 23
• Parties: EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN ST. PAUL'S CONGREGATION v. HASS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

177 Wis. 23

187 N.W. 677

EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN ST. PAUL'S CONGREGATION

v.HASS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 11, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Waukesha County; Charles M. Davison, Judge.

Suit by the Evangelical Lutheran St. Paul's Congregation against W. P. Hass. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action by the plaintiff congregation, an independent religious organization, to compel the defendant, who had served as its pastor from August 25, 1918, up to October 21, 1921, to deliver up to it all property belonging to the organization in his hand, by reason of his having been its pastor, and perpetually enjoining him from in any manner in future interfering with any of the property or functions of the congregation or of assuming or exercising the functions of its pastor.

The complaint alleged that on October 21, 1921, the congregation lawfully discharged the defendant as its pastor and so duly notified him. The answer denies that defendant was duly discharged, and claims that he is still the lawful pastor of the plaintiff. The trial court found as facts:

“(1) That the plaintiff has been for many years, and was at the time of the commencement of this action, and at all times herein mentioned was, and now is a corporation for religious purposes organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Wisconsin, and is located in the city of Oconomowoc, Waukesha county, Wis.

(2) That said plaintiff has a very large congregation with a membership of communicants of about 700, and a membership entitled to vote under its organization and rules and regulations and constitution of about 200, and is the owner of property devoted to its purposes to the value of nearly $100,000.

(3) That the organization of said plaintiff is congregational in character; that is, it is not subordinate to, connected with, or controlled by any synod or organization of other churches or congregations or any superior or governing body of any kind whatsoever.

(4) That under the constitution of the plaintiff the governing power or body of the plaintiff is a majority of the voting members of the congregation itself; that all temporal questions and all ecclesiastical and congregational affairs are under its constitution to be settled and determined by the vote of a majority of the voting members of the congregation; that a majority of the voting members of the congregation have the sole power to employ, hire, and remove or discharge a minister or pastor; that, among other things, the constitution provides that a pastor may be removed for proven willful unfaithfulness in the performance of his office.

(5) That the constitution of the plaintiff further provides that no action by committees or a minority or less than the whole body of the congregation in meeting shall be binding upon the congregation, and that all matters referred to or acted upon by a committee or less than the whole of the congregation in meeting assembled (that is, a quorum thereof) must at all times be referred to and brought before the congregation for a final decision.

(6) That the constitution also contains a provision for the appointment of arbitrators in certain cases therein specified, and provides that such arbitrators shall consist of three pastors and four laymen, each of the opposing parties to select one pastor and two laymen, and the two selected pastors to appoint the third.

(7) That it was the dominant thought, purpose, meaning, and intention of the framers of the constitution to settle all ecclesiastical and congregational affairs, and especially the selection or removal of the pastor or teacher, should be solely in a majority of the voting members of the congregation, and not elsewhere, and that the constitution of the plaintiff does in fact so provide; that the provision of the constitution for the appointment of arbitrators was not intended to and does not cover the matter of the removal of a pastor or teacher.

(8) That on the 25th day of August, 1918, the plaintiff extended a call to the defendant to become its pastor in accordance with the provisions of its constitution as hereinbefore found, and that the defendant accepted said call and entered upon the performance of the duties of his employment; that said call was in fact a temporal contract of hiring, and not a divine call.

(9) That about the month of February, 1921, charges were made by members of the congregation that the defendant had been willfully unfaithful in the performance of his office; that said charges were made verbally in numerous meetings of the congregation, and that the facts constituting such willful unfaithfulness in performance of his office were fully and repeatedly stated in such meetings of the congregation in the presence of the defendant; that he had from the beginning full and complete knowledge as to the facts with which he was charged and which facts it was claimed by his accusers constituted his willful unfaithfulness in the performance of his office; that during numerous meetings of the congregation between about the 1st of February, 1921, and about the 1st of August, 1921, said charges and facts constituting the same were repeatedly and fully discussed and considered in repeated and numerous meetings of the congregation both by those who made and supported said charges and those who denied the sufficiency or validity thereof including the defendant himself.

(10) That shortly prior to August 1st said charges were before the congregation for consideration; that at a meeting of the congregation it was decided to call upon a board of arbitration to consider said charges and advise the congregation; that thereafter a board of arbitration was selected, but that said board of arbitration was not selected in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of the plaintiff, in that the action of the church council to whom the matter of appointing arbitrators was referred did not report their action back to the congregation, and in that their action was not at any time brought before the congregation for a final decision; that a board of arbitration, so called, consisting of three pastors and four laymen, was appointed or selected by the church council without having such appointment or selection referred back to and brought before the congregation for a final decision, and that in fact such so-called board of arbitration was selected in its entirety by said church council; that on August 18, 1921, written charges charging the defendant with willful unfaithfulness in the performance of his office were presented to and filed with said so-called board of arbitration; that said so-called board of arbitration at all its meetings met with the voting members of the congregation of the plaintiff either at regularly called meetings of said congregation or at due adjournments of regularly called meetings thereof; that the charges filed in writing as aforesaid, with the specifications of fact upon which the general charge was based, were the same identical accusations of fact which had been under consideration and discussion by the congregation and the defendant in meetings of the congregation between about February 1, 1921, and about August 1, 1921, as hereinbefore found; that the defendant was for many months prior to the action of the congregation upon said charges as hereinafter found fully cognizant thereof and was in no manner taken by surprise; that, on the contrary, he had full and complete opportunity to examine said charge, prepare his defense, and be heard thereon; that on the second occasion when said so-called board of arbitration met with the said congregation as hereinbefore found, and before the actual consideration of the merits of said charges was entered upon the question was raised as to whether the decision, findings, or report of said so-called board of arbitration would be final and conclusive upon the question of the validity of said charges and the removal of the pastor, the defendant, or advisory to the congregation merely; that it was finally agreed without dissent in said meeting of the congregation with said board present, and was so announced to the congregation and all concerned, including the defendant, who was present, by the chairman of said board, who was also acting as chairman of the meeting of the congregation at the time, that the decision, report or findings which...