First Regular Baptist Church v. Allison

• Citation: 154 A. 913,304 Pa. 1
• Decision Date: 11 May 1931
• Docket Number: 168,172
• Parties: First Regular Baptist Church v. Allison (et al., Appellants)
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

154 A. 913

304 Pa. 1

First Regular Baptist Church v. Allison (et al., Appellants)

Nos. 168, 172

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 11, 1931

Argued March 24, 1931

Appeals, Nos. 168 and 172, March T., 1930, by certain of defendants, from decrees of C.P. Indiana Co., June T., 1929 No. 1, for plaintiffs on bill in equity, in case of the First Regular Baptist Church of Indiana, Penna., v. Harry Allison et al. Decree modified and affirmed.

Bill for injunction. Before LANGHAM, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Decree for plaintiff. Certain of defendants appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was decree, quoting record.

The decree of the court below is modified by striking the name of D. R. Walkinshaw therefrom, and, as thus modified, it is affirmed and the appeals are dismissed; appellee is directed to pay the record costs on the appeal of D. R. Walkinshaw and Mrs. E. Wilson Bagley, and those who appealed with her, are directed to pay all the costs on their appeal.

W. M. Ruddock, with him Harry W. Fee, of Fee & Tomb, for appellants. -- The decree of the lower court overruling preliminary objections to the bill was error; the objection was a serious one and raises the question of the court's jurisdiction of this action: Dayton v. Carter, 206 Pa. 491; Hartley v. Langkamp, 243 Pa. 550; Monessen Boro. v. Water Co., 243 Pa. 53; Bedford Springs Co. v. McMeen, 161 Pa. 639.

Jurisdiction of the subject-matter cannot be conferred by estoppel: Wettengel v. Robinson, 288 Pa. 362.

Each Baptist church, as that denomination is constituted, is within itself a pure democracy; to the expressed will of the majority of which it is the duty of the minority to submit: Monongahela City Baptist Church v. Shawger, 36 Pa. C.C.R. 514.

The law covering cases of this type is well settled in this state: Nagle v. Miller, 275 Pa. 157; McGinnis v. Watson, 41 Pa. 9.

Plaintiffs' case must fail unless it can show that defendants, by their withdrawal from the above named voluntary associations of Baptist Churches and their joining of other named voluntary associations of Baptist Churches, made such a change as would amount to a radical departure from their articles of faith and original doctrines: Schnorr's App., 67 Pa. 138; McGinnis v. Watson, 41 Pa. 9; Lutheran Congregation of Pine Hill, 48 Pa. 20; Com. v. Stauffer, 289 Pa. 139.

James W. Mack, with him E. E. Creps and Merritt H. Davis, for appellee. -- All objections as to jurisdiction must be deemed finally waived by defendants: Summer-hill Boro. v. Sherbine, 88 Pa.Super. 419; Wright v. Barber, 270 Pa. 186; Bank of Pittsburgh v. Purcell, 286 Pa. 114; Magen v. Neiman, 301 Pa. 164; Strizak v. Danacko, 11 Pa. D. & C. 150.

It appearing there was no decision on the preliminary objections to the bill, there is nothing in the record upon which to base any assignments of error on the question of jurisdiction: Glassport Trust Co. v. Feightner, 300 Pa. 317; Van Sciver v. Hotel, 298 Pa. 463; Land T. & T. Co. v. Fulmer, 24 Pa.Super. 260.

Defendants have admitted the jurisdiction of equity in this case and submitted themselves thereto: Roshi's App., 69 Pa. 462.

The findings of fact by a chancellor have the force and effect of a verdict of a jury, and will not be disturbed if there is evidence to support them: Duffey v. Jennings, 247 Pa. 388, 391; Clothier v. Hoffman Co., 261 Pa. 83, 87; MacDougall v. Bank, 265 Pa. 170, 175; Scranton v. Coal Co., 256 Pa. 322, 327; Beaver v. Slane, 271 Pa. 317, 321; Glenn v. Trees, 276 Pa. 165, 167.

Before FRAZER, C.J., WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER and MAXEY, JJ.

OPINION

MR JUSTICE SIMPSON:

This controversy is over the control of the property of the First Regular Baptist Church of Indiana, Pennsylvania, hereinafter called the Indiana church. We have painstakingly read and carefully considered the 1041 pages of the record and supplemental record and the 210 pages of the briefs, and, despite the 90 assignments of error, find that the questions to be determined by us are relatively few in number, and not nearly so difficult as the quantity of printed matter would seem to imply.

Defendants, who are appellants here, contend that since a Baptist church is of the congregational and not of the federated type, and there is no church judicatory to which property disputes in a particular congregation can be referred, they, as the majority of the membership, have the right to decide all matters which relate to the Indiana church property, and the other faction, being in the minority, must submit to that which has been so decided. This statement would be too broad even in the case of an unincorporated congregation. It is undoubtedly true, as contended by appellants, that "each particular and individual [Baptist] church is actually and absolutely independent in the exercise of all its churchly rights, privileges and prerogatives"; but it is only when it is exercising its "churchly rights, privileges and prerogatives," that the action of the majority of the congregation is controlling. If it attempts to pass that barrier, and to do that which is essentially nonbaptistic, it subjects itself, so far as property rights are concerned, to the supervision and control of a court of equity: Nagle v. Miller, 275 Pa. 157. Indeed, appellants admit this, when they state their contention to be that the individual churches "can change their former usages and practices at any time, so long as they do not depart from the religious principles, beliefs and forms of worship of the church." It follows that the majority of the members of an unincorporated Baptist church cannot make changes which result in such a departure, if thereby property rights are affected.

Where, however, there is a trust specifically declared in the deed of the property, which is the subject of the litigation, or where there is a charter for the church which owns that property, the rights of the respective parties are to be determined by a consideration of the deed or charter, and no majority, however great, can affect or destroy those rights by any act which is antagonistic to the deed or charter; and this is so, no matter what the rights of the parties would otherwise have been. In the present case we have both a deed and a charter.

The deed, which was executed before the Indiana church was incorporated, conveys the land upon which the church is built, to "Lewis E. Freet and William Row, their heirs and assigns, in trust and confidence nevertheless to and for the sole and separate use, benefit and behoof of the members of the regular Baptist church and congregation as at present constituted in the village of West Indiana, Indiana County, Pennsylvania, and their successors in membership, while they adhere and hold to the belief, religious principles, doctrines and articles of faith as contained and set forth in the confession of faith of said church." Under this limitation, appellants, though a majority of the members of the Indiana church, cannot legally divert the property to the "use, benefit and behoof" of those who do not "adhere and hold to the belief, religious principles, doctrines and articles of faith as contained and set forth in the confession of faith of said church," and those who do adhere thereto, however small in number, may invoke the aid of equity to prevent its wrongful diversion.

The petition for the Indiana church charter recites the existing voluntary organization of the congregation and the erection of the church building, which they "have set apart and dedicated . . . to and for the public worship of Almighty God according to and in compliance with the faith, practice and discipline of the regular Baptist Church of the United States of North America, and are desirous of being incorporated in order to enjoy the powers and immunities of a body politic in law . . . [and hence have] associated ourselves for the purpose aforesaid." The decree granting the charter states that "the subscribers thereto and their associates and successors shall be a corporation for the purposes and upon the terms therein stated, under the name and style of the First Baptist Church of Indiana, Indiana Co., Pa." Under this charter, no majority of the congregation, however great, will be allowed to divert the church property "to and for [any other use than] the public worship of Almighty God according to and in compliance with the faith, practice and discipline of the regular Baptist Church of the United States of North America," and those who adhere to that use, however small in number, may invoke the aid of equity to prevent its wrongful diversion.

Our first question is, therefore, Are the defendants attempting to divert the use of the property to those who do not "adhere and hold to the belief, religious principles doctrines and articles of faith as contained and set forth in the confession of faith of said church," or who are in antagonism to "the faith, practice and discipline of the regular Baptist Church of the United States of North America"? On this point, each side called as witnesses some of their number and several distinguished divines, the testimony of the two classes being "equally positive and mutually irreconcilable." Those produced by appellee were certain that defendants and their associates did not adhere to the faith, practice and discipline specified in the deed and charter. Those called by appellants asserted that, while changes had been made, they did not in substance alter the previous status, but gave no valid reason why, if this be so, any change was made. Some of them said the changes were made to put teeth into the confession of faith. This way of stating the effect of the changes may be more un-Christlike in sound than in intention, but it certainly...