Guin v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 30 May 1935
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 753
• Citation: 161 So. 810,230 Ala. 427
• Parties: GUIN et al. v. JOHNSON et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

161 So. 810

230 Ala. 427

GUIN et al. v. JOHNSON et al.

6 Div. 753

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 30, 1935

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lamar County; Ernest Lacy, Judge.

Suit for injunction by T.A. Guin and others, as trustees and members of the Freewill Baptist Church at Unity Grove against J.T. Johnson and others, as members and officers of Progressive Freewill Baptist Church at Unity Grove. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

Wilson Kelley, of Vernon, and W.L. Sims, of Columbus, Miss., for appellants.

R.G Redden, of Vernon, for appellees.

BOULDIN Justice.

This cause grew out of division in Unity Grove Church, a Freewill Baptist Church, in Lamar county.

The bill involves the possession and use of the church building and grounds, as between contending factions.

Complainants seek to enjoin respondents from the continued use and enjoyment of same, and their interference with complainants' use of same for religious services.

The bill proceeds on two theories:

First it is alleged that the minority group or faction of the church, congregational in type, has usurped control of the property, undertaken to exclude complainants from the church and denied their right to hold services, etc.

This feature of the bill is not sustained by the proof.

The trouble began, it appears, by agitation among denominational ministers and other leaders for the organization of a new association of Freewill Baptist Churches.

To this end a committee was raised to prepare constitution for the proposed association, also a church covenant, article of faith, etc., to be submitted to and acted upon by the churches.

It appears the matter was acted upon by the Unity Grove Church in conference, after full discussion, resulting in a vote of some 5 to 1 in favor of going into the proposed association.

True, it appears that a majority of the members of the church were not present at this conference. A few, it appears, withdrew from the church pending this agitation; others intentionally absented themselves, or did not care to participate and take sides. But under the weight, if not the entire evidence, the action of this conference was the action of the church, through the regular course by which church action is expressed in the self-contained church.

Thereafter, the complainants, declining to affiliate with the church in its new relations and practices, were excluded by action of the church in conference.

Membership in a church, involving the fundamentals of religious freedom and separation of church and state, is wholly outside the jurisdiction of civil courts. Hundley v. Collins et al., 131 Ala. 234, 32 So. 575, 90 Am.St.Rep. 33.

This is not to say courts cannot inquire into who constitutes the church body entitled to hold the church property, when an issue is presented touching a diversion of such property, even by a majority, from the purposes of the trust. If such case is made out, the minority cannot be deprived of their beneficial interest through exclusion.

The power and duty of the state to protect religious bodies in their property rights are beyond question. These temporal facilities are in aid of, if not essential, to the full enjoyment of religious freedom--to congregate and worship, teach, preach, and generally promote the spiritual ends for which churches exist.

This puts upon the courts the determination of the very delicate question as to which of two contending groups is entitled to the possession and control of the church property. Unless there is shown a clear diversion of the property from the religious uses to which it was dedicated, the majority must rule in a democratic religious body. Harris et al. v. Cosby et al., 173 Ala. 81, 94, 55 So. 231; Morgan et al. v. Gabard et al., 176 Ala. 568, 58 So. 902; Gewin et al. v. Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church, 166 Ala. 345, 51 So. 947, 139 Am.St.Rep. 41; Christian Church of Huntsville et al. v. Sommer et al., 149 Ala. 145, 43 So. 8, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1031, 123 Am.St.Rep. 24; Barton et al. v. Fitzpatrick et al., 187 Ala. 273, 65 So. 390; Stewart et al. v. White et al., 128 Ala. 202, 30 So. 526, 55 L R.A. 211; Manning et al. v. Yeaget et al., 201 Ala. 599, 79 So. 19; Id., 203 Ala. 185, 82 So. 435; Blount et al. v. Sixteenth St. Baptist Church, 206 Ala. 423, 90 So. 602; 54 C.J. 71.

We have held that where the deed, under which the property is held, by express terms, dedicates the property to the propagation of some specific form of religious doctrine, a court of equity, as in other cases of special trusts, will see that the property is not diverted from such use. Harris et al. v. Cosby et al., supra.

The deeds in the instant case were to the "Trustees of Unity Grove Church and their successors." The trustees are named in one deed, not in the other. They are charged with no specific duties, are merely repositories of the legal title, the beneficial use and enjoyment being in the church body, the congregation, then and now known as Unity Grove Church.

It is stated rather broadly in Harris et al. v. Cosby et al., supra, that in such case, if the local church is independent, subject to no higher church authority, the majority of the members have the right to control the property. This is to be taken subject to the limitations above expressed.

Unity Grove Church was, at the time the deeds were...