Hardin v. Horger

• Decision Date: 20 February 1969
• Docket Number: No. 18876,18876
• Citation: Hardin v. Horger, 166 S.E.2d 215, 252 S.C. 298 (S.C. 1969)
• Parties: Paul HARDIN, Jr., Lloyd D. Bolt, J. Henry Walker, on behalf of themselves and all members of the Methodist Church and members of the Prospect Methodist Church and the Methodist Church, Respondents, v. Charles HORGER, Clifton Carter, individually and as representatives of a class too numerous to serve individually, being seceding members of Prospect Methodist Church, and Eddie Lee Carter, Fred Smoak, J. L. Jackson, members of the Board of Trustees of the Prospect Methodist Church, Appellants.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 215

166 S.E.2d 215

252 S.C. 298

Paul HARDIN, Jr., Lloyd D. Bolt, J. Henry Walker, on behalf of themselves and all members of the Methodist Church and members of the Prospect Methodist Church and the Methodist Church, Respondents, v.Charles HORGER, Clifton Carter, individually and as representatives of a class too numerous to serve individually, being seceding members of Prospect Methodist Church, and Eddie Lee Carter, Fred Smoak, J. L. Jackson members of the Board of Trustees of the Prospect Methodist Church, Appellants.

No. 18876.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 20, 1969.

F. Hall Yarborough, Edward Mirmow, Jr., Orangeburg, for appellants.

Travis T. Medlock, Kermit S. King, Columbia, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

At issue in this action is the right to the use and possession of the real property of Prospect Methodist Church located in Jamison, Orangeburg County.The transcript of record does not contain all of the evidence, but we will state the facts as accurately as we are able to from the agreed statement of the case and the portions of the testimony included in the transcript.

At some time in the year 1962, all, or virtually all, of the members of Prospect Methodist Church became dissatisfied as a result of certain immoral and illegal conduct of the preacher appointed by the bishop at the Annual Conference, as a result of which a group of seven or eight men went to the then District Superintendent with accusations of immoral conduct.Such visit to the Superintendent occurred near the 'end of the year', whether conference year or calendar year does not appear.The complainants were assured that the offending preacher would not be returned to Prospect Methodist Church following the next Annual Conference, and complainants were apparently satisfied with and placated by such assurance.The record does not reflect whether or not any other action was then taken.

Following the 1963 Annual Conference, the same preacher was returned to Prospect Methodist Church and a new District Superintendent, Dr. Lloyd D. Bolt, was assigned to the district.Complaint against the preacher and his return was registered with Dr. Bolt, the new superintendent, who took the position that the complainants were acting on and reporting rumors as to the conduct of the preacher and that he needed proof rather than rumors.Precisely what action, if any, Dr. Bolt promptly took is not at all clear from the record, but approximately three months after receipt of the complaint by Dr. Bolt, the preacher was arrested by civil authorities and, apparently near the time of his arrest, he was discharged by the Bishop and a new minister, Reverend Walker, assigned to the church.Whether any of the complaints against the offending preacher reached the Bishop prior to the arrest does not appear in the record.

The congregation, either unanimously or very nearly so, became incensed over the events related and seceded from The Methodist Church; became affiliated with the Southern Methodist Church, and have since been in possession of and using the church property as a congregation of the Southern Methodist Church.

This action was brought by Bishop Paul Hardin, Jr., District SuperintendentLloyd D. Bolt, and the newly assigned pastor of Prospect Methodist Church, on behalf of themselves, all members of The Methodist Church, and all members of Prospect Methodist Church claiming membership in The Methodist Church, and The Methodist Church.Named as defendants were the Board of Trustees of Prospect Methodist Church and two other members thereof, individually and as representatives of the seceding members of Prospect Methodist Church as a class.The principal relief sought was an injunction restraining the seceding congregation from making any use of the premises, except for attending services and meetings of The Methodist Church, and to restrain the trustees from taking any steps to dispose of the property, except as provided by the Discipline of The Methodist Church.

Upon answer being filed, the cause was referred to the Honorable C. E. Summers, as special referee, who following a hearing, recommended that the action be dismissed; that The Methodist Church be declared to have no interest in the property, and that a decree be issued declaring the seceding group, or the class represented by it, to be the true beneficiaries and owners of the property free and clear of the trust clause hereinafter mentioned.Upon exception to the report of the special referee, his recommendations were rejected by order of the circuit court, which decreed that the property in question was to be held by the trustees of The Methodist Church and used as directed by the officials of that church.The appeal is from such order of the circuit court.

The church property involved was acquired in 1879 by certain individuals, as trustees of The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, Jamison, South Carolina.The deeds thereto contained the following trust clause:

'In trust that the said permises shall be used kept, maintained and disposed of as a place of divine worship for the use of the ministry and membership of The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, subject to the Discipline, usage and ministerial appointments of the said Church, as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference of the said Church, and the Annual Conference within whose bounds the said permises are situated.'

The foregoing trust provision is substantially the same as...