Hayes v. Manning

• Decision Date: 31 December 1914
• Citation: 172 S.W. 897,263 Mo. 1
• Parties: HUGH HAYES et al. v. DAVID F. MANNING et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

172 S.W. 897

263 Mo. 1

HUGH HAYES et al. v. DAVID F. MANNING et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 31, 1914

Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. -- Hon. Samuel Davis, Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

W. M Williams and Virgil V. Huff for appellants; Ben Eli Guthrie John M. Gaut and James W. Suddath of counsel.

(1) The General Assembly of the Cumberland Church was invested by the constitution of the church with supreme legislative executive and judicial power, and was the highest court of the church, and "represented in one body all the particular churches thereof," and, with the consent of a majority of the presbyteries had the power to form the union with the Presbyterian Church U. S. A., and all the steps required to bring about that union was constitutionally adopted. Beutley v. Ulay, 94 N. E. (Ind.) 759; Harris v. Cosby, 55 So. 231; Carothers v Mosely, 55 So. 881; Ramsey v. Hicks, 91 N. E. (Ind.) 344; Fussell v. Hail, 84 N. E. (Ill.) 42; Wallace v. Hughes, 115 S.W. 684; Committee of Missions v. Pacific Synod, 106 P. 395; Mack v Kine, 58 S.E. 185; Sanders v. Baggerly, 131 S.W. 49; Brown v. Clark, 116 S.W. 361; First Presbyterian Church v. First Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 91 N. E. (Ill.) 761; First Presbyterian Church v. Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 126 P. 197; Faney Prairie Congregation v. King, 245 Ill. 120; Pleasant Grove Congregation v. Riley, 248 Ill. 604; McBride v. Porter, 17 Iowa 203; McGinnes v. Watson, 41 Pa. 9; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679. (2) The General Assembly, with the consent of the majority of the presbyteries, was expressly authorized and empowered by the constitution to amend, change, and alter the doctrinal standards of the church, as well as its constitution and form of government, and this necessarily carries with it the right and power to enter into said union. General Assembly v. Overtoun, Scotch Kirk Case, Authorized Report, Macniven & Wallace; Landrith v. Hudgins, 120 S.W. 783; Wallace v. Hughes, 115 S.W. 684; Brown v. Clark, 116 S.W. 360. (3) The Presbyterian constitution, prior to its adoption by the Cumberland Church in 1810, had been construed by the Presbyterian churches as authorizing union with other denominations. The Cumberland Church, in adopting that constitution, took it with the construction previously placed upon it. State v. Chandler, 132 Mo. 155; Skouten v. Wood, 57 Mo. 380; Collins v. Wilhoit, 35 Mo.App. 585; Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591. (4) The Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at the time of its foundation, and as one of its cardinal principles, declared that it was then and always expected to be ready and willing for union with the Presbyterian Church. This declaration was made at the first meeting of Cumberland Presbytery, and reiterated in 1811, 1812, and 1813; afterwards in 1860, 1867, 1873, 1882, 1885, 1888, and 1898, considered the subject of union with other denominations without any dissent or question of the power to enter into such union by any of its members. The General Assembly in 1898 and before the present union was contemplated, unanimously adopted a resolution reciting the provisions of the constitution as to the authority of the General Assembly, and declaring "that proposals for consolidation or for co-operation with other churches are of such nature that they fall within the scope of the Assembly's constitutional power." The construction placed by the church upon its own constitution, like that given by the parties themselves to their own contracts, will be adopted and followed by the civil courts. McGinnis v. Watson, 41 Pa. 9; Smith v. Swormstedt, 16 How. 288; Gibson v. Armstrong, 7 D. Mon. 481; Matthews v. Danahy, 26 Mo. 666; Gas Co. v. St. Louis, 46 Mo. 128; Meyer v. Christopher, 176 Mo. 580; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 290; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 296. To refuse to carry into effect the constitution of the church as construed by it, in effect prohibits this denomination from making its own constitution, rules, and regulations, and denies to the defendants, as its representatives, the equal protection of the laws, in violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. (5) The ministers, elders, and members of the Cumberland Church, upon entering into the organization, expressly agree to submit to and be bound by its rules and regulations, and the decisions and deliverances of its judicatories, and every church, upon its formation, made a similar covenant. This constituted a contract or agreement between the members of the organization. The Cumberland Assembly in May, 1905, assembled at Fresno, California, composed of commissioners from each and every presbytery in that church, and confessedly representing the Cumberland Church and before it became a part of the United Church, after canvassing the votes of the presbyteries and announcing the result thereof, did "find and declare that a constitutional majority of the presbyteries of the Cumberland Church has voted approval of the reunion and union of said churches, upon the basis set forth in said joint report, and does find and declare that said reunion and union has been constitutionally agreed to by the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and that said basis of union has for the purposes of the union been constitutionally adopted. This finding and decision by the General Assembly is conclusive and binding upon all the members of said church. The contract and agreement of the members to abide by the decisions of the General Assembly and this decision of the Assembly are especially set up and pleaded in the answer; and to refuse to give force and effect thereto will deny to the defendant the equal protection of the law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Boyles v. Roberts, separate opinion of Valliant, C. J., 222 Mo. 695; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679. (6) Under our system of government, the church is a free institution, having all its powers in itself, and deriving them from no other body or government whatsoever. The presbytery and the General Assembly -- identical with it -- were the first and constituting organization of the Cumberland Church, who made its constitution and created its government, and hence under its terms has the sovereign power of the church, composed of citizens of the United States, and a denial of the power to this body thus organized and constituted to contract union with the Presbyterian Church and to direct their property in connection therewith is an impairment of defendants' rights, immunities and privileges as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Smith v. Swarmstedt, 16 How. 288; Brundage v. Deardorff, 92 F. 214. (7) There was no trust impressed upon the property in controversy for the propagation of any specific doctrine. It was conveyed generally to the trustees for the Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Marshall, and when the conveyances were made, the constitution of the church expressly authorized changes in the doctrines and governmental provisions by the General Assembly, with the concurrence of a majority of the presbyteries. The General Assembly, after the amendment of the doctrinal standards of the Presbyterian Church, by textual changes, the adoption of new chapters, and the "Declaratory Statement" of the construction to be given to the standards, declared that there was sufficient agreement in the doctrinal standards of the two churches to justify union between them. This declaration was made by each church separately and before the union, and each represented its own membership, who were bound and concluded under the express terms of the constitution thereby; and the civil courts will not undertake to compare the creeds of the churches, but will permit them to make their own doctrinal statements in their own way. Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Brundage v. Deardorff, 92 F. 214. (8) Plaintiffs in this case remained in the church; participated with the original congregation in all of its services; took part in its activities -- one being an elder, and several others being officers, who attended to their respective duties and took part in the church deliberations -- and continued their membership just as they had before for a long time after the union was consummated and carried into effect, with full knowledge on their part of all the steps taken to bring about said union. The declaration of the General Assembly that the union had been constitutionally adopted was made in May, 1905, and in May, 1906, the General Assembly adjourned as a separate body, the minority of dissenting commissioners forming a separate organization at that time. The pastor and session of the Marshall church, with full knowledge of the plaintiffs, submitted to the jurisdiction of the General Assembly, and conducted the affairs of the congregation as a part of the united church. Notwithstanding the organization was formed by the dissenting commissioners in May, 1906, there was no withdrawal from the congregation by the plaintiffs until December 13, 1906, when they left defendants in possession of the church property sued for, and they did not organize a separate congregation until March 29, 1907, and did not bring this suit until November 4, 1909. Plaintiffs, by their acquiescence, delay and waiver of any rights they might have had, are not in a position to ask affirmative aid by a court of equity. Vargo v. Varjo, 73 A. 649; Kipp v. Miller, 108 P. 164; Henderson v. Koenig, 192 Mo. 714; Williams v. Railroad, 153 Mo. 519; Fulkerson v. Lynn, 64 Mo.App. 653; 40 Cyc. 252; Peabody v. Flint, 88 Mass. 52. (9) Plaintiffs claim their right by allegiance to the minority of the commissioners who dissented at Decatur in 1906 and formed a...