Hayes v. Manning

• Decision Date: 01 December 1914
• Docket Number: No. 17021.,17021.
• Citation: 172 S.W. 897
• Parties: HAYES et al. v. MANNING et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

172 S.W. 897

HAYES et al. v. MANNING et al.

No. 17021.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 1, 1914.

Rehearing Denied December 31, 1914.

1. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 34) — CONSTITUTION — PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION — POWER TO UNITE.

Repeated unopposed efforts by the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church to unite with other organizations of like faith constitute a practical interpretation by it, which will be followed by the courts, of the church's constitution, as conferring power on it to not only inaugurate, but consummate, a union with another organization.

2. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 12) — CONSTITUTION — JURISDICTIONS OF CHURCH COURTS.

The purpose of the provision of the constitution of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church that "the jurisdiction of the church judicatories is limited by the express provisions of the constitution" is to mark the boundaries between the jurisdictions of the church courts, and not to deny implied authority to do a thing necessary to be done to execute a power conferred or perform a duty imposed.

3. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 34) — IMPLIED AUTHORITY.

Authority of the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church to unite with another organization arises by implication from any express provision of the constitution imposing on it a duty or conferring on it an authority, which requires or authorizes such a union.

4. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 34) — UNION OF CHURCHES — RATIFICATION BY MEMBERSHIP.

The Cumberland Church being a representative organization, exercise by the General Assembly and the presbyteries of any powers conferred on them by its constitution, as union with another church, does not need for its validity a vote of the individual members of the church in approval thereof.

5. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 34) — CONSTITUTION — UNION WITH OTHER CHURCH.

Right to union with another church is clearly implied from the provision of the constitution of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church that the Confession of Faith, Catechism, constitution, and rules of discipline may be changed in the manner pointed out.

6. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 34) — CONSTITUTION — UNION WITH LARGER CHURCH.

The provision of the Constitution of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church that its General Assembly shall have power to receive under its jurisdiction other ecclesiastical bodies whose organization is conformed to the doctrine and order of such church is not limited merely to taking in smaller organizations, but includes power to unite with a larger church, and to take its name and ecclesiastical organization as its own.

7. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 12) — DECISION OF CHURCH COURT — REVIEW BY CIVIL COURT.

The decision of the highest court of a church as to purely ecclesiastical questions within its jurisdiction will be accepted as conclusive by civil courts in determining property rights where the property was acquired by the church in a usual way for its general use, and was not impressed with a specific trust by the grantor or donor.

8. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 18) — CHURCH PROPERTY — SPECIFIC TRUST.

Church property is impressed with a specific trust when deeded or donated for the express purpose of inculcating or advancing some particular form of faith or creed, and not where it has been purchased by a church for use as a house of worship, or a minister's residence, and conveyed to its trustees.

9. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 22) — CHURCH PROPERTY.

Property being purchased by and conveyed to "the trustees of the Cumberland Church," title thereto is subject to such changes as may be made in the constitution and laws of the organization.

10. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES (§ 34) — UNION OF CHURCHES — WAIVER — ESTOPPEL.

Members of a congregation of the Cumberland Church, who for six months after knowledge of the union of such church with the Presbyterian Church, continued their relations as members and officers with seeming approval of the union, waived their rights to question its validity and to claim right to the church property; as waiver, a voluntary surrender of a right, may be created by acts or declarations insufficient to create an estoppel.

11. WORDS AND PHRASES — "WAIVER" — "ESTOPPEL."

"Waiver" is a voluntary surrender of some known benefit or right which, except for such waiver, the party would have enjoyed. An "estoppel" is a previous act which precludes denial. The distinctions between waiver and estoppel are as follows: Waiver is a voluntary surrender of a right, while estoppel is the inhibition to assert a right from the mischief that has followed. Waiver involves knowledge and intention, while estoppel may arise where there is no intention to mislead. Waiver depends upon what one himself intends to do; estoppel depends rather upon what one has caused his adversary to do. Waiver may affect the other party beneficially, while estoppel results from an act which operates to the other party's injury. Waiver does not imply that one has been misled to his prejudice; estoppel always includes this element.

Graves, J., dissenting.

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Saline County; Samuel Davis, Judge.

Suit by Hugh Hayes and others against David F. Manning and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

W. M. Williams, of Boonville, and Virgil V. Huff, of Marshall (Ben Eli Guthrie, of Macon, John M. Gaut, of Nashville, Tenn., and Jas. W. Suddath, of Warrensburg, of counsel), for appellants. Reynolds & James, of Marshall, W. C. Caldwell, of Trenton, Tenn., and D. D. Duggins, of Marshall, for respondents.

WALKER, J.

Plaintiffs, as officers and members of a Cumberland Presbyterian Church (hereinafter referred to as the Cumberland Church), bring this suit to have reduced to their possession certain property in the city of Marshall, consisting of several lots of ground on which are located a church building, a manse or pastor's residence, and a mission church. Plaintiffs, by reason of the alleged relation they sustain to the church, claim to be the equitable owners of the property, holding same in trust for the church, and that defendants wrongfully withhold same from them. Whereupon they ask a decree for the possession of the property, and that defendants be enjoined from further interfering with their right to the possession and use of same, and that the injunction be made perpetual. Defendants deny the equitable ownership of plaintiffs in the property, or that they are entitled to its possession, but allege that it is the property of the "Presbyterian Church of the United States" (hereinafter referred to as the Presbyterian Church), the only legal successor of the Cumberland Church, as a result of a union of said churches, and deny that they have refused to permit plaintiffs to use and occupy any part of the property. The reply was a general denial. Upon a hearing a decree was rendered in plaintiffs' favor, and defendants were enjoined and restrained from the further use of the property. After the usual procedure they appealed to this court.

The Presbyterian and Cumberland Churches have practically the same form of government, which is representative or republican, as contradistinguished from religious organizations which are either monarchial in form and governed by a hierarchy, or are pure democracies in which each particular church is a separate entity whose affairs are regulated wholly by its members. Under the form of government of the churches here involved, a local congregation is called a particular church, which is immediately governed by a church session composed of the minister in charge and the ruling elders elected for terms fixed by the congregation. Next in order is the presbytery, which embraces a number of particular churches within a prescribed district. The powers of a presbytery are exercised by the ordained ministers in the district and one ruling elder from each particular church therein. Superior in authority to the presbytery is the synod, which embraces not less than three presbyteries, and consists of ministers and ruling elders from each particular church. The General Assembly is the highest authority of the church. It is a representative body composed of ministers and ruling elders selected by and from each of the presbyteries.

The conflicting claims of the parties to the property in question grew out of a union between the Presbyterian and Cumberland Churches, claimed by defendants to have been consummated by the joint action of the General Assemblies of said churches in 1906. For a number of years prior thereto the propriety of a union was discussed generally by the members of the respective church organizations. Since said union its validity has been challenged by members of the Cumberland Church, and suits have been brought by them in different jurisdictions in state and federal courts to determine the question.

The Cumberland Church sprang out of the Presbyterian Church. Early in the nineteenth century, about 1804 or 1805, a controversy arose between certain officers and members of the Presbyterian Church, the creed of which is termed the Westminster Confession of Faith. This controversy, omitting minor matters, centered principally upon difference of opinion in regard to the doctrine of predestination. This controversy gained strength and became more widespread from year to year as the individual ministers and members of the different churches acquired more liberty of thought, as has always been the case in the history of every formulated belief prepared by one set of men for adoption by others, since the abandonment of the simple faith of the primitive Christians and the promulgation of the first creed at the Council of Nicea, until 1810, when three ministers of the Presbyterian Church in the state of Tennessee emphasized their opposition to the established order, and by an open breach laid the foundation upon which was built the Cumberland Church. In 1813 the church thus founded established three...