James v. Gainey
| Decision Date | 07 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28174,28174 |
| Parties | E. N. JAMES et al. v. Redmon R. GAINEY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Hall & Bloch, S. Phillip Brown, Macon, for appellants.
Anderson, Walker & Reichert, Charles W. Walker, Macon, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal involves a dispute between two factions of the Bloomfield Church of Christ in Macon, Georgia. Suit was filed in Bibb Superior Court by the appellants seeking to establish title to a tract of land purchased by the trustees of the church for use as a place of worship. The complaint was brought specifically under Code Ann. § 37-1411 et seq., the Quia Timet Act of 1966. A special master was appointed to hear the evidence and his report concluded that neither of the two factions of the church was entitled to the property. This report was made the judgment of the trial court and it placed title to the property in the trustees of the church then serving who had been elected by majority vote of the appellees. Appellants assert as error that they were unlawfully denied a jury trial on the factual issues in the case, that the trial court erred in assessing costs against them; and that it also erred in adopting the report of the special master.
The record of the evidence reveals that the Bloomfield Church of Christ is an unincorporated local church with no charter or by-laws, and operates solely on the basis of the teachings of the New Testament of the Bible. The church is congregational and owes no ties to any governing body. The property sought to be drawn into question in this litigation was conveyed to the trustees of the church and their successors in January, 1970. Two of the trustees of the church at that time are involved in this litigation as appellees while three of the trustees who were then serving are among the appellants. In June of 1970, the church had a membership of twenty-seven, and, of this number, ten are appellants here with sixteen as appellees. The remaining member is not involved in the suit. Questions of theology began to divide the membership, and, in August, 1970, the appellees met and 'disfellowshipped' the appellants '(b)ecause of the contentions, difficulties, unpleasantness, encounters, and deviousness with which they conducted themselves,' according to the appellees, including alleged deviation by appellants from church doctrine. Those appellants who were then serving as trustees were also removed as trustees by the appellees, and successors, from the appellee group, were elected to replace them. Meanwhile, appellants met separately from them and removed as trustees those appellees who were then serving as trustees of the church. Shortly thereafter, the present litigation was filed by appellants under the 1966 Quiet Title Act claiming title to the church property.
The special master appointed by the trial court to hear the evidence found as a matter of fact that 'none of the twenty-seven members had severed their membership with the Bloomfield Church of Christ and were all members at the time this action was filed.' This conclusion by the special master was based upon a determination of the meaning of 'withdrawal of fellowship,' which he found did not entail a cessation of membership but rather a discontinuance of social intercourse with the remaining members of the church during the period of 'disfellowship' until repentance....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DOCO Credit Union v. Chambers
...85 (1994).13 Woodruff v. Morgan County, 284 Ga. 651, 651(1), 670 S.E.2d 415 (2008) (punctuation omitted); see also James v. Gainey, 231 Ga. 543, 544, 203 S.E.2d 163 (1974) (same).14 OCGA § 23–3–60 et seq.15 Nelson v. Ga. Sheriffs Youth Homes, Inc., 286 Ga. 192, 192, 686 S.E.2d 663 (2009) (p......
-
Johnson v. Bank of Am., N.A.
...OCGA §§ 23–3–60 ; 23–3–71; 23–3–72. The Act “is a special statutory proceeding designed for a specific purpose.” James v. Gainey, 231 Ga. 543, 545, 203 S.E.2d 163 (1974). The Act “creates an efficient, speedy and effective means of adjudicating disputed title claims and sets out specific ru......
-
Heath v. Stinson, 31809
...and thus avoid a multiplicity of actions involving the land. Code Ann. § 37-801 and annotations thereunder. Cf. James v. Gainey, 231 Ga. 543, 203 S.E.2d 163 (1974), in which this court held no title to land issue was involved in the The special master properly allowed the intervention in th......
-
Middleton v. Robinson, 33270
...claimed by Robinson. This was a question of title to land within the contemplation of the Quia Timet Act of 1966. See James v. Gainey, 231 Ga. 543, 203 S.E.2d 163 (1974). Cf., Southall v. Carter, 229 Ga. 240, 190 S.E.2d 517 (1972), Wiley v. Wiley, 233 Ga. 824, 213 S.E.2d 682 (1975), Graham ......