Jenkins v. New Shiloh Baptist Church of Baltimore, Md.
| Decision Date | 15 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | 58. |
| Citation | 56 A.2d 788,189 Md. 512 |
| Parties | JENKINS et al. v. NEW SHILOH BAPTIST CHURCH OF BALTIMORE, MD., et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; E. Paul Mason, Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by Mary P. Jenkins, McKinley Jones and others against the New Shiloh Baptist Church of Baltimore, Md., and J. Timothy Boddie, pastor of the church, to compel defendants to enroll the plaintiffs on the books of the church as members in good standing, in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the church. From a judgment in favor of defendants, the plaintiffs appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
J Morfit Mullen, of Baltimore (Aaron & Aaron and Arthur R Padgett, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
Marshall A. Levin, of Baltimore (Harry O. Levin, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
This is an appeal by Mary P. Jenkins et al. from the dismissal in the Superior Court of Baltimore City of a petition for mandamus and judgment in favor of the defendants, appellees here, for costs of suit.
The New Shiloh Baptist Church is a Baptist congregation incorporated under the Maryland General Corporation Laws, 1939 Code Article 23, Sections 275 to 285, originally the Act of 1802 Chapter 111.
The petition for mandamus alleges in part as follows: that the petitioners were members in good standing 'morally and financially' of the New Shiloh Baptist Church of Baltimore City, a corporation duly corporated under the laws of the State of Maryland, a defendant and appellee here. The defendant and appellee, J. Timothy Boddie is the pastor of that church. On or about June 18, 1946, Rev. Boddie sent a notice to the members of the church calling a meeting of the membership for June 21, 1946. At that meeting a motion was made to expel the appellants as members of the church. So much confusion existed when the motion was put that the secretary of the meeting was not sure that it had passed until she consulted the Moderator, Rev. Willis J. Winston, the same night. The pastor has dropped the appellants from the membership roll of the church. The petition further alleges that the attempted expulsion of the petitioners was illegal and without warrant in law for the following reasons:
The appellants are in good standing 'morally and financially'. Many of the persons present who voted at the meeting were not members of the church and not in good standing in accordance with its Constitution. The notice of the meeting contained no reference to the fact that the petitioners were to go on trial for expulsion from the church, contrary to the Constitution thereof. Article XI of the Constitution provides that a member may be dismissed 'by expulsion', and Article XII of the Constitution, Paragraph B, provides: 'No case of discipline shall come before the church or any matters pertaining to the office of Deacons before it has been considered by the Deacons and Pastor.' The case of the appellants was never considered by the Deacons and Pastor. Under the Constitution and By-Laws of the church the petitioners are not liable for expulsion. The only offense was to disagree with the pastor when he did not in their estimation abide by the Constitution and By-Laws of the church. The appellants believe and aver that the pastor desired to get rid of the appellants so that he could run the church to suit himself, although the appellants have contributed a considerable amount of their time and money toward the welfare and up-building of said church, which is now financially independent. The appellants have demanded to be re-instated as members but the appellees have refused to re-instate them although they have been wrongfully expelled from said membership. The petition prays that a writ of mandamus be issued, directing the defendants to enroll the appellants on the books of the church as members in good standing, in accordance with the Constitution and By-Laws of said church.
An answer was filed by the defendants in which they denied the material allegations of the petition, and alleged that a majority of the church membership had the right to pass the motion to expel the defendants on any ground found justifiable, and the said resolution to expel the appellants was passed by a majority of the church members. They admit that the notice of the meeting made no reference to the fact that appellants were to go on trial for any offense. After the taking of testimony before the trial judge, the mandamus was dismissed and judgment entered in favor of the appellees for costs of suit. From that judgment the appellants appeal.
The testimony shows that the appellants, being 23 members of the New Shiloh Baptist Church (The Church) in good standing, together with four other members of that church on June 17, 1946, wrote and signed the following letter to Rev. Boddie: 'We the undersigned, do hereby charge you with being biased and discriminating against certain members of the church, dealing unfair and rendering unjust decisions in our business meetings, putting motions before the body for some members and refusing to do the same for other members.
'We furthermore charge you with failure to explain how you obtained a $125.00 last August and refusing to have someone else to explain the same to the church, and also you have refused to let it come up for discussion in any business meeting since.
'We furthermore charge you with calling or having someone to call, or having the knowledge of them being called, two patrolmen and a policewoman to our business meeting for one purpose to intimidate certain members to keep them from talking.
'We furthermore charge you with permitting Mrs. Violet Whyte to come into and sit beside you in the pulpit throughout the remainder of our business meeting and also permitted her to interfere with and call members down while they were on the floor speaking, knowing her to be a nonmember of the Shiloh Baptist Church, and not of the baptist faith, which is contrary to the Constitution of the Shiloh Baptist Church.
'We further charge you with malfeasance in office.
'We furthermore charge you with splitting the congregation into two groups to the extent that one group is ready to clutch at the other's throat at the least provocation, and with tearing apart in three years; what it took Rev. W. W. Allen forty years to build.
'We expect you to answer these charges at the next regular business church meeting.'
Three of the members who wrote this letter approached Rev. Boddie on his way to attend a meeting of the Deacons and tried to hand him the letter, which he refused to take and told them to follow him into the church. They followed him into the Board meeting of the Deacons where they handed him the envelope containing the above letter. The three men made no statement to the Deacons and left the room. It is admitted by the defendants that no thought was given as to any disciplinary action against the appellants at the meeting of the Deacons, or at any time until after the charges against the pastor were dismissed by a vote of the congregation. Rev. Boddie on June 18, 1946, wrote a letter to the members of the congregation, which letter follows:
At the meeting on June 21, 1946, approximately 800 members, of a total membership of between 1900 and 2000, were present. After debating the matter for several hours, the Pastor was sustained by a vote of 348 of 130. After this vote was taken Sister Mary Askew made a motion that 'the right hand of fellowship be withdrawn from the twenty-seven members whose names were signed to the charges.' Much confusion reigned after this motion was made. The petitioners claim that the secretary of the meeting was not sure the motion had passed until she consulted the Moderator of the meeting, that same night. The effect of this motion was to expel the appellants from membership in the church.
As set out in the petition for mandamus, Article XII, Paragraph B provides that 'no case of discipline shall come before the church * * * before it has been considered by the Deacons and Pastor.' As it is admitted that the disciplinary action against the appellants was never taken before the Deacons as required by the Constitution of the church, we must assume that the expulsion of the appellants was irregular. We, therefore, are faced with the question as to whether the writ of mandamus should be issued where the expulsion of the appellants was irregular and not in accordance with the Constitution and...
To continue reading
Request your trial