Manning v. Yeager

• Decision Date: 05 June 1919
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 895
• Citation: 203 Ala. 185,82 So. 435
• Parties: MANNING et al. v. YEAGER et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

82 So. 435

203 Ala. 185

MANNING et al. v. YEAGER et al.

6 Div. 895

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 5, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; Robert C. Brickell Judge.

Bill by J.F. Manning and others against T.C. Yeager and others. Decree of dismissal, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.

A.A Griffith and F.E. St. John, both of Cullman, for appellants.

Tennis Tidwell, of Albany, and William E. James, of Cullman, for appellees.

SAYRE J.

This litigation arose out of factious differences between the members of Concord Missionary Baptist Church in Cullman county. The purpose and prayer of the bill are stated in Manning v. Yeager, 79 So. 19, where it was held that complainants' (appellants') bill had equity. In view of the evidence which has been taken the case may now be summarized as follows: Complainants ask to be placed in possession and control of the church property on two grounds (1) That defendants have wrongfully excluded them, and (2) that defendants by their departure from the faith and practice of the true Missionary Baptist church have forfeited all right to the possession and control of the church property, even though they constitute a majority of the congregation.

1. We find from the evidence noted in the record that before, at and after the division in the church, defendants constituted a majority of the membership. This court has had occasion in several cases to state, as from the temporal viewpoint, the nature of the constitution and government of Baptist churches. We may repeat to this extent: Each Baptist church is within itself a pure democracy; it is the right of the majority to rule; the will of the majority having been expressed, it becomes the minority to submit; church action is final. Gewin v. Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church, 166 Ala. 345, 51 So. 947, 139 Am.St.Rep. 41; Barton v. Fitzpatrick, 187 Ala. 273, 65 So. 390; Manning v. Yeager, supra; Tucker v. Denson, 80 So. 373; Pendleton's Church Manual, 102, 103. It results from this principle and the finding of fact noted above that complainants can have no relief on the ground that a majority of the church has wrongfully excluded them, or some of them, from the church and from the possession and control of its property.

2. But the court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, will intervene to prevent the diversion of church property from the use to which it has been devoted. Morgan v Gabard, 176 Ala. 568, 58 So. 902. The church property in this case is held under a conveyance "to the said Missionary Baptist Church, its administrators and assigns." The proof is that Concord Church has withdrawn from association with Cullman Baptist Association and the Alabama Baptist...