Mazaika v. Krauczunas

• Decision Date: 01 July 1910
• Docket Number: 8
• Citation: 229 Pa. 47,77 A. 1102
• Parties: Mazaika v. Krauczunas et al., Trustees, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

77 A. 1102

229 Pa. 47

Mazaika v. Krauczunas et al., Trustees, Appellant

No. 8

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

July 1, 1910

Argued May 9, 1910

Appeal, No. 8, Jan. T., 1910, by defendants, from decree of C.P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1908, No. 1, in case of Alex. Mazaika et al. v. Andrew Krauczunas et al., Trustees. Reversed.

Bill in equity to compel conveyance of church property. The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Error assigned was the decree of the court.

William Jessup Hand, with him A. A. Vosburg, for appellants.

John G Johnson, with him Thomas P. Hoban and John P. Kelly, for appellees.

Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE STEWART:

This case is a sequel to the case of Krauczunas v. Hoban, reported in 221 Pa. 213. Under the decree in the latter case Rt. Rev M. J. Hoban, holder of the legal title to the land belonging to St. Joseph's Lithuanian Catholic Congregation of the city of Scranton, was required to convey said legal title to the defendants in the present proceeding, for the reason that a majority of the male members of the congregation, of lawful age, at a meeting called to determine by whom the legal title to the church property should be held, had selected these defendants for this special purpose. This decree was submitted to and the conveyance was made accordingly. Soon thereafter a counter movement was begun to restore the legal title to Bishop Hoban, as trustee. To this end a special meeting of the congregation was called, and held June 8, 1908, at which it was resolved "That Rt. Rev. Michael J. Hoban, Bishop of Scranton, be and is hereby chosen and designated trustee for said St. Joseph's Lithuanian Catholic Congregation of the city of Scranton, Pennsylvania, to hold as such trustee all the property of said congregation, and the title thereto, in accordance with the laws, rules, and usages of the Catholic Church in the diocese of Scranton and State of Pennsylvania." Further, it was resolved, that the trustees then holding the title -- these defendants -- be requested, authorized and required to execute and deliver to the Rt. Rev. Michael J. Hoban, bishop of Scranton, trustee, a deed for all of said property. At the same meeting the plaintiffs were appointed to take such action in court, law or equity, as might be necessary to compel such reconveyance. The defendants having declined to reconvey in accordance with this action, the plaintiffs, acting under the authority given them at the meeting, filed this present bill to compel a conveyance. The defendants made answer averring, among other things, that the meeting of June 8, 1908, at which the above action had been taken, had not been regularly called; that it was not called by a committee duly elected by the congregation; that it was not held either at the time or place indicated in the call; that a great many members of the congregation had been forcibly and illegally excluded from the meeting; that others who were not members of the congregation were admitted, while certain of the respondents were excluded, and that members of the congregation opposed to any change of trustee who attempted to express their opposition were forcibly ejected from the meeting. It was further averred in the answer, that on the second day following the meeting of June 8, another meeting of the congregation was held pursuant to a call, at which a great majority of the male members were present; that 1,583 out of 1,586 present voted to retain the defendants as trustees, and expressed opposition to any change. To this answer replication was made and issue joined. As will be seen, the pleadings raised several questions of fact as well as of law. Without attempting to indicate all, these are among them: Was the meeting of June 8, 1908, at which action was taken favorable to the selection of Bishop Hoban, called by competent authority? Was it held at the appointed time and place? Was there present at that meeting a majority of the male members of the congregation, of lawful age, and did such majority unite in the action taken? Are the allegations true that members of the congregation in the minority party were forcibly excluded from the meeting, and that intolerance was exercised by the majority and freedom of discussion denied? Several of these questions apply as well to the meeting of June 10, at which action favorable to the defendants was taken. We have no findings of fact by the chancellor with respect to them, if we except this which appears in the tenth finding, "Neither side knew or had any adequate means of ascertaining the number of male members qualified to vote." Instead of meeting the issues raised by the pleadings, pursuant to an agreement entered into between the parties, the chancellor proceeded to hold a new election, to determine whom the majority preferred to have act as trustee of the title. The reason for this action is thus stated by the chancellor, "This (the present proceeding) it is averred, is to enforce the action of the congregation in the exercise of its right of choice in the matter. Such action is alleged to have been taken June 8, 1908, by a majority of its adult male members at a meeting regularly convened for that purpose. The truth of this averment was challenged by the answer and the validity of the election denied. This appears to raise the only essential fact in dispute. Issue was formally joined and the parties went to trial March 9, of this year. In the course of two or three...