Minton v. Leavell
Citation | 297 S.W. 615 |
Decision Date | 03 June 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 9046.) |
Parties | MINTON et al. v. LEAVELL et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Chas. E. Ashe, Judge.
Suit by J. M. Minton and others against J. B. Leavell and others. From an order denying a temporary injunction and dissolving a restraining order, the plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Andrews, Streetman, Logue & Mobley and Fulbright, Crooker & Freeman, all of Houston, for appellants.
Homer E. Stephenson and Tom C. Rowe, both of Houston, for appellees.
This suit was brought by J. M. Minton and twenty-five others, menbers of the First Baptist Church of Houston, against appellee J. B. Leavell, individually and, as pastor, moderator, and chairman of the board of deacons of such church, and against the church in its corporate capacity and as a voluntary association and religious society, to enjoin the defendants from interfering in any way with plaintiffs' rights as members of the church, and to restrain defendants from taking any action to exclude plaintiffs from membership in the church, or from attempting to enforce or put in effect a resolution adopted by a meeting of the church membership requiring all members of the church to sign an instrument, designated as the "Church Covenant," on or before January 1, 1927, in order to retain their rights of membership in the church.
The district judge to whom the petition was first presented on January 1, 1927, granted a temporary restraining order in accordance with plaintiffs' prayer, and then set the case for hearing on application for temporary injunction for January 10th. On this hearing a temporary injunction was refused on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in the court over the subject-matter of the suit, and the restraining order dissolved. Notice of appeal having been given by plaintiffs, the court, on their motion, renewed the restraining order pending the appeal.
It is unnecessary for the purpose of this opinion to set out at length the allegations of plaintiffs' petition, and we shall only copy those portions showing the character of the rights asserted by plaintiffs, and the acts of the defendants of which complaint is made. The petition alleges:
It is further alleged that the First Baptist Church of Houston has been organized for a number of years and has approximately 5,000 members, and prior to occurrences subsequently mentioned and complained of in the petition, the members of the church had dwelt together "in brotherly love and spiritual communion" and had made financial contributions to the church to the reasonable extent of their individual means, and as a result of such contributions valuable property had been acquired by the church for church purposes, the probable value of such property being $600,000. Then follows lengthy allegations criticizing and complaining of defendants' management of the property and financial affairs of the church, but as no insistence is made in appellants' brief upon any invasion of the property rights of plaintiffs which would entitle them to an injunction, these allegations need not be set out.
It is next alleged, in substance: That the defendant J. B. Leavell, the pastor of the church, was intolerant from any dissent from any of his views upon church matters, and that for a few months immediately prior to November, 1926, plaintiffs and other members of the congregation became somewhat insistent in expressing their views disapproving the pastor's conduct of church affairs, and this caused the defendant Leavell to conceive and attempt to put into execution a plan or scheme to exclude plaintiffs and all other members of the congregation not in accord with the pastor's views and method of conducting the affairs of the church, from further membership therein. That in pursuance of this scheme the defendant pastor selected and appointed a committee of five members and prevailed upon them to suggest and recommend to the church congregation the passage of a resolution proposed by the pastor, requiring each member of the church to sign an instrument designated the "Church Covenant," whereby the member repledged and reconsecrated himself to the service of Christ and to the Baptist faith, the resolution providing that only those signing the covenant on or before January 1, 1927, should thereafter constitute the membership of the church. That this resolution was first presented to and adopted by the congregation at a meeting attended by not more than 200 members. That by reason of the drastic provision of this resolution, which would automatically exclude a large number of the members of the church from further fellowship therein, without personal objection to such members, or notice of any accusation against them, or trial by the congregation, and which was voted on by only 4 per cent. of the membership, plaintiffs and a large number of other members of the congregation insisted:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cox v. Thee Evergreen Church, D-0938
...writ ref'd) (language of statute implies intent to confine application to matters of business). See also Minton v. Leavell, 297 S.W. 615, 622 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1927, writ ref'd). We find these cases persuasive, and conclude that articles 6133-6138 do not apply to unincorporated chari......
-
C.L. Westbrook, Jr. v. Penley
...Brown v. Clark, 102 Tex. 323, 116 S.W. 360, 363 (Tex.1909), and of church discipline in particular, Minton v. Leavell, 297 S.W. 615, 621-22 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1927, writ ref'd). The Minton court cogently explained why courts must decline jurisdiction over disputes concerning church It ......
-
Episcopal Church v. Salazar
...for business, social, literary, or charitable purposes.' " Westbrook , 231 S.W.3d at 398 (quoting Minton v. Leavell , 297 S.W. 615, 622 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1927, writ ref'd) ). Because a church's autonomy in managing its affairs has long been afforded broad constitutional protections,......
-
In re St. Thomas High Sch.
...or unjustly, regularly or irregularly cut off from the body of the church.’ ” Id. at 399 (quoting Minton v. Leavell, 297 S.W. 615, 621–22 (Tex.Civ.App.–Galveston 1927, writ ref'd) ).Texas courts have applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss suits that unduly encroach on a r......