Pounder v. Ash

• Decision Date: 29 March 1893
• Citation: 54 N.W. 847,36 Neb. 564
• Parties: POUNDER ET AL. v. ASH ET AL.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

36 Neb. 564

54 N.W. 847

POUNDER ET AL.

v.ASH ET AL.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 29, 1893.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. When rights of property are in question, civil courts will inquire whether or not the organic rules and forms of proceedings prescribed by the ecclesiastical body have been followed.

2. When, tested by such organic rules and forms, it is found that the proceedings of an ecclesiastical tribunal were without jurisdiction, such proceedings will be held void in so far as such proceedings necessarily and directly involve property rights.

3. The proceedings whereby it was sought to exclude one of the defendants from his clerical functions examined, and held not to be in accordance with the procedure established by the church discipline in question.

Commissioners' decision. Appeal from district court, Seward county; Bates, Judge.

Action by Joseph J. Pounder and others against J. P. Ash and others to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' use of a certain church. There was judgment in favor of defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.Norval Bros. & Lowley, for appellants.

Ed. P. Smith, E. B. Esher, and E. C. Biggs, for appellees.

RYAN, C.

This action was begun in the district court of Seward county by the appellants to restrain the appellees from using a certain church building for religious exercises conducted by defendant Ash. The controversy focuses about the right of said Ash to officiate as a clergyman of the Church of Mount Zion of the Beaver Crossing Mission of the Evangelical Association of North America. It is not disputed that Mr. Ash was assigned to this charge by the annual conference of said association in March of the year 1890, and that at the commencement of this action his term had not ended by its own limitation. Incidentally the regularity of the proceedings of said annual conference were questioned, because, as insisted, the Discipline of said association required the bishop, if present, to preside thereat, a requirement, if such it was, more honored in the breach than in the observance. This contention is noted, not because strictly necessary to a decision of the matters really in controversy, but that proceedings hereinafter referred to may be the better understood. There is no serious disagreement as to the facts of this case; at least such facts as are not controverted will suffice for the determination of this appeal.

From the pleadings it is not open to question that the annual conference aforesaid assigned Mr. Ash to the charge now in controversy, and said pleadings admit that Mr. Ash was exercising said functions until this action was begun. By injunction it was sought to terminate such functions upon the ground that Mr. Ash had been, subsequently to his assignment, duly suspended, and himself deposed from his ministerial position. Involving, as this does, the conflicting claims of parties to the church property, and the use of it, civil courts have jurisdiction to try and determine such claims, subject to certain limitations fixed and observed by such courts. It is indispensable to the existence of church organization, discipline, and efficiency that civil courts refrain from the usurpation and exercise of judicial functions properly inherent in ecclesiastical authorities; hence a reference to the decisions of some of the courts of last resort bearing upon that subject will not be unprofitable. In O'Hara v. Stack, 90 Pa. St. 490, it was held that, when rights of property are in question, civil courts will inquire whether the organic rules and forms of proceedings prescribed by the ecclesiastical body have been followed. The supreme court of Vermont has held that the proceedings of the synod of the Presbyterian Church as a court of last resort are not absolute or conclusive when they come in question, whether directly or collaterally, in a court of law, but that such proceedings may be inquired into upon the same principles as subject the proceedings of voluntary associations to inquiry and adjudication. Smith v. Nelson, 18 Vt. 511. This doctrine was stated with approval in Watson v. Avery, 2 Bush, 332, and is without doubt the consensus of judicial opinion.

2. There is not entire harmony as to the exact language of the charges and specifications upon which was predicated the removal of defendant Ash, but, as the difference is more in matters of mere form than in substance, the copy attached to the bill of exceptions is taken as sufficiently exact for the purposes under consideration. It is as follows: “Beaver Crossing, June 4, 1890. I, A. W. Schenberger, presiding elder of the Blue Springs district of Platte River Conference of the Evangelical Association, do prefer charges against Rev. J. P. Ash for actions and sayings unbecoming a minister, and which has caused dissensions and disturbed the peace and harmony and prosperity of our society at Beaver Crossing. Specification A. In having certain resolutions passed by the board of trustees of the church, which caused great dissatisfaction, which is contrary to the discipline. Specification B. In misrepresenting the interest and action of the Platte River Conference, and especially at its last session, and the interest of the members of the society at Beaver Crossing, by intimidating on the finance. Specification C. In neglecting or refusing to observe our Book of Discipline as found on page 67, question 96, answer 2; also in answer 4, in lines 2 and 3 at the top of page 68, in Book of Discipline. A charge for ignoring his superior in office, and deception. Specification A. On Monday, June 2d, he told me that he did not recognize me as a presiding elder nor a member of the church since last conference. Same night, in the church, he said I was no elder, and that he would not accept any charge from me. Specification B. In practicing deception in keeping me ignorant of what he was influencing the trustees to do, giving the wrong advice to the members, which is an open violation of...