Prickett v. Wells

• Citation: 24 S.W. 52,117 Mo. 502
• Parties: Prickett et al. v. Wells et al., Appellants
• Decision Date: 06 November 1893
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

24 S.W. 52

117 Mo. 502

Prickett et al. v. Wells et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

November 6, 1893

Appeal from Clark Circuit Court. -- Hon. B. E. Turner, Judge.

Affirmed.

McKee & Whiteside for appellants.

Montgomery & Berkheimer for respondents.

Barclay J. Black, C. J., and Macfarlane, J., concur; Brace, J., did not take part.

OPINION

Barclay, J.

This suit deals with a controversy between two groups of members of the Christian church, at Neeper, in Clark county. It grows out of a difference in the congregation regarding the selection of a pastor; but it finally assumed the form of a litigation over the right to the possession and use of the church building and other property.

The church appears to be an unincorporated association of worshippers of the denomination, "Disciples of Christ," and the real estate devoted to its purposes (including an acre and one-half of ground and the house of worship) was, in 1880, vested in three persons, as trustees for the use of the church, by a deed, duly executed.

Two of the trustees named in the deed are plaintiffs in this suit which was brought to restrain defendants from interfering with the management of the property The third plaintiff is one of the elders of the church.

It appears from the evidence at the trial that the government of the local society, according to the doctrine and usage of the Christian church, is vested in the elders and deacons; the former administering spiritual affairs, such as teaching and employing preachers, while the deacons manage the finances and attend generally to the material needs of the church; that the elders and deacons are selected and ordained by other elders of the church, and cannot otherwise be appointed.

The gist of the present dispute is, that one of the defendants, Mr. Wells, persisted in using the church property as its pastor against the protest and objection of the duly chosen elders. He claimed the right to do so, not because of any contractual relation with them, but on the ground that he had been engaged as preacher by certain other members purporting to act as elders, but who had not been designated or chosen as such by elders already in service, according to the usages and course of discipline in that church.

The foregoing facts appeared in the trial court, which, after a full hearing, entered a decree for plaintiffs to the general purport prayed by them, from...