Rodgers v. Burnett

• Decision Date: 23 November 1901
• Citation: 65 S.W. 408,108 Tenn. 173
• Parties: RODGERS et al. v. BURNETT et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

65 S.W. 408

108 Tenn. 173

RODGERS et al. v. BURNETT et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 23, 1901

Appeal from chancery court, Knox county; Jos. W. Sneed, Chancellor.

Suit by J. B. Rodgers and others against T. J. Burnett and others to obtain possession of certain church property. From a decree of the court of chancery appeals reversing a decree in favor of defendants, defendants appeal. Bill and cross bill dismissed.

S. R Maples and Green & Shields, for appellants.

Sansom Welcker & Parker, for appellees.

McALISTER J.

The controversy presented upon this record is between two rival factions of Zion's Church of the Evangelical Lutheran denomination, in respect of the right to use, control, and manage the church building as a place of worship, and to occupy the parsonage appurtenant to the church. The court of chancery appeals, reversing the decree of the chancellor held that complainants are entitled to the use, control possession, and management of the church property, and perpetually enjoined the defendants from in any way attempting to interfere with such control, use, possession, and management. It appears from the findings of the court of chancery appeals that on September 1, 1868, Frederick Spangler, of Knox county, "for and in consideration of the love of the gospel and other causes, convey unto the elders of Zion's Church and their successors in office forever, for the only use as a church, and controlled by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Holston Synod," the tract or parcel of land on which the church building and parsonage are now situated. The court of chancery appeals finds that: "The Evangelical Lutheran Church is a Christian denomination, and it appears to have four or five general branches, such as United Synod, General Synod, and others, and each renders its own decisions on doctrinal questions. Each church, however, is a separate unit, independent, and can establish its own constitution and laws. It can form synodical relations or not, as it chooses, and, as a church, pure and simple, can sever such synodical relations previously established, at its pleasure. Zion's Church established its own constitution and laws, and promulgated its own creed. The separate church connects itself with the synod of its church by petition. The authorities of the synod applied to examine its constitution and creed, and if they think they conform to the true doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as held and interpreted by that synod, the applying church is admitted to synodical relations, and is thereafter entitled to send delegates to the meetings of that synod. If a church wishes to withdraw from a synod with which it is connected, it does so by a vote of its members, and it can, if it sees proper, as a matter of courtesy, notify the synod of the fact of its withdrawal. It can, it appears, ignore the courtesy. Each church calls its own pastor by a vote of its members, and keeps him as long as it wants him, and can depose him by a vote of its members at any time, in the absence of a contract for a definite term. *** In brief, each church is a separate and independent congregation, and interprets for itself the Evangelical Lutheran Creed. *** In 186-- Zion's Church connected itself with Holston Synod, and Holston Synod belongs to the United Synod of the Lutheran Church in the South. Early in 1897 Zion and Bethel Church united in a call to complainant Rodgers. Mr. Rodgers accepted the call of the two churches aforesaid, which by voluntary action had for several years united in a pastorate; that is to say, united in calling a preacher to minister to both congregations. Early in 1898 opposition was manifested to the ministry of Mr. Rodgers, and shortly afterwards it became active and aggressive, culminating in two of the elders requesting his resignation. A meeting of these two elders with the elders of Bethel Church was held, and they all requested Mr. Rodgers to resign. Two of the elders of Zion's Church carried around a petition among most of the members of that church, and obtained their signatures to a request to Mr. Rodgers to resign. He refused to resign. The result was, the anti-Rodgers faction retired, and thereafter commenced holding service and Sunday school in a school house near by. Both factions then elected delegates to the Holston Synod. The question as to which faction should be regarded as Zion's Church was brought up. That synod determined that the Rodgers faction represented the true Zion's Church, and thereupon the president of the synod sent a letter to one of the elders elected by the other faction, or recognized by it as an elder, directing him to turn over the property to the Rodgers faction. Nothing, however, was done by the elder in response to this letter. The Holston Synod at this meeting directed Zion's Church, as recognized by it, to revise its roll of members, and thereafter, at a meeting called, the Rodgers faction attempted to carry out this order, but, the faction represented by the defendants refused to sign it, and they continued to worship in the school house. This state of affairs continued until 1899, when the representatives sent to the synod by the Rodgers faction were again recognized. After this it appears that the Zion's Church, as represented by the complainants, conceived a doubt as to the true orthodoxy of the teachings of the Holston Synod. It appears furthermore that after the meeting of the synod in 1899 its representatives composed of its executive committee determined to reopen the question as to which was the true Zion's Church, and thereupon, after what they called an 'investigation,'they set aside the action of the synod in...