Russie v. Brazzell
Decision Date | 30 March 1895 |
Citation | 128 Mo. 93,30 S.W. 526 |
Parties | RUSSIE et al. v. BRAZZELL et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Action by Alex. Russie and Charles Patton against John Brazzell and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Wanamaker & Barlow and D. S. Alvord, for plaintiffs in error. A. F. Woodruff, D. J. Heaston, and L. B. Gunckel, for defendants in error.
This suit is ejectment to recover possession of certain lots at Eagleville, Harrison county. The title to the lots is vested in trustees for the use of the United Brethren in Christ by deed dated February 10, 1873. The property was used by the congregation of said church as a parsonage. The controversy grows out of a division in the church and said congregation which occurred in 1889. The plaintiffs are the trustees of the branch known as "Liberals," and defendants are trustees of the branch known as "Radicals." Each claim the property as trustees of the true church. The United Brethren in Christ is a voluntary, unincorporated, religious denomination. At its first organization, something over a century ago, it had neither a constitution nor a confession of faith. It looked to the Bible alone for doctrine and government. In 1815 the general conference, which was the highest legislative and judicial body of the church, adopted a confession of faith which contained the fundamental doctrines of the church, and which was recognized and adhered to until 1889. The general conference in 1841 formulated and adopted a constitution as the organic law of the church. This constitution recognized the confession of faith adopted in 1815, and provided, among other things, that "no rule or ordinance shall at any time be passed to change or do away with the confession of faith, as it now stands." It also provided, "There shall be no connection with secret combinations." Article 4 provided, "There shall be no alteration of the foregoing constitution, unless by request of two-thirds of the whole society." There was no submission of this constitution to a vote of the members of the society, and the regularity of its adoption is, and from its date has been, questioned. In May, 1885, the general conference adopted the following resolutions by a vote of 78 to 42: A recommendation of the following law in relation to secret combinations was also adopted: Pursuant to these resolutions, a commission provided therein was duly appointed. The commission so appointed prepared a revised confession of faith and an amended constitution. These were submitted to a vote of the members of the society, under methods adopted by the commission. The vote was taken in November, 1888, after all reasonable endeavors to enlighten the membership through official organs and by pamphlets and by pulpit announcements. The vote, as taken, was as follows:
For the confession of faith ............ 51,070 Against ................................ 3,310 For the amended constitution ........... 50,685 Against ................................ 3,659 For lay delegation ..................... 48,825 Against ................................ 5,634 For section on secret combinations ..... 46,994 Against ................................ 7,298
At the time this vote was taken the membership exceeded 200,000. The revised confession of faith and amended constitution were reported to the general conference in 1889, and adopted by a vote of 110 to 20, and were proclaimed by the presiding bishop to be the "confession of faith and the constitution of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ." After the proclamation of the bishop, 15 members of the conference, including one...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Kansas City
...85 Mo. 41; State ex rel. v. Francis, 95 Mo. 44, 8 S. W. 1; State ex rel. v. Harris, 96 Mo. 29, 8 S. W. 794; Russie v. Brazzell, 128 Mo. 93, 30 S. W. 526, 49 Am. St. Rep. 542; State ex rel. v. White, 162 Mo. 533, 63 S. W. 104; State ex rel. v. Gibson, 195 Mo. 251, 94 S. W. 513; State ex rel.......
-
Barkley v. Hayes
... ... in Missouri by a consistent line of previous decisions ... Watson v. Garvin, 54 Mo. 353; Russie v ... Brazzell, 128 Mo. 93, 30 S.W. 526, 49 Am.St.Rep. 542; ... Fulbright v. Higginbotham, 133 Mo. 676, 34 S.W. 875 ... The only principle ... ...
-
Boyles v. Roberts
...in their nature. State ex rel. v. Farris, 45 Mo. 183; Prickett v. Wells, 117 Mo. 503, 24 S. W. 52; Russie v. Brazzell, 128 Mo. 107, 30 S. W. 526, 49 Am. St. Rep. 542." In the case of Russie v. Brazzell, 128 loc. cit. 113, 30 S. W. 531, 49 Am. St. Rep. 542, we said: "The question on this bra......
-
State v. Burns
... ... State may only be amended in the way and manner pointed out ... by that instrument itself. Russie v. Brazzell, 128 ... Mo. 93; Sec. 1, Art. XV, Mo. Constitution. (4) By proposing ... to repeal certain mentioned sections of the Constitutions, no ... ...