Ryan v. Dunzilla

• Decision Date: 10 March 1913
• Docket Number: 348
• Parties: Ryan v. Dunzilla, Appellant; Ryan, et al., Appellant, v. Dunzilla, et al
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

86 A. 1089

239 Pa. 486

Ryan v. Dunzilla, Appellant;

Ryan, et al., Appellant, v. Dunzilla, et al

No. 348

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 10, 1913

Argued February 13, 1912

Appeals, No. 348, Jan. T., 1911, and No. 10, Jan. T., 1912 by defendants and plaintiffs, from decree of C.P. Schuylkill Co., June T., 1910, No. 2, in equity, in case of The Right Rev. Edmond F. Prendergast, Archbishop of the Diocese of Philadelphia, and Rev. A. J. Kaminski v. William Dunzilla, et al. Decree modified.

Bill in equity for an injunction. Before BRUMM, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

The court entered the following decree:

And now, May 1, 1911, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants be restrained perpetually from taking up a collection at the portals of the church of St. George's Lithuanian Roman Catholic Church of Shenandoah; that the defendants be restrained perpetually from interfering with the priest in the issuing of permits for the burial of the dead in the cemeteries belonging to St. George's Lithuanian Roman Catholic Church of Shenandoah, but that the moneys arising from the sale of lots and for the purchase of permits be paid by the said priest and his successors in office to the treasurer of the congregation of St George's Lithuanian Roman Catholic Church of Shenandoah, that an accounting be made between the plaintiffs and the defendants for all moneys received by either of them from the inception of this suit to the date of this decree, and that all moneys found to be necessary for the maintenance, the control, and the ownership of the church property, and for the proper enjoyment and use of the same, be paid to the treasurer of the congregation of St. George's Lithuanian Roman Catholic Church of Shenandoah, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the plaintiff, Rev. A. J. Kaminski, and his successors in offices; that all the taxable costs be paid by the defendants.

Error assigned in both appeals was the decree of the court.

George M. Rhoads and A. A. Hirst, with them W. F. Lyons, for The Right Rev. Patrick John Ryan, et al.

Guy E. Farquhar, with him R. H. Koch, for William Dunzilla, et al.

Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE BROWN:

The respondents admit that, under the canons and laws of the Roman Catholic Church, the complainants -- the archbishop of the Diocese of Philadelphia and the priest sent by him to St. George's Lithuanian Roman Catholic Church of Shenandoah -- are vested with the control and authority which they claim; and this control, as the court below properly held, extends to "everything relating to the congregation, whether it concerns property, spiritual matters, financial affairs, parochial schools or any other question which goes to the government of the parish." But when rights of property are in question, the civil courts will inquire whether the organic rules and forms of proceeding prescribed by the ecclesiastical body have been followed; and, if followed, whether they are in conflict with the law of the land: O'Hara v. Stack, 90 Pa. 477. So far as the canons of the church are in conflict with the law of the land, they must yield to the latter; but, when they do not so conflict, they must prevail. No question arises on these appeals as to the title to church property or its transmission, and the complainants below justly contend on their appeal that Mazaika v. Krauczunas, 229 Pa. 47, and 233 Pa. 138, have little or no bearing on the questions raised. What we are to determine is whether the court below correctly applied the law of the church as to some matters and the law of the land as to others.

The eighth legal conclusion of the learned chancellor, not assigned as error, is that "the custom of collecting ten cents at the portals of the church is in conflict with the laws of the Church of Rome." The right to make such a collection is not given by any law of the land, and the law of the church is, therefore, supreme. Another legal conclusion which has not been assigned as error is that under the laws of the church, the priest or rector has the sole and exclusive right to say who shall be buried in the cemetery belonging to the congregation. No law of the land conflicts with this, and we, therefore, dismiss, without further comment, the complaint of the respondents of so much of the decree as enjoins them from taking up the collection at the portals of the church and from interfering with the priest in the issuing of permits for the burial of the dead in the cemetery. In support of the balance of the decree the learned chancellor said, inter alia: "There...