Sale v. First Regular Baptist Church of Mason City

• Decision Date: 18 October 1883
• Citation: 17 N.W. 143,62 Iowa 26
• Parties: SALE v. THE FIRST REGULAR BAPTIST CHURCH OF MASON CITY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

17 N.W. 143

62 Iowa 26

SALE v. THE FIRST REGULAR BAPTIST CHURCH OF MASON CITY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Dubuque

October 18, 1883

Appeal from Cerro Gordo Circuit Court.

THE petition states that the defendant is a corporation; that the plaintiff was a member thereof and entitled to enjoy all the privileges and franchises pertaining to such membership; that the plaintiff was notified by the clerk or secretary of the defendant that at a meeting of the corporation she "was expelled therefrom, and cut off and cast out from her privileges and franchises as a member of the organization." The notice referred to is as follows "MASON CITY, IOWA, Jan. 25th, 1882. "MRS. S. C. SALE, "DEAR MADAM:

"It has become my duty as clerk of the First Baptist Church of Mason City, Iowa, to inform you that at a meeting of the Church, held on Tuesday, January 24th, inst., for insufferable offenses against the Church, the hand of fellowship was withdrawn from you. "Respectfully Yours "J. G. BROWN, Ch. Clerk.'

"That plaintiff had no notice of said meeting, nor had she any notice of any charge having been preferred against her, nor had she transgressed or violated any rules of said corporation, nor had she neglected to do any duty incumbent upon her by reason of her membership in said body; and plaintiff is informed and believes no charges were ever preferred against her. That after the action aforesaid the plaintiff made the following written request and demand of defendant, to-wit:

"'To the First Regular Baptist Church of Mason City, Iowa:

"'Mrs S. C. Sale, having received notification from the Clerk of the Church of the withdrawal on the 24th day of January 1882, of the hand of fellowship from her for insufferable offenses against the Church, and knowing, as all Baptists do know, that such action, in such manner and method, and at such a time as was then taken, was in violation of all existing principles, regulations or usages of the denomination:

"'Therefore she requests that any and all record of said action be expunged from the record, and that, if there be any charges against her, her accuser or accusers and the charges be at once made known to her.'"

That afterward the defendant took action upon such request as follows:

"After prayer-meeting, Thursday evening, February 9th, 1882, Mrs. S. C. Sale presented a written request that the church reconsider its action of January 24th, 1882, when the hand of fellowship was withdrawn from her (to-wit, Mrs. S. C. Sale). On motion the church voted to indefinitely postpone the consideration of the matter."

That by the rules and laws governing such organization it was the duty of the defendant to notify the plaintiff of any charges against her, and give her an opportunity to defend the same by citing her to appear and answer the same. That plaintiff was unlawfully expelled by said corporation in violation of the rules and by laws thereof. A copy of the Articles of Corporation, and a "copy of the rules and regulations of said church government in matters of discipline of members," are attached to and made a part of the petition. The relief asked is that a writ of mandamus issue commanding defendants to reinstate plaintiff as a member of the corporation. To the petition there was a demurrer, which was overruled, and, defendant electing to stand thereon, final judgment in favor of the plaintiff was entered. The defendant appeals.

REVERSED.

Glass & Hughes and Miller & Cliggett, for appellant.

Blythe and Markley, for appellee.

OPINION

SEEVERS, J.

When rights of property are in controversy, it is conceded by counsel for the appellant that the courts have the jurisdiction and power to inquire as to the proceedings of an ecclesiastical body which affect such right. And, on the other hand, as we understand, counsel for the appellee concede that, if there was...