Sapp v. Callaway, s. 17767

• Citation: 69 S.E.2d 734,208 Ga. 805
• Decision Date: 11 March 1952
• Docket Number: Nos. 17767,17768,s. 17767
• Parties: SAPP et al. v. CALLAWAY et al. CALLAWAY et al. v. SAPP et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 734

69 S.E.2d 734

208 Ga. 805

SAPP et al. v. CALLAWAY et al.

CALLAWAY et al. v. SAPP et al.

Nos. 17767, 17768.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 11, 1952.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A majority of the members of a church who adhere to its organization and doctrines represent the church. Code, § 22-406. Though civil courts are reluctant to interpose in questions affecting the temporalities of a church (Code, § 22-408), they will entertain, on behalf of a majority of the members of the church, having a congregations form of government, who adhere to the church organization and doctrines, a petition seeking to restrain former members, who have been expelled from the church, from interfering with the management of the church and trespassing upon the church property. Bouldin v. Alexander, 15 Wall. 131, 82 U.S. 131, 21 L.Ed. 69; Tucker v. Paulk, 148 Ga. 228, 96 S.E. 339.

2. A petition which alleges that the plaintiffs represent a majority of the members of a named Primitive Baptist Church having a congregational form of government; that they are adherents to the organization and doctrines of the church; and that the defendants are former members of the church who were expelled at a regular conference of the church, who are continuously holding meetings in the church without the consent and against the will of the majority, which majority had the exclusive right to the use of the church property, and praying that the defendants be restrained and enjoined from using the property, states a cause of action for equitable relief, and it was not error to overrule the general demurrer interposed by the defendants.

3. Though the admission of certain testimony objected to be erroneous, a reversal will not result where other testimony to the same effect and of like nature was introduced without objection. Stewart v. Ellis, 130 Ga. 685(2), 61 S.E. 597; Wages v. Wages, 202 Ga. 155(2), 42 S.E.2d 481. Special grounds 2, 4 and 5 of the motion for a new trial complain that the court erred in admitting certain testimony over stated objections, but from an inspection of the brief of evidence it appears that other testimony of the same nature and character was introduced without objection. These grounds are without merit.

4. Special ground 3, which assigns error on the overruling of an objection to a question propounded to a witness on cross-examination, where it does not appear from the ground of the motion that the witness answered the question, or testified to any fact in response to the question, does not show harmful error. Pepper v. Pepper, 169 Ga. 832(4), 152 S.E. 103; Honea v. State, 181 Ga. 40, 42(3), 181 S.E. 416; Crawford v. Gale, 204 Ga. 448(2), 49 S.E.2d 905.

5. The charge complained of in special ground 6, that the burden was upon the plaintiffs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they, the plaintiffs, adhered to the original organization and doctrines of the church, was not subject to the objection that, under the pleadings and the law, the burden was upon the defendants to show that the plaintiffs were not adhering to the original organization and doctrines of the church, for the reason that the plaintiffs alleged in their amended petition that they constituted a majority of the members of the church, and adhered to the organization and doctrines of the church. Under the law, Code, § 22-406, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to control the property of the church unless they supported these allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tucker v. Paulk, 148 Ga. 228, 96 S.E. 339, supra. There was no error in giving the charge complained of.

6. For reasons stated in the corresponding division of the opinion, it was error for the court to charge the jury as complained of in special ground 7 of the motion for a new trial.

7. Courts of equity will not interfere with the internal affairs of religious organizations, involving questions of faith and doctrine, discipline, rule, custom, or church government. Applying this rule of law, it was erroneous for the court to give the charges complained of in special grounds 8 and 9 of the motion for a new trial.

8. It can not be said that the evidence demanded a verdict in favor of the defendants on their contention that the plaintiffs had withdrawn from the church, and therefore that the court's errors in the charge were harmless. A new trial being required by reason of the errors pointed out in divisions 6 and 7 above, it is unnecessary to pass either upon special ground 1 of the motion for a new trial, which assigns error upon the findings of the jury, upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

This case is here on a bill of exceptions which assigns error on the overruling of the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, and also on a cross-bill of exceptions of the defendants, assigning error on exceptions pendente lite to the overruling of their general demurrer to the petition.

The plaintiffs, J. A. Sapp et al., alleging themselves to be members of the Anderson Primitive Baptist Church and representative of a majority of such membership, averred: that, at a regular conference on June 18, 1949, the church adopted a motion that it remain aloof from all oath-bound secret societies including the labor union; that the three defendants and twelve other members voted against this resolution, and 35 members, including the plaintiffs, voted in favor thereof; that subsequently, at a conference of the church on July 16, 1949, on the question of the 15 members voting against accepting the stand of the church on the labor-union issue, said 15 members, including the defendants, were asked to and refused to submit to the order of the church, and the church withdrew fellowship from them; that on June 10, 1950, the defendants were notified in writing by the clerk of the church that they, the expelled members, had no right to use the church property, and they were requested to cease using the church property for any purpose, and that, notwithstanding the defendants had been expelled, they and the other expelledmembers had continued to hold church services in the church building, and threatened to make continuous use of said church. It was prayed that the defendants be restrained and enjoined from further use of the church, or committing any trespass upon the church property. It was alleged that the plaintiffs and their associates constituted a majority of the members of the church; and that they were adherents to its organization and doctrines, and had the right to control the property of the church for the use and benefit of the same.

The defendants in their answer denied the material allegations of the petition, and alleged that the plaintiffs and their associates withdrew from the Anderson Primitive Baptist Church on July 16, 1949, and were thereafter, on September 17, 1949, expelled from the church by the defendants and their associates, and plaintiffs are no longer members of said church. They alleged: that they, the defendants, had consistently adhered to the articles of faith, decorum, and covenant of the church; and that the plaintiffs had no further interest in the church property; and that, since the plaintiffs withdrew from the church they have been advised that they could use the church property on the third Saturdays and Sundays of each month, and this proposition had been accepted by the plaintiffs. The prayer of the defendants was that the plaintiffs be enjoined from trespassing upon or using the property of the church except...