Shannon v. Frost
| Decision Date | 27 October 1842 |
| Citation | 42 Ky. 253 |
| Parties | Shannon et al. v. Frost et al. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Equity Jurisdiction.
APPEAL FROM THE FRANKLIN CIRCUIT.
Hewitt and Owsley & Goodloe for appellants
Morehead & Reed and Cates & Lindsey for appellees.
IN this case two discordant and dislocated parties of a Baptist Church, as originally organized in Frankfort, are litigating their respective claims to the use of a house of public worship, erected by that Church, on ground conveyed in 1827 by Henry Crittenden and wife, to Reuben Anderson, James Shannon, Benjamin Hickman, Robert Johnson, and Henry Wingate, in trust " for the use and benefit of the Baptist Society in the town of Frankfort, known by the (name of) the Frankfort Baptist Church of the county of Franklin."
The case stated and object of the bill, and decree of the Circuit Court
On the 27th of March, 1841, the said James Shannon and six other members of the said Church were excommunicated by a vote of a majority of the other members. The expelled members, associating with some other persons professing the same religion, organized themselves into a separate community of christians, and having elected three persons as trustees to fill vacancies occasioned by the deaths of Anderson and Hickman, and the removal of Johnson from Kentucky, they procured from the County Court of Franklin a ratification of that election. Afterwards, insisting on their right still to enjoy, to some extent, their accustomed use of the house built for and still occupied by the original Church, they took possession and made periodical uses of it without the consent and in defiance of the prohibition of that Church. Collisions and complaints, unpleasant and injurious to both parties ensued, and became apparently so determined and aggravating as to leave no hope of voluntary reconciliation or peace. To settle this disagreeable controversy, and secure the exclusive and undisturbed possession of the house, the members of the Church, as originally constituted, invoked the intervention of the civil power by filing a bill, (in the name of a committee appointed for that purpose,) for enjoining Shannon, Dudley and all others co-operating with them, from using the house or disturbing the complaining party in the peaceful and exclusive use and enjoyment of it for devotional services.
One Circuit Judge having granted the injunction as sought in the bill, another dissolved it before an answer had been filed; and, on application to one of the Judges of this Court, it was re-instated in a modified form by the following order:
" Not doubting the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals of the Commonwealth to protect christian societies in the proper and undisturbed enjoyment of their religious exercises, the rightful enforcement of their ecclesiastical discipline, and the peaceful occupancy and use of their property in their own way, and according to the laws of the land; and being satisfied that the allegations of the bill in this case, (being admitted to be true, as they must have been, on the motion to dissolve the injunction,) a prima facie case is exhibited, authorizing the Chancellor to enjoin the defendants from preventing the complainants and their associates from enjoying, without obstruction, the use of their church building and its appurtenances, and to enjoin them also from exercising any control over said property, or the use thereof, and from all intermeddling therein, as Trustees or otherwise --I, George Robertson, Chief Justice of Kentucky, do therefore, reinstate the injunction in this case, excepting only so far as it might be understood as inhibiting the defendants, as citizens, from participating in the proper use of the house, as the people generally are permitted to enjoy it, on occasions of public worship, in subordination to the controlling influence of the complainants and their associates as an organized ecclesiastical body, entitled to the government of their church as charged in their bill, until the contrary shall be made to appear."
Order reinstating the injunction by the Chief Justice of Kentucky.
After the reinstatement of the injunction, the persons who were made defendants, answered the bill, denying that the expulsion from the Church was either regular or valid, or for any good cause; insisting that they still had a right, as an organized community of christians, to use the house as a place of social worship as often as one night in every week and two days in every month, and asseverating that they never claimed or attempted to exercise any control over it for any other purpose or to any greater extent.
On the final hearing, the Circuit Judge, being of the opinion that the Statute of 1814, (2 Digest, 1347,) does not apply to this case, decreed a vacation of the appointment of new trustees; a removal of the three survivors of the orignal trustees, Shannon, Johnson, and Wingate, and an election of five new trustees, by all the white members of the church, as constituted before the expulsion of a portion of them, and appointed a commissioner to hold and superintend that election, and report the result to the Court.
Decree of the Court, on hearing on bill, on answer & c.
The defendants have appealed, and the complainants have assigned cross errors.
In revising the decree, the first and most radical question which presents itself is, whether the Statute of 1814 applies to the case in any respect.
That enactment is in these words:
" Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That if any society or sect of christians in any part of this Commonwealth, shall heretofore have associated, or hereafter shall associate themselves together, in congregational form, and shall have acquired, or hereafter shall acquire a piece or lot of ground, for the purpose of erecting thereon a house or houses of worship, graveyard, and pound for horses; and shall have heretofore received, or shall hereafter receive the title of said ground, by devise or conveyance to trustees for the use and benefit of said society or congregation, and it shall become necessary, by reason of the death or removal of said trustees, or through any other cause, to appoint new trustees to support the legal estate, it shall and may be lawful for said society or congregation, by the election held by its members, or by those appointed for that purpose, according to the rules of said society, to elect or appoint, as often as may be necessary any number of trustees not exceeding five; and to produce the names of said trustees so elected or appointed to the County Court of the county where the house of worship may be situated; who shall order the said names to be entered on their records; and thereupon, said trustees, so elected or appointed, shall be vested with the legal title of said land, for the use and benefit of said congregation; and shall have power to do any legal act in conducting the same which may be necessary for the uses aforesaid; and to maintain any action or actions of trespass, or other action for the safe keeping and preservation of said property, which may be necessary for that purpose: Provided, however, that if any schism or division shall take place in said congregation or church, from any other cause than the immorality of its members, nothing in this act shall be so construed as to authorize said trustees to prevent either of the parties so divided, from using the house or houses of worship, for the purposes of devotion, a part of the time, proportioned to the numbers of each party: Provided, that the quantity of real estate hereafter acquired by any religious society, and vested in trustees and their successors under this act, shall not exceed [four acres of land]: Provided, that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize the minority of any church having seceded from, or been expelled, or excommunicaed from the church or congregation, from interfering in any manner, in their appointments for preaching or worship, with any appointment for similar purposes, which may have been made by the body or the major part of such church or congregation."
The Statute of 1814.
After a careful examination of this Statute, we concur with the Court below in the opinion that it has no application to, or bearing on, the case now before us.
The chief object of the enactment seems to have been to prescribe a mode for transmitting to new trustees the legal title to church...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Lubbock
...Court either rend or touch that veil for the forbidden purpose of vindicating the alleged wrongs of the excinded members." Shannon v. Frost , 42 Ky. 253, 259 (1842).4 See Matthew 12:36 (English Standard Version) ("I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careles......
-
Gudmundson v. Thingvalla Lutheran Church
......34 Cyc. 1184. and note 53, cases cited, 1185 and cases cited; State ex. rel. Watson v. Farris, 45 Mo. 183; Shannon v. Frost, 3 B. Mon. 253; Gibson v. Armstrong, 7 B. Mon. 481. . . Civil. courts have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and ......
-
Boyles v. Roberts
...tribunals must accept such decisions as final and as binding on them, in their application to the case before them.' "In Shannon v. Frost, 42 Ky. 253, 3 B. Mon. 253, the court, on similar question said: 'This court, having no ecclesiastical jurisdiction, cannot revise or question ordinary a......
-
Smith v. Pedigo
...hence cannot, in this case, determine whether the minority was wrongfully or rightfully expelled from the church. They quote from Shannon v. Frost, supra, others the following passage: "We must take the fact of expulsion as conclusive proof that the persons expelled are not now members of t......