Skyline Missionary Baptist Church v. Davis

• Decision Date: 13 April 1944
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 249.
• Citation: 17 So.2d 533,245 Ala. 455
• Parties: SKYLINE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH et al v. DAVIS et al
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

17 So.2d 533

245 Ala. 455

SKYLINE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH et al v. DAVIS et al

8 Div. 249.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 13, 1944

H.T Foster, of Scottsboro, and A.E. Hawkins, of Fort Payne, for appellants.

Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for appellees.

STAKELY Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the equity court discharging a temporary injunction. § 757, Title 7, Code of 1940. The suit involves a factional fight within the membership of a Baptist Church for control of the church property.

The original bill was filed against Van Davis and others (appellees) in the name of the Skyline Missionary Baptist Church and in the name of a number of individuals (appellants) who are designated as trustees and as officers and members of the church. The allegations of the bill show that the Skyline Missionary Baptist Church is an unincorporated body, was organized as and still is one of the churches of the Tennessee River Missionary Baptist Association, and is governed by the will of its members in good standing under the rules and regulations of the Tennessee River Missionary Baptist Association.

The allegations of the bill further show that the church property consists of the church house and the real estate on which it is located, legal title to which is in trustees; that the respondents, a minority in the church, were attempting to transfer the church from Membership in the Tennessee River Missionary Baptist Association to the Mount Carmel Association, which is not of the same faith and order, and were advancing strange and fancied doctrines, repudiating many of the cherished tenets of the true Missionary Baptist faith. The bill prayed for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from conducting services in the church house or from using or going upon or trespassing upon the church property. The lower court issued the temporary injunction.

The respondents (appellees) filed a motion to require the attorneys appearing for the Skyline Missionary Baptist Church to show their authority for such appearance and their right to institute the action in the name of the church. A motion was also filed by the respondents to dissolve or discharge the temporary injunction. The case was heard by the court on these motions. In rendering its decree, the court found that the attorneys did not have the authority to use the name of the Skyline Missionary Baptist Church as a party complainant and, accordingly, that it was not a party to the cause. Holding that the church was a necessary party, the court discharged the injunction.

Obviously, on this appeal we are only concerned with the action of the court in discharging the temporary injunction, based as it was on the court's ruling on the motions. It is not out of place, however, to say that this court has often upheld the equity of bills similar in principle to the present bill.

"As an exception to this general rule, it is established by the weight of authority that the majority of each independent or congregational society, however regular its actions or procedure may be, may not, as against a faithful minority divert the property of the society to another denomination, or to the support of doctrines radically and fundamentally opposed to the characteristic doctrines of the society, even though the property is subject to no express trust. This doctrine was recognized in Manning et al. v. Yeager et al., supra, [203 Ala. 185, 82 So. 435]. See, also, Kenesaw Free Baptist Church of Kenesaw v. Lattimer et al., 103 Neb. 755, 174 N.W. 296, 8 A.L.R. 98; Baptist City Mission Soc. of Denver v. People's Tabernacle Congregational Church of Denver, 64 Colo. 574, 174 P. 1118, 8 A.L.R. 102, and authorities cited in note page 113.

* * * * *

"To justify interference it must be shown that the purpose of the majority or governing body is to make a gratuitous transfer of the property of the society to another denomination, or to disavow and depart from the characteristic, distinctive doctrines and practices, and devote the use of the property to doctrines radically opposed to the distinctive doctrines and practices of the society. Such purpose must appear either from an open avowal on the part of the majority, or from its acts and conduct manifesting such purpose beyond all reasonable doubt. * * * " Mitchell et al. v. Church of Christ at Mount Olive, 221 Ala. 315, 317, 318, 128 So. 781, 783, 70 A.L.R. 71.

The respondents had the right to challenge the authority of attorneys to use the name of Skyline Missionary Baptist Church as one of the complainants. And the method of testing this authority by motion has been approved by this court. Mitchell et al. v. Church of Christ at Mount Olive, 219 Ala. 322, 122 So. 341; Id., 221 Ala. 315, 128 So. 781, 70 A.L.R. 71; § 48, Title 46, Code of 1940. The fact that the legal title to the church property was in trustees, would not change the situation. Blount v. Sixteenth St. Baptist Church, 206 Ala. 423, 90 So. 602.

The evidence on this issue was presented partly on oral testimony taken before the court and partly on depositions taken before the Register. It has been considered carefully and no good purpose will be served by setting it out in detail. We concur with the lower court in its conclusion that authority to use the name of the church in bringing the suit was not conferred, although attorneys were under the impression that the...