Stansberry v. McCarty, 29131

• Decision Date: 28 April 1958
• Docket Number: No. 29131,29131
• Citation: 238 Ind. 338,149 N.E.2d 683
• Parties: O. George STANSBERRY, Individually and as Minister of the Brookville Church of Christ (Christian), Brookville, Indiana, et al., Appellants, v. Walter McCARTY et al., Appellees.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 683

149 N.E.2d 683

238 Ind. 338

O. George STANSBERRY, Individually and as Minister of the Brookville Church of Christ (Christian) Brookville, Indiana, et al., Appellants, v. Walter McCARTY et al., Appellees.

No. 29131.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 28, 1958.

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1958.

Hollowell & Hamill, Indianapolis, Vance M. Waggoner, Rushville, for appellants.

Charles A. Lowe, Lawrenceburg, James P. Mullin, Virgil J. McCarty, Brookville, for appellees.

ARTERBURN, Judge.

This cause was transferred to the Supreme Court under Burns' § 4-209, 1946 Replacement.

Regrettable to say, this law suit has its origin in a church. It is a case involving a controversy among members of the Christian Church of Church of Christ of Brookville, Indiana. The complaint is quite copious, consisting of approximately 24 rhetorical paragraphs, with numerous subparagraphs. It is brought by what appears to be a minority of the congregation, who disagree with the remainder of the congregation over certain church beliefs and the management of the church affairs, including the retention of a minister, support of certain missionary societies and conventions and other matters of considerable detail, some of which will appear later. The complaint, and also the special findings of fact, go into a history of a religious 'movement' by Alexander Campbell and has father, starting in the early part of the nineteenth century. As a result of these teachings there sprang up and developed a group of churches using the names interchangeably--Christian Church, Disciples of Christ and Church of Christ. The latter name should not be confused with the Churches of Christ, a denominational religious sect which broke away from this group in 1906 on two major differences which forbade the use of instrumental music in services and the support of organized missionary activities. The Brookville Christian Church has used the above mentioned names interchangeably. The title to the property first taken by the Brookville Church in 1886 was made to the Trustees of the Church of Christ, while the deed to the present property in controversy was made to 'the Trustees of the Brookville Christian Church.' The deeds are of no aid in the solution of the problem here.

We draw from the briefs of counsel and their oral presentation that within those churches organized as a result of the 'Campbell Movement' (or Christian Church movement) as the years passed, there developed some differences in the means by which the objectives of the church were to be attained. The dispute created differences not only in the Brookville Church, but in the 'movement' generally among the Christian Churches. One of these groups, because of its prominence, was given the name 'co-operative' group. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs below (appellees here) adhere to the 'cooperative' group: that the members of this group have as their belief that the church should co-operate with other religious organizations, including particularly certain missionary societies and conventions, in order to attain a unity of all Christians and a restoration of a united Church of Christ. The appellants, who were defendants below, oppose this 'cooperation' or 'co-operative movement'.

Both the complaint and special findings of fact go into considerable detail in outlining the acts which manifest this difference in belief as it took place in the Brookville Christian Church. It appears that the controversy in the Brookville Christian Church has its origin mainly in the activities and preachings of the ministers employed by the church since 1930. It has been accentuated more recently by the agitation of O. George Stansberry, the pastor at the time this action was brought, and who is an appellant herein. The complaint and special findings state in substance that one of the appellants, O. George Stansberry, as minister, preached against the doctrines of 'co-operation' and, among other acts, wrongfully conspired and used his influence in elections to change the by-laws so as to maintain himself and his followers (the appellants) in control of the church and the church property.

For example, finding No. 21 states that Stansberry, at a meeting of the deacons and elders prior to the annual meeting of the congregation 'caused said Board to adopt a procedure requiring approval by said Board, in advance, of all names suggested for Church officers; * * * that said O. George Stansberry should be nominated and elected as Chairman of the nominating committee and that he should preside at the annual meeting of the congregation; * * *.'

Finding No. 22 recites the confusion and conflict at the annual church meeting on October 3, 1948 stating that appellant Stansberry attempted to preside and was challenged and voted out; that thereafter he occupied a seat near the succeeding presiding officer and prompted and advised him; that nominations were refused from the floor; ballots were not fairly distributed; during the argument and confusion the pipe organ was played so loudly it was impossible to conduct the meeting and many members left, 'that the method of conducting the said annual congregational meeting on October 3rd, 1948, was contrary to the usages, customs, practices and doctrine of the Brookville Christian Church and constituted a departure from the usages, practice, customs, doctrines of said Brookville Christian Church as they existed at the time the said real estate was acquired * * *.'

We need not detail all this maneuvering and activity on the part of the minister for, if true, as the findings of fact state, it does not reflect any credit upon one whose demeanor should exemplify Christian virtues of tolerance and felowship far above the standard which is revealed in this record. To say the least, it showed a breach of trust and confidence placed in him by reason by his position, to act impartially and fairly towards all members.

The appellants, defendants below, although recognizing the 'co-operative group' in the 'Campbell Movement', contend such practice and belief is optional with the members of the 'movement' and that 'co-operation' is not an essential or fundamental belief or doctrine of the church; that the Campbell or Christian Church Movement is liberal in the areas of individual opinion and permits an unusually wide latitude in belief and interpretation of the New Testament; that within this area it is optional for members of the 'movement' to participate in 'cooperation' or not, as they may desire or believe.

The general tenor of the complaint and theory of the action is that the appellants, as members of the congregation, have departed from the essential tenets and doctrines of the Brookville Christian Church and have become 'a separate and distinct religious sect which has usurped, taken over, intruded into and appropriated unto their own use and purposes, the real estate of the plaintiffs, as above described and are now using the same for the purpose of inculcating, preaching, teaching and promulgating doctrines and beliefs which are foreign to, and in contravention of those held by the plaintiffs' said church * * *.'

The prayer of the complaint is that the court impose a trust on all the property of the Brookville Christian Church for the benefit of the plaintiffs and all other persons adhering to the beliefs and doctrines as held by the plaintiffs and the teachings of Alexander Campbell; that Stansberry be 'perpetually' enjoined from serving as pastor and that appellants 'be enjoined from intruding into the church property or using the same in any way'.

The trial court rendered judgment for the appellees, plaintiffs below, and upon request made a special finding of facts which consists of 42 numbered paragraphs and is as extensive and voluminous as the complaint in describing the details. What has been said affords some background for an understanding of this controversy out of which this appeal arises. We shall not encumber the record with a recital of the procedural steps taken to raise the issues presented on this appeal since no substantial question is urged in that field.

The courts of this state have been hesitant to interfere in church or religious affairs. Courts have no jurisdiction over ecclesiastical matters nor the internal management of the affairs of any organization except when personal liberty or some property right is jeopardized. The complaint in substance says the minister attempted to persuade or influence a majority of the church members and its board to change the by-laws and take other actions objected to by appellees. Normally, the majority rule prevails under our democratic processes. It follows that any interested party has a legal right to persuade the majority to accept his views. Meetings are held for the purpose of discussion, argumentation and persuasion, resulting in the enlightenment of all. There can be no legal wrong from such attempts at persuasiona

Where the majority rules, it is true, it may override the wishes and desires of the minority and even become tyrannical and sit in judgment of its own actions within the organization. The majority rule is final unless it violates property rights or liberties protected under the constitution and laws of this state. Only then does a court have jurisdiction to review tyrannical action by a majority over the minority. Courts will not interfere in the majority rule of an organization except to protect individuals in their contractual relationships, property rights and liberties in connection therewith. The rights which exist by virtue of the constitution or laws of this state cannot be overridden by a majority rule of any organization--church or otherwise. State ex rel. Givens, etc. v. Marion Superior Ct., Room 1, 1954, 233 Ind. 235, 117 N.E.2d 553; Ashman v. Studebaker, 1944, 115 Ind.App. 73, 56 N.E.2d 674; Smith v. Pedigo, 1896, 145 Ind. 361, 33 N.E. 777, 44 N.E. 363, 19 L.R.A. 433, 32...