Van Vliet v. Naald
| Decision Date | 06 September 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 105.,105. |
| Citation | 287 N.W. 564,290 Mich. 365 |
| Parties | VAN VLIET v. VANDER NAALD et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by William J. Van Vliet against Henry Vander Naald and others for alleged libel. From a judgment entered upon a directed verdict of no cause of action, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County; William B. Brown, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Charles Lemuel Dibble, of Kalamazoo, for appellant.
Linsey, Shivel, Phelps & Vander Wal and Marinus Den Herder, all of Grand Rapids, and Nelson A. Miles, of Holland, for appellees.
William J. Van Vliet, plaintiff herein, a member of the Reformed Church of America, sued defendants, including ministers of the same denomination and also the members of the Particular Synod of the same church, in an action for libel. The case was tried before a jury and at the conclusion of plaintiff's proofs, on motion for counsel for defendants, the trial court directed a verdict of no cause of action upon which judgment was entered. Plaintiff appeals.
In 1932, plaintiff was pastor of the Fourth Reformed Church in Kalamazoo. In the course of his pastoral duties, he called at the home of a woman parishioner, who was married, and the mother of children, and committed adultery with her which was repeated on two other occasions. Some months afterward he confessed his action to the husband of the woman and thereafter disclosed it to the consistory of his congregation. The matter was then referred to the Classis of Kalamazoo, the church body having original jurisdiction to depose ministers. Plaintiff was suspended by the Classis and in September, 1932, he was deposed. Thereafter, on several occasions, plaintiff petitioned the Classis for reinstatement but was refused, and although at one time his petition was favored by a majority, it failed for the reason that the Classis by resolution had required a two-thirds majority for affirmative action. The matter was finally again resubmitted to the Classis, by a resolution which required only a majority, and resulted in a vote of 17 in favor of the petition, 16 against, and one not voting; and thereupon plaintiff was declared reinstated. However, one of the members of the Classis filed complaint against the action of that body, with the Particular Synod, the appellate tribunal of the church, which resulted in the reversal of the action of the Classis, and the passage of a resolution by the Particular Synod which set forth:
‘1. The reinstatement of the Wm. Van Vliet was granted without sufficient evidence of his penitence for the sin committed.
‘2. Each consideration of the matter by Classis was a separate and distinct case; and therefore the Wm. Van Vliet should have appeared personally to give evidence of his penitence at the meeting of Classis Kalamazoo on April 9-19, 1935.
‘3. At former sessions of Classis Kalamazoo when this matter was considered, Classis set the precedent of requiring a two-thirds majority vote for decision; it was therefore unwise on the part of Classis to decide the matter finally by a mere majority vote.
This judgment was then communicated to, and published by, The Intelligencer Leader, the official newspaper of the Reformed Church in America, and which is read throughout that denomination; and it is this publication upon which plaintiff bases his action of libel.
Plaintiff complains that the action of the Synod was irregular, due to the fact that the complaint was not filed in a proper manner with the Classis; that the Classis had too brief a time to prepare for a hearing before the Synod; that the action of the Synod was based upon insufficient proofs, and mistaken representations; the Classis, however, did not complain to the Synod on this ground, and its representative appeared before that body, and submitted detailed answer and defense of its action. The judgment of the Synod was a reversal of the action of the Classis. Plaintiff was not a party to the proceeding. He was not before the Synod on an appeal, and there is no similarity in the church law between the hearing and judgment on complaint of the action of a Classis, as in this case and an individual appeal by a direct party to the proceeding. Notes to the constitution of the Reformed Church considered as authority in this case, and introduced in evidence, provide: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winkler v. Marist Fathers of Detroit, Inc.
...as it may be necessary to do so, in determining whether or not it was the church that acted therein." Van Vliet v. Vander Naald , 290 Mich. 365, 370–371, 287 N.W. 564 (1939). See also, e.g., Borgman v. Bultema , 213 Mich. 684, 703, 182 N.W. 91 (1921). Accordingly, "[w]e have consistently he......
-
Dadd v. Mount Hope Church
...N.W. 172 (1927). Church-related occasions have regularly been found to be subject to a `qualified privilege.' See Van Vliet v. Vander Naald, 290 Mich. 365, 287 N.W. 564 (1939) (holding that publishing a church tribunal's findings in the church's official newspaper was a privileged occasion)......
-
Grist v. Upjohn Co.
...plaintiff must prove both the falsity of the charge and malice.' 'Likewise, in the more recent case of Van Vliet v. Vander Naald (1939), 290 Mich. 365, 371, 287 N.W. 564, 567, it was "Where it appears that the occasion is subject to a qualified privilege, the burden is upon the plaintiff to......
-
Berry v. Bruce
...in so far as it may be necessary to do so in determining whether it was, in fact, the church that acted.” See, also, Van Vliet v. Vander Naald, 290 Mich. 365, 287 N.W. 564. In Russian Orthodox All Saints Church v. Darin, 222 Mich. 35, 192 N.W. 697, 705, cited by appellees, the bill of compl......