Watson v. Avery

• Decision Date: 22 November 1867
• Citation: 65 Ky. 332
• Parties: Watson and others v. Avery and others.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

65 Ky. 332

Watson and others v. Avery and others.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 22, 1867

1. When the action of an ecclesiastical court, on a matter of purely ecclesiastical cognizance, is drawn in question in the secular courts, the principle is certainly true, in a qualified sense, that the secular tribunal must accept as final and conclusive the decision of the ecclesiastical court, even if wrong, without inquiry as to the grounds or reasons for such decision.

2. Although the authorities agree that the civil courts cannot upon the merits, overhaul the decisions of ecclesiastical judicatories in matters properly within their province ( Robertson vs. Bullions, 9 Barbour, 134; German Reformed Church vs. Seibert, 3 Barr., 291; Shannon et al. vs. Frost, 3 B. Mon., 258), they do not establish the principle that where an ecclesiastical body or tribunal has transcended its authority and attempted to adjudicate a matter as to which it had no jurisdiction, such adjudication was nevertheless, conclusive in a civil court. But, in most of the decisions, an express or implied reference is made to the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court, and the principle decided is limited to subjects clearly within its province according to the regulations and rules from which the authority is derived.

3. While the principle is recognized as firmly and correctly established, that civil courts can not and ought not to rejudge the judgments of spiritual tribunals, as to matters within their jurisdiction, whether justly or unjustly decided, the argument is rejected that, whether the synod had jurisdiction and power over the subject on which it acted under the presbyterial system, is a question purely ecclesiastical, to be settled by the synod itself and the general assembly.

4. The powers of the higher courts of the Presbyterian Church are not only defined and limited by the constitution of the church; but if it be true that the inferior courts and people of the church are bound to accept as final and conclusive the assembly's own construction of its powers, and submit to its edicts as obligatory, without inquiring whether they transcend the bounds of the constitution or not, the will of the assembly, and not the constitution, becomes the fundamental law of the church.

5. The general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, like other courts, is limited in its authority by the law under which it acts; and when rights of property, which are secured by the organic law of the church, are violated by unconstitutional acts of the higher courts of the church, the parties aggrieved are entitled to relief in the civil courts, as in ordinary cases of injury resulting from the violation of a contract or the fundamental law of a voluntary association.

6. The constitution of the Presbyterian Church defines and prescribes the powers and gradation of courts, in which the spiritual government of the church is vested, consisting of--1st. The session; 2d. The presbytery; 3d. The synod; and 4th. The general assembly. And it is not controverted that each of these bodies above the session has jurisdiction as an appellate or revisory court, to affirm or reverse the judgments of the one next below it; but both the synod, in ordering the election of additional ruling elders in the Walnut Street Church, in Louisville, and the general assembly in ratifying it, assumed to act in the exercise of original jurisdiction. And there is no provision in the constitution which authorizes either of these bodies to supersede or displace the church sessions and take upon themselves the immediate spiritual government of the congregations.

7. The order of the synod directing the election of additional ruling elders in the Walnut Street Church was contrary to the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, and not obligatory upon the session and congregation of said church, and the persons claiming to have been so elected were not thereby constituted ruling elders; nor were they so constituted by the declaration of the general assembly.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

THOS W. BULLITT, For Appellants,

CITED--

Tyler's Ecclesiastical Law, secs. 104, 841.

7 B. Mon., 481; Gibson vs. Armstrong.

6 Wright, 503; Sutter vs. Trustees Dutch R. Church.

18 Vert, 511; Smith vs. Nelson.

7 Holsted; Den vs. Bolton.

4 Wheat., 603; Commonwealth vs. Green.

1 Buchanan's Ten Years Conflict, p. 427.

Innis' Law of Creeds in Scotland.

5 Scotch Court of Session Rep., new series, p. 665.

3 B. Mon., 257; Shannon vs. Frost.

Cunningham's Church History of Scotland, pp. 480, 370, 439, 446.

Hetherington's History of the Church of Scotland, pp. 51-2 and 81-3.

Treaty of Union, A. D. 1707, and Act of Parliament in Appendix to Hetherington's History.

2 Parsons on Contracts, chapter 1.

Kent's Commentaries, page 448*.

Westminster Form of Church Government.

Minutes of Synod at Henderson, and General Assembly at Saint Louis.

Baird's Assembly's Digest, pp. 716, 301, 252.

Form of Government, chap. 13, sec. 2; chap. 9, sec. 6; chap. 8, secs. 1 and 2; chap. 10, secs. 8, 1; chap. 11, sec. 4.

Appeal and Complaints, chap. 4, sec. 16; chap. 6, secs. 1, 11, and 12; chap. 7, secs. 3 and 4.

Book of Discipline, chap. 4, sec. 23; chap. 6, sec. 12; chap. 7, secs. 1, 3, 4.

Proceedings of General Assembly at St. Louis, 11 th day.

Baird's Digest, " Assemblies, " Second Presbytery.

I. & J. CALDWELL, On same side,

E. S. WORTHINGTON, HAMILTON POPE, and J. B. KINKEAD, For Appellees,

CITED--

18 Vt., 511; Smith vs. Nelson.

3 B. Mon., 253; Shannon vs. Frost.

7 How., 40; Luther vs. Borden.

3 How., 589; Permoli vs. First Municipality.

Acts of the Apostles, 18; 14, 15, and Barnes' Notes.

20 Johns., 12; Dieffendorf vs. Reformed Cal. Church.

9 Barb., 134; Robertson vs. Bullions.

1 Edw. Chy., 592; Bowden vs. McLeod.

Penn. Presbyterian Church Case, 591.

4 Wharton, 503; Commonwealth vs. Green.

41 Penn., 14; McGinnis vs. Watson.

Brightly's Reps., 234; Skilton vs. Webster.

3 Barr, 282; German Reformed Church vs. Seibert.

4 Zabr., 659; Den vs. Pilling.

JOHN M. HARLAN and E. S. WORTHINGTON, On same side,

CITED--

Session Acts 1853-4, vol. 2, p. 269.

Printed Minutes General Assembly 1863, p. 43.

7 B. Mon., 653; Kane, & c., vs. Pilcher.

7 Alabama, 484; Dupuy vs. Roebuck.

9 Alabama, 803; Stewart vs. Conner.

26 Alabama, 413; Ewing vs. Peck.

27 Miss. (5 Cush. ), 227.

8 B. Mon. ; Hadden vs. Chorn.

Form of Government, chap. 11, sec. 4, chap. 13, sec. 2.

7 Dana, 195; Curd, & c., vs. Wallace, & c.

Book of Discipline, chap. 1, sec. 1, chap. 7, secs. 1-22.

7 B. Mon., 481; Gibson vs. Armstrong.

Baird's Digest, 144, 68, 152, 165-6, 233 to 246, 114-15, 87, 66, 67.

5 B. Mon., 573; Lewis vs. Harbin, & c.

OPINION

HARDIN JUDGE.

This is an unusually interesting controversy, whether considered with reference to the rights of property to be affected by its determination, or the fact that it involves important questions concerning the constitution and government of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.

In stating such facts as are deemed necessary to show the grounds of our decision, we shall omit the recital of many others to which the parties have given prominence in the record; because, however they may have illustrated the merits of certain disputes between the parties in a tribunal having authority to consider them, they are not, in our opinion, material or relevant to any question which it is our province to decide, on this appeal.

On the 8th day of October, 1853, Edward P. Humphrey and wife conveyed a lot of ground on Walnut street, in the city of Louisville, to John Gault, James Malona, and George Gowan, as " Trustees of the Third Presbyterian Church of the city of Louisville," to be held by said trustees and " their successors to be chosen by the congregation." Upon this lot is situated the church edifice, the use and control of which constitute the subject of litigation in this cause.

A corporation was created for the benefit of said congregation in 1854, by an act of the Legislature, in pursuance of which B. F. Avery, George Fulton, and Henry Farley, were, at the institution of this suit, acting trustees of the temporalities of the congregation of said church.

In March, 1865, Rev. William T. McElroy, in the capacity of stated supply, was the acting pastor in charge of said congregation, and he and John Watson, Joseph Gault, Thomas J. Hackney, and John Martin, the ruling elders of the church, constituted the session charged with maintaining the spiritual government of the congregation according to the form of government of the Presbyterian Church.

It appears that about that time certain efforts of part of the session and others to continue said McElroy's pastoral relations with the congregation, developed the existence of two antagonistic parties, nearly equally dividing the members on the question of retaining the services of Mr. McElroy; and out of their conflicting preferences on this subject grew the disturbances and strife which led to this litigation.

In the meantime, Martin ceased to act as a ruling elder, and subsequently removed from the State, leaving the session composed of McElroy, Watson, Gault, and Hackney; and in August, 1865, charges of unchristian conduct were preferred against Hackney, upon which it was resolved by the other members of the session to arraign and try him according to the discipline of the church. Charges were in like manner, also, preferred against Avery and McNaughton, prominent members of the congregation, and who opposed the continuance of Mr. McElroy's pastoral connection with the church.

McNaughton having unsuccessfully petitioned the presbytery to...