Woodrum. v. Burton.

• Decision Date: 22 March 1921
• Docket Number: No. 4219.,4219.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: W. B. Woodrum et al. v. J. B. Burton et al. and W. B. Skaggs et al. v. W. B. Yates.

88 W.Va. 322

W. B. Woodrum et al.

v.J. B. Burton et al.andW. B. Skaggs et al.

v.W. B. Yates.

No. 4219.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted January 19, 1921.

Decided March 22, 1921.

1. Religious Societies Equity May Enquire into Ecclesiastical Beliefs Only Where Civil or Property Rights Involved.

Only when civil or property rights of a religious organi zation form the basis of the relief sought can a court of equity inquire into the ecclesiastical beliefs peculiar to the organization. (p. 328).

2. Same Departure from Doctrinal Beliefs to Justify Exclusion from Church Property Must Be Vital and Substantial.

Where one of two church factions excludes the other from the church property on the ground of departure from the doctrinal beliefs of the organization, for the advancement of which beliefs a trust was impressed, expressly or impliedly, by the deed originally conveying the property for church purposes, the departure, to warrant the exclusion, must be vital and substantial. Refined doctrinal distinctions are not sufficient for that purpose. (p. 339).

3. Same Decision of Church Councils As to Doctrine Not Conclusive On Minority's Right to Control Church Property Unless Assented to.

The decision of associations or councils of Baptist churches, whose form of government is purely congregational, that doctrines adhered to by a majority of the church membership conflict with the fundamental Baptist doctrinal beliefs, is not conclusive upon the question of the right of the minority to control the church property, unless the decision directly or impliedly is assented to by the parties interested, or accepted and adopted by a majority of the membership of the church present and participating in a church business meeting called for that purpose, upon due and sufficient notice. Such associations and councils are mere voluntary and advisory judicatories, and their findings have no conclusive effect, (p. 333).

4. Same Advisory Reports of Church Councils Not Binding When at a Special Meeting Without Due and Reasonable Notice and Substantial Compliance With Rules and Regulations.

Courts of law do not regard the action of an independent religious organization, in accepting the advisory reports of its church councils, as final and binding, when taken at a special meeting without due and reasonable notice to the membership of the general nature and purpose of the meeting, and substantial compliance with its rules and regulations, if any it may have, relative to such action. (p. 337).

5. Same Wrongful Seizure of Church Property by Minority Held a Sufficient Basis for Equitable Relief. The wrongful and violent seizure and retention of the property of a church of a congregational form of government by a minority of its members, to the exclusion of the majority and contrary to their expressed wish, furnishes a sufficient basis for the award of equitable relief. (p. 339).

6. Same Enforcement of Discipline in Revival Services in Baptist Church Held Within the Power of the Organization. Enforcement of appropriate decorum or discipline in the progress of revival services in a Baptist church, wherein the only requirement is the avoidance of undue emotional excitement, is peculiarly within the power of the organization, as this disregard of the unwritten regulation affects only the internal affairs of the society, and courts will not interfere except where its violation assumes such proportions as to effect a forceful exclusion of the major portion of the society against their will. (p. 340).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Summers County.

Suits between W. B. Woodrum, W. E. Yates, and others and J. B. Burton and others, and between W. B. Skaggs and others and W. E. Yates. The suits were heard together, and from a decree refusing the relief prayed for by Woodrum and others against Burton and others and granting the relief prayed for by the latter against Yates alone, Woodrum and others appeal.

Reversed; injunction reinstated and perpetuated.

Dillon & Nuckolls, for appellants.

W. H. Sawyers, C. 0. Dunn, Marcum & Shepherd, Blue & McCabe and Harry V. Campbell, for appellees.

Lynch, Judge:

The decree complained of upon this appeal, entered October 22, 1920, in two suits heard together, refused the relief prayed for by Woodrum, Yates and others against Burton and others, and granted the relief prayed for by Burton and others against Yates alone. The parties to both suits are or claim to be the constituent members of the First Baptist Church of Hinton, and as such entitled to occupy and use the property of the organization for religious services according to the faith, practices and customs of Baptist churches in general. The property consists of a lot, a church building and parsonage on the lot. Although the deed for the lot does not specify the form of ecclesiasticism to which the property is to be devoted, there is no controversy as to the right of the local Baptist organization to control the uses for which the property was purchased. The trustees who were the grantees in the deed, and those of them who are still living, and the successors of those who are dead, if any, have been and still are Baptists. The same fact applies also to the congregation worshipping in the church.

In January, 1918, Rev. W. E. Yates, then about 29 years of age and a student in college preparing for the Baptist ministry, was elected or employed to serve the congregation as pastor, without limit as to time, and in March entered upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to the office. As he had done before, during his pastorate after the employment, so on January 4, 1920, he began and until April 14th regularly continued a series of revival services, and as a result of his activities in this respect increased the numerical strength of the congregation. Until sometime towards the last of March no member of the church complained or objected to the progress of the meeting or the manner of conducting the services. The bases of the complaints and objections that then arose were that Yates and others, who for convenience are referred to as plaintiffs, and for the same reason those in opposition to them as respondents, had in his preaching departed from the true Baptist doctrinal beliefs, practices and custom by his denunciation of them from the pulpit, and from the usual Baptist methods of conducting revival services.

There was on April 14th a voluntary suspension of the services begun in January to be resumed four days later. Within this interval respondents Burton and seven other members of the deaconate, four of the body not joining therein, and two of the three trustees, sought an interview with Yates, avowedly for the purpose of dissuading him from resuming the services, and from conducting them or permitting them to be conducted as he had done if he did resume them as contemplated. These overtures he promptly repelled in terms more exasperating than necessary, but he did offer to submit to the determination of the congregation all matters of differ- ence between himself and other members of the church, whatever form the accusations might take. This offer Burton and others declined to accept, but at once directed the deputy sheriff of the county, then present by their procurement, to place chains and locks upon the church buildings, except the parsonage, then and now occupied by Yates, and to station guards upon the lot with direction to prevent plaintiffs from entering upon the property for any purpose connected with the ministration of his pastoral duties and privileges.

To procure a mandatory injunction order requiring the removal of these obstructions and to obtain permission to prosecute the services thus interrupted, Woodrum and others instituted the first suit and presented the bill to the judge of the circuit court of Summers County in vacation and moved him to award the writ. This he declined to do and endorsed his refusal upon the bill, but members of this court, as authorized by law, did grant the conditional or temporary order, which, upon final hearing upon the merits, the circuit court dissolved.

Then ensued congregational meetings alternatively assembled and held by plaintiffs and respondents, each faction ignoring the other. Respondents, without notice to plaintiffs or invitation to join in the call, sent "letters-missive" to neighboring Baptist congregations named in the call asking the appointment of "messengers" to constitute a Council with authority to hear and determine the rights and duties of the active participants towards each other and to the local organization. There were two such Councils, the first convened pursuant to call on April 26, 1920, the other on May 14th. Yates, though notified and requested to do so, refused to attend and did not attend either of them, pursuant to the advice of his counsel, that advice being predicated upon the pendency of the suit in the civil court.

Nevertheless, both Councils proceeded to perform the duties for which they were convened, and, perhaps because of some irregularity in the first call, the second Council accepted and adopted as part of its report the findings of the first. The substance and effect of the report filed was an expression of regret because of the failure of Yates to attend the Council meetings with his witnesses and lay before each of them an account of his activities and any defensive matter he had to show innocence on his part; a declaration that he had unjustly censured Baptist doctrinal beliefs, custom and practice, and denounced those whose views did not accord with his; and their grave concern on account of the discredit and reproach thus brought about to the Christian faith as represented by Baptists. Then followed its conclusion that plaintiffs are not entitled to occupy and use the church property, and that the physical condition of Yates was such as rendered him incapable of sane and constructive Christian leadership. Finally it incorporated these "advisory"...