|
21 L.Ed. 69,
15 Wall. 131
U.S.
Supreme Court
BOULDIN
v. ALEXANDER, 82 U.S. 131
82
U.S. 131
December
Term, 1872
APPEAL from
the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in a case
arising out of a controversy in an unincorporated religious
society of colored persons, in Washington, calling themselves
the 'Third Baptist Church.' The case was thus:
From about
the 1st of September, 1857, a small number of colored persons
were in the habit of consociating in prayer-meetings and
other religious conferences at the house of one Albert Bouldin,
a colored man from Virginia, who had been licensed to preach,
and was so styled the Reverend Albert Bouldin; he being
always a chief actor in the assemblages. The persons were,
at first, few in number, feeble in resources, and without
any church edifice. But under Bouldin's leadership they
increased in strength, and, after a certain time, went to
work to raise money to build a meeting-house; Bouldin taking
the lead in the whole matter, the temporal part as much
as the spiritual, and being at once pastor, collector, treasurer,
chief agent, and actor in the enterprise, and getting into
his own hands most of the moneys collected. Having bought
a lot on which to build a church, he took a deed for it
in his own name, and proceeded to have the church built,
which under his superintendence was done; a building now
standing, on the corner of Fourth *133 and L Streets,
northwest. Some of the chief persons in the work, however,
were apparently dissatisfied with Bouldin's having the title
to the property in his own name. Hereupon, April 1st, 1864,
he and his wife conveyed a large part of the lot, including
that on which the church was built, but apparently not the
whole of the lot, to four persons, Joseph Alexander, Charles
Alexander, John Middleton, and William Minor, as trustees,
to be used, with the buildings on it, as 'the Third Colored
Baptist Church of the City of Washington;' these persons,
in return, giving him their promissory notes and a deed
of trust on the property to secure them; the notes being
for a sum which Bouldin represented to them that he was
in advance from his private funds beyond moneys received
by him from collections.
A congregation
had by this time been organized with sufficient regularity
and in full conformity with the constitution of the general
Baptist Church of the United States, in which, as is known,
the congregational form of government prevails; and there
was at this time no serious dissensions in the particular
Third Church of which we are speaking. 'The Rules of Church
Order,' making part of the Baptist Manual, an authoritative
book in the Baptist church generally, required that 'seven
trustees' should be elected in January of each year, but
provided that in case of any omission to hold an election
then, the election should be held 'at the next regular meeting
for business.' And the minutes of this church, which had
been kept apparently with essential order, though not in
a highly clerical style, by Bouldin, one Lee, or some other
person elected as clerk, from the origin of the church till
the time when some troubles, hereinafter mentioned, arose,
showed that seven persons, Joseph Alexander, Henry Watson,
Henry Scott, John Wiggins, John Middleton, William Laws,
and W. J. Minor, were duly elected trustees, at a regular
meeting of the church for business, on the 15th of February,
1867; the ordinary meeting, apparently, not having been
held. These persons, the minute-book showed, had received
about 200 votes of a not much larger number cast. After
the troubles *134 above referred to arose, the minute-book
passed from one hand to another, and Bouldin swore in the
court below that this minute about the election was a forgery;
and that no such election had ever taken place. The books
were brought into this court, and showed some erasures and
the cutting out apparently of some leaves, but little or
nothing beyond Bouldin's statement to prove that this particular
minute was not entitled to as much respect as others in
the book. Minutes following it were made by Bouldin himself.
Very soon
after the completion of the church edifice, already mentioned,
dissensions arose in the congregation, and the church was
divided into two parties, each asserting itself to be the
true 'Third Colored Baptist Church.' On the 7th of June,
1867, one of these parties, being a very small minority
of the church, and being probably about fifteen in number,
including Bouldin, resolved to 'turn out' four trustees,
without naming them, and proceeded to elect four others
in their stead. The persons thus elected were Manson Robinson,
Julius Bouldin, William Pearson and Charles Pearson. The
attempted ejection of the old trustees was without citation,
trial, or charges preferred. It was also, the reader will
observe, at a time when, according to the rules of the church,
an election of trustees was not in order; the rules that
exist in Baptist churches generally, providing, as already
mentioned, that trustees shall be elected in January of
every year, or in case of failure to hold the election,
at the next regular meeting for business. A few days afterwards,
on the 10th or 17th of June, 1867, the same minority proceeded
to 'turn out' forty-one members of the church, also without
citation or trial. Having thus got the control of the church
property in their own hands, some of the persons elected
to be trustees in place of former trustees caused the locks
to be taken from the church doors, and new locks to be put
on in their places, and they with Bouldin claimed and retained
possession of the property from that time forth. Hereupon
the four persons to whom Bouldin and wife had conveyed the
property in trust and the seven that had been elected trustees
in February, *135 1867, worshipped in a school-house
or in a place called Miller's Hall; retaining the old organization,
with a new preacher named Jefferson, who had been licensed
under Bouldin, and who (Bouldin having been dismissed by
the party shut out from the church), was now acting temporarily
as preacher, or by way of 'supply.' Such was the condition
of things in the summer of 1867.
On the 28th
of September of that year the four trustees named in the
deed of the church lot, from Bouldin and wife, and also
the seven persons who professed to have been elected trustees
of the church, on the 15th of February, 1867, at the annual
election provided for by the general rules of Baptist churches,
filed a bill against Bouldin, who had received the money
of the church, and who also professed to be a trustee, without,
however, any election, and against three of the persons
who professed to have been elected trustees at the meeting
of the minority on the 7th of June, who took possession
of the church, together with some other trustees in deeds
of trust for Bouldin. The bill sought a discovery, and an
account of the money received and expended by Bouldin, a
release of deeds of trust of the church property given to
secure notes held by Bouldin, a surrender and cancellation
of the notes, alleging them to have been satisfied, and
the restoration of possession of the church property to
the complainants as the lawful trustees. It sought also
an injunction against future interference by the defendants
with the church property, against the sale of the notes,
and against sale or foreclosure under the deed of trust.
The bill charged that there was a plain mistake in the deed
from Bouldin and wife, to the trustees of the church, which
it prayed to have corrected. In the court below a decree
was rendered in favor of the complainants, sustaining all
their claims except that reference was made to a master
to ascertain and report the state of accounts. From that
decree this appeal came.
The appellants
now contended:
1st. That
the court erroneously decided that the complainants *136
were, at the time of the commencement of the suit, the legally
constituted trustees of the church.
2d. That the
complainants, and those who acted with them, withdrew from
the church and formed a new congregation, and had so relinquished
all their rights in the Third Colored Baptist Church.
It may be
observed as part of the history of the case, that after
this bill was filed, but before the evidence was taken,
both of the organizations had applied for admission in 1867
to the Philadelphia Baptist Association, an ancient authoritative
body of the Baptist Church, holding in that year its 160th
anniversary. The body declared that the dispute was complicated,
and that the applications required consideration and examination,
and so declined to admit either party to its then session.
At its session of 1868, however--Bouldin himself being heard,
and the whole subject having been argued by Horatio Gates
Jones, Esquire, of the bar of Philadelphia, and by other
members of the Association--the body declared that Bouldin
had been in fault, and that the Third Baptist Church should
be represented in the body by the now complainants. The
record of the Association read thus:
'Mr. Bouldin
and party, being greatly in the minority, excluded all the
trustees, and all the deacons, and about two hundred other
members; the vote being cast by about fifteen members present,
without the usual form of citation and opportunity of self-defence.
Mr. Bouldin and his adherents now occupy for public worship
the house on Fourth Street, of which the trustees above
named [FN1] have not been legally dispossessed. When the
controversy commenced, the aggrieved party [FN2] proposed
to have the matter referred to arbitration; but Mr. Bouldin,
though advised by President G. W. Samson and other white
brethren to consent to this arrangement, refused. The aggrieved
majority then submitted the case to an ecclesiastical council,
which met May 4th, 1868, to which all contiguous Baptist
churches were invited to send delegates, seventeen
churches *137 in all. After deliberative investigation,
this council unanimously designated the party represented
by the trustees above named to be the Third Colored Baptist
Church of Washington. We therefore recommend that the letter
which these brethren bring be received as the letter of
the Third Baptist Church of Washington to this Association.'
West Headnotes
Charities
k46
75k46
The trustees
of an unincorporated religious society, to which a lot has
been given for church purposes, cannot be removed by the
beneficiaries of the gift without cause.
Religious
Societies k9
332k9
Trustees of
church property are not necessarily, in the Baptist Church,
communing members, and, accordingly, excommunication from
communing membership does not disqualify them, even if the
exclusion be rightful.
Religious
Societies k12(5)
332k12(5)
Although the
civil courts will not, in the case of persons excommunicated
by competent church authority, go behind that authority
and inquire whether the persons have been regularly or irregularly
excommunicated, such courts may inquire whether the expulsion
was the act of the church or of persons who were not the
church, and who, consequently, had no right to excommunicate
any one.
Religious
Societies k18
332k18
Where a person
conveys in fee, to persons whom he names, a lot and church
edifice upon it for the use of a particular unincorporated
religious body, the trustees are not removable at the will
of the cestuis que trustent and without cause shown.
Religious
Societies k23(3)
332k23(3)
Although a
withdrawal by one part of a church congregation from the
original body of it, and uniting with another church or
denomination, is a relinquishment of all rights in the church
abandoned, the mere assemblage in another place of a majority
of a congregation forcibly and illegally excluded by a minority
from a church edifice in which, as part of the congregation,
they had been rightfully worshipping, the majority thus
excluded maintaining still the old church organization,
the same trustees, and the same deacons, is not such a relinquishment;
and the majority thus excluded may assert, through the civil
courts, their rights to the church property.
*137
Messrs. Moore and Riddle, for the appellants; Mr. Thomas
Wilson, contra.
Mr. Justice
STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.
It is contended
that the court erroneously decided the complainants were,
at the time of the commencement of the suit, the legally
constituted trustees of the church. But it is very evident
that Joseph Alexander, Charles Alexander, John Middleton,
and William Minor were then trustees for the church of the
church property, unless they had been removed by the action
of the minority on the 7th of June, 1867. They were nominated
as trustees in the deed from Bouldin and wife, and they
had never surrendered or renounced their trust. And we think
the evidence is satisfactory, that Joseph Alexander, Henry
Watson, Henry Scott, John Wiggins, John Middleton, William
Laws, and Willis J. Minor were then general trustees of
the church, unless they, or some of them, had been removed
by the action of the same minority, on the day last mentioned.
It is not to be overlooked that we are not now called upon
to decide who were church officers. The case involves no
such question. What we have to decide is, where was the
legal ownership of the property. The question respects temporalities,
and temporalities alone. That the attempt made on the 7th
of June, 1867, to remove the trustees then holding was inoperative,
is not to be doubted in view of the facts of the case. Those
who held under the deed were not removable at the will of
the cestui que use, and without cause. And had there
been cause, none was shown. No ecclesiastical authority
has decided that the defendants, or any of them, were legitimate
trustees of the church, or of its property. Even if it be
assumed that it was in the power of the church *138
to substitute other trustees for those named in the deed,
it may not be admitted that a small minority of the church,
convened without notice of their intention, in the absence
of the trustees, and without any complaint against them,
or notice of complaint, could divest them of their legal
interest and substitute other persons to the enjoyment of
their rights.
It is equally
true that the seven persons who sue as church trustees were
not removed by the action of the minority meeting held on
the 7th of June, 1867. Indeed that action does not seem
to have been an attempt to remove them. It was voted to
turn out four trustees, but who the trustees intended were
nowhere appears. None were named. In view of the fact that
the number was four, it is presumable the meeting had in
view the four trustees of the church lot, named in Bouldin's
deed, and not the ordinary trustees of the church, those
contemplated by the Baptist Church Manual. That Manual provides,
that in every church seven trustees shall be elected annually,
in January, or at the next regular church meeting thereafter.
And the church books, which appear to have been kept with
considerable regularity from September 2d, 1857, until this
controvesy arose, show that on the 15th of February, 1867,
at a regular church meeting, the seven persons who with
the church-lot trustees are complainants in this bill, were
elected trustees of the church for the ensuing year.
This was before any division took place in the society.
It is true, Mr. Bouldin testified that the minute of
an election is a forgery, and that no such election ever
took place. But we are satisfied that he is mistaken. An
examination of the minute-book leaves no doubt in our minds
that the election was made as claimed by the complainants,
and that they were elected by a number of votes averaging
more than two hundred. The entry in the minute-book is attested
by the church clerk. It is in regular order, and there are
subsequent minutes in the same book made by Bouldin himself.
The court below was, therefore, as we think, not in error
in holding that the complainants were the legally constituted
trustees at the time when this suit was commenced. And if
they were the rightful *139 trustees, the decree
for an account, for the surrender of the church property,
and indeed the entire decree made by the court, was a matter
of course upon the evidence.
But the appellants
insist that the complainants and those who acted with them,
withdrew from the church and formed a new congregation.
This, they argue, was a relinquishment of all their rights
in the Third Colored Baptist Church. It may be conceded,
that withdrawal from a church and uniting with another church
or denomination, is a relinquishment of all rights in the
church abandoned. But there is no sufficient evidence in
this case that any new congregation was formed, or that
there was any withdrawal from the church, or union with
any other. The complainants, and those who acted with them,
after the church building had been wrested from the custody
and control of the rightful trustees, and after very many
of them had been excommunicated in mass by the small minority,
held their religious services at another place. But they
formed no new organization. They still had the same trustees,
the same deacons, and they claimed to be the Third Colored
Baptist Church, and as such they were recognized by councils
of Baptist churches duly called, and by the Philadelphia
Baptist Association, an ecclesiastical body with which the
church was associated. That body, it is true, was not a
judicatory. Its action was not conclusive of any rights.
But the fact that the complainants and those acting with
them applied for recognition as the Third Colored Baptist
Church, and that the Association thus recognized them, is
persuasive evidence that they were not seceders, and that
their rights have not been forfeited.
This is not
a question of membership of the church, nor of the rights
of members as such. It may be conceded that we have no power
to revise or question ordinary acts of church discipline,
or of excision from membership. We have only to do with
rights of property. As was said in Shannon v.
Frost, [FN3] we cannot decide who ought to be members
*140 of the church, nor whether the excommunicated
have been regularly or irregularly cut off. We must take
the fact of excommunication as conclusive proof that the
persons exscinded are not members. But we may inquire whether
the resolution of expulsion was the act of the church, or
of persons who were not the church and who consequently
had no right to excommunicate others. And, thus inquiring,
we hold that the action of the small minority, on the 7th
and 10th of June, 1867, by which the old trustees were attempted
to be removed, and by which a large number of the church
members were attempted to be exscinded, was not the action
of the church, and that it was wholly inoperative. In a
congregational church, the majority, if they adhere to the
organization and to the doctrines, represent the church.
An expulsion of the majority by a minority is a void act.
We need not, however, dwell upon this. Certain it is, that
trustees are not necessarily communing members of the church.
Excommunication from communing membership does not disqualify
them, even if the excision be regular. Still more certain
is it that they cannot be removed from their trusteeship
by a minority of the church society or meeting, without
warning, and acting without charges, without citation or
trial, and in direct contravention of the church rules.
DECREE AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
[Footnote
1] These were the four trustees mentioned in the
deed of Bouldin and wife and the seven elected February
15th, 1867.--REP.
[Footnote
2] These were the complainants and their
friends.
[Footnote
3] 3 B. Monroe, 253.
Reprinted from Westlaw with permission of Thomson/West. If you wish to check the currency of this case, you may do so using KeyCite on Westlaw by visiting http://www.westlaw.com/.
|
