SHEPARD ET AL.
v.
BARKLEY, MODERATOR OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMISSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this dispute involving competing factions within the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision by applying the established doctrine from Watson v. Jones, which governs ecclesiastical property disputes. The Court held that the doctrines controlling the case had been so conclusively settled by prior precedent that it was unnecessary to reconsider the merits, and it rejected procedural objections raised by the appellees regarding the form of the appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice White,
by direction of the court.
The court is of the opinion that the following propositions are well founded, although , some members of the coiirt differ concerning them(a) That the appeal in this . case brings up for review both the causes which were decided by the court below at the same time and both therefore will be controlled by the decree here to be rendered, (b) That the order allowing an amendment as to the form of the appeal and the parties which was previously made without prejudice to the right of the appellees to object to the same at the hearing on the merits was rightfully granted and the objection which was at the hearing on the merits , made by the appellees is without merit, (c). That under the case as made by the pleadings there is authority to review. .'
The approach to the/merits being thus cleared, without any difference on the subject the court is of opinion that the .doctrines by which the case is controlled have been so affirmatively and conclusively settled by a prior decision of this court as to cause it to be unnecessary as a matter of original consideration to restate them; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall.
679. And the want of any possible reason for removing this case from the control of the doctrines of the Watson Case is, if needs.be, conclusively, shown by the many cases referred to by the court below in its, opinion (222 Fed. Rep. 669) in which the Watson Case was made controlling ancl decisive as to controversies not. in substance differing fr^ni1 the one here presented. Sherard v. Walton, 206 Fed. Rep. 562; Helm v. Zarecor, 213 Fed. Rep. 648; Sharp v. Bonham, 213 Fed. Rep. 660; Harris v. Cosby, 173 Alabama, 81; Sanders v. Baggerly, 96 Arkansas, 117; Permanent Committee of Missions v. Pacific Synod, 157 California, 105; Mack v. Kime, 129 Georgia, 1; First Presbyterian Church of Lincoln v.
First Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Lincoln, 245 Illinois, 74; Fussell v. Hail, 233 Illinois, 73; Fancy Prairie Church v. King, 245 Illinois, 120; Pleasant Grove Congregation v. Riley, 248 Illinois, 604; Ramsey v. Hicks, 174 Indiana, 428; Bentle v. Ulay, 175 Indiana, 494; Wallace v. Hughes, 131 Kentucky, 445; Carothers, v. Mosely, 99 Mississippi, 671; Hayes v. Manning, 263 Missouri, 1; Missouri Valley College v. Guthrie, 263 Missouri, 52; First Presbyterian Church v. Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 34 Oklahoma, 503; Brown v. Clark, 102 Texas, 323.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. John's Presbytery v. Cent. Presbyterian Church OF ST. Petersburg, 102 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1958)…e general assembly or court of last resort, embracing in itself legislative, administrative and judicial powers.” The doctrine of Watson v. Jones, supra, has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. In Shepard v. Barkley, 247 U.S. 1, 38 S.Ct. 422, 62 L.Ed. 939, 946, 947, it was in part said: “ * * * the court is of opinion that the doctrines by which the case is controlled have been so affirmatively and conclusively settled by a prior decision of this court as to cause it to b…
-
Napolitano v. ST. Joseph Catholic Church & Thomas Walden, 308 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…e with matters of internal church governance or interpret a church’s written constitution or ecclesiastical law. For example, in Shepard v. Barkley, the Court held a state court could not interfere with the merger of two Presbyterian denominations. 247 U.S. 1, 2 (1918). Likewise, in Milivojevich, the Court noted “the reorganization of the Diocese involves a matter of internal church government, an issue at the core of ecclesiastical affairs,” and it therefore refused to delve into the various church co…
-
Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1952)…ls with a general and ultimate power of control more or less complete, in some supreme judicatory over the whole membership of that general organization.” 13 Wall. 679, 722-723. Zollmann, American Church Law (1933), c. 9. E. g., Shepard v. Barkley, 247 U. S. 1; Barkley v. Hayes, 208 F. 319, 326; McGinnis v. Watson, 41 Pa. 9; Missouri ex rel. Watson v. Farris, 45 Mo. 183, 197-198; First English Lutheran Church v. Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 135 F. 2d 701. Cf. Gibson v. Armstrong, 7 Ben. Monroe (Ky.) 481; G…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (U.S. 1871)