Trustees of the Organ Meeting House v. Seaford

16 N.C. 453

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: December 5, 1830
• Status: Published

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

— It appears that the Organ MeetingHouse was erected by its members: that the land on which it stands was conveyed to its trustees and elders by the grantor, for the consideration of £5. Whether that sum was the full value of the land does not appear. Nor does it appear, that the grantor belonged to that church, or professed the same tenets, which they held.— There was no condition annexed to the grant, the observance of no rules of faith, nor church discipline, nor any rules for the government of the church prescribed or enjoined. It was simply a conveyance of the land for a valuable consideration. And as long as the church exists, particularly since the passage of the act of 1796 (Rev. c. 457,) the church will hold the land. Whether the grantor would have any claim to it, in case the church were to become Mahometan or Pagan, or profess their belief in the heathen mythology, I am not. now, nor shall I ever be called upon to give an opinion. I am also spared from giving any opinion, provided they worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. fSee the 19th section of the bill of rights.J But I am free to give the opinion, that as long as their religious tenets and devotions arc confined to the sphere of Christianity, the grantor can have no claim; whether the conveyance shall be considered to be made upon a valuable consideration, or whether it shall be considered to be a donation. If the grantor has no right, on what foundation does the Plaintiff’s claim rest? It appears, that they are seceders from the church, and are not the trustees or representatives of it; that they were a minority of the members before their secession. Had they remained in the church, they must have yielded to the go<* vernment of the majority. Much less can they have any control over it, when they are no part of it. It is a rule applicable to aggregate corporations or to societies, that the will of the majority must govern. A contrary rule would be as absurd, as to say, that a lesser number contained more units than a greater.

With respect to the allegation made by the Plaintiffs, that the Defendants, or the church which they represent, have strayed from the true faith, or tiiat errors have crept into the church government, the answer is, that on that question, it is not for them, nor this Court to decide. It might be more than difficult to qualify any earthly tribunal to decide it. As the Plaintiffs are not members of the church, they cannot claim to control it, more than any other persons who are not connected w¡fh jt.

Per Curiam.

— Bill dismissed with costs.