| Show SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO 12 1872 john watson joseph gault J W reeter heeter A given george fulton henry farley earley and E T polk appellants vs william A jones mary J jones and ellenor lee appeal from the circuit court of the uni ted states for fur the dist of kentucky wr mr justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court this case belongs to a class happily rare in our courts in which one of the parties to a controversy essentially ecclesiastical resorts to the judicial tribunals of the state for the maintenance of rights which the church has refused to acknowledge or found itself unable to protect much as such dissensions dissension B among the members of a religious society should be regretted a regret which is increased when pass passing irig from the control of the judicial and legislative bodies of the entire organization to which the society belongs an appeal is made to the secular authority the courts when so called on must perform their functions as inether in other cases religious organizations come before us ua in the same attitude as other voluntary as soc lations for benevolent or charitable purposes pos poses alad and their rights of property or of contract ct are equally under the protection of the law and the actions of their members subject to its restraints Consel conscious ousS as we may maybe be of odthe the excited feeling engendered by this controversy and of the extent to which it has agitated the intelligent and pious body of christians in whose bosom it originated we enter upon its considers con sidera tion with the satisfaction of knowing that the principle on which we are aie to decide so much of it as is is proper for our decision are those applicable alike to all of its class and that our duty is the simple one of ap plying those principles to the facts before us it is a bill in chancery in the circuit court of the united states tor for the district of kori kerl kentucky tucky brought by william A jones mary J jones and ellenor lee citizens of indiana against john watson and others named citizens of kentucky and against the trustees of the third or walnut street presbyterian church in louisville a corporation created by an act of the legislature of that state thedrus the trus tees mcdougall mcpherson McP berson and ash achs craft are also sued as citizens of kentucky I 1 plaintiffs allege in their bill that they are ate members in good and regular standing of said church attending its religious exercises under the of the rev john S hays and that the defendants george pulton fulton and henry parley farley who claim without right to be trustees of the church supported and recognized as such by the defendants fend ants john watson and joseph gault who also without right claim to be ruling elders I 1 are threatening preparing and about to take unlawful possession of the house of worship and grounds belonging to the church and to prevent hays who is ahe the rightful right fui ful pastor from ministering therein refusing to recognize him as pastor and to recognize r eco as ruling older elder rhomas thomas J hackney who is the sole law laws ful ruling rating elder eider and that when they obtain such buob possession they will oust said hays and hackney and those who attend their ministrations among whom are complainants I 1 and they farther allege that hackney whose duty it is as elder and mcdougall Mo Dougall mcpherson son aon and ashcraft ash craft whose duty as Aru trustees it is to protect the rights thus threatened by such a proceeding in the courts as will prevent the execution of the threats and designs of the other defendants refuse to take any steps to that end they further allege that the walnut street church of which they are members member now forms and has ever since its organization in the year 1812 formed a part of the presbyterian church of the united states of america known as the old school which is governed by a written constitution that includes the confession of faith form of government book of discipline and directory for worship and that the governing bodies of the general church above the walnut street church are in successive order the presbytery of louisville valle the synod of kentucky and the general assembly of the presbyterian church of the united states that hiie blie bile plaintiffs and about one hundred and fifteen members who worship with them and mr hayas pastor hackney the ruling ea elder eldor r and the trustees mcdougall M mcpherson hers mon aon and Ashe ashcraft raft are now in full ruil in membership berb berm I 1 and relation with the lawful general press res by terian church aforesaid the defendants named with about thirty persons persona formerly members of said church worshipping wor shipping under ono oua dr yandell as pastor have se ceded and withdrawn themselves from said walnut street strict church and from froni the general presbyterian church in the united states state and havo have voluntarily connected themselves with and are now members of another religious society and that they have repudiated and do now repudiate and renounce nonnee re the authority and jurisdiction of the various j judicatories judica ad ica lea tories tonies of the presbyterian church of the united states and acknowledge and recognize reco guize the authority of other church j judicatories judica udica tories which are disconnected from the presbyterian church of the uni ted fed states and from the walnut street church and they alle alie allege 19 1 that hat watson and gault have been by tuf the 0 order of the general assembly of said church dropped from the roll of elders in said church for havin bavin having g so withdrawn and renounced its tion and the assembly has declared the organization to which plaintiffs adhere to be the true and only walnut street pres by terian church of louisville they ajay pi ay for an injunction and for general relief the defendants hackney mcdougall mcpherson and Ashe ashcraft narn nant answer admitting ting the allegations of the bill and that though thong it requested they had bad refused to prosecute legal proceedings proceed ings in the matter the other defendants answer and den don deny y almost every allegation of the bill they claim to be the lawful officers of the waln wain nut street presbyterian church and that they and those whom they represent are the true members of the church they deny having withdrawn from the local or the general church and deny that the action of the general assembly cutting them off was within its constitutional authority they say bay the plaintiffs are not and never have been lawfully admitted to membership in the walnut street church and have no such interest in it as will sustain this suit and they set up and rely upon a suit still pending in the chancery court of louisville which they say involves involve 15 the same subject matter and is between the same parties iu in interest as the present suit bult they allege that in that suit they have been decreed tobe to be the oui oni only Y true and lawful trustees and elders odthe of the walnut straat church and an order has been made to place them in possession of the church property which order remains unexecuted and the property is ir still in the possession os session of the marshal of that court as its its receiver these facts are relied on in bar to the present hutt hult this statement of the pleadings is indispensable pen sable to an understanding of the points arising in the case so far as rn examination exam ina lna of the evidence may be necos necessary ary it will be made as it is required in the con sid oration of these points the first of these concern the tho jurisdiction of the circuit court which is denied first on tho the ground that plaintiffs hareno have no such interest in the subject of litigation as will enable them to maintain the suit and secondly on matters arising out of alleged proceedings in the suit in the chancery court ot of louisville tho the allegation that plain plaintiffs tiM are not lawful members of the walnut street church is based upon the assumption that their admission as members was by a pastor and elders who had no lawful authority to ace ael as such As the claim of those elders to be such is one ot of the matters which this bill is brought to establish and aud the denial of which makes an issue to be tried it is obvious that the objection to the tho interest of plaintiffs must stand or fall with the decla decia ion on the merits and cannot be decided as a preliminary question their right to have this question decided it if there is no other objection 0 to we the jurisdiction cannot be doubted some attempt is made made in the answer to question the good faith of their citizenship but this seems to have been abandoned in the argument in regard to the suit in the chancery court of louisville which the defendants allege to be pending there can be no doubt but that court is one competent to entertain of all the matters set up in the present suit As aa to those matters and to the parties it is a court of concurrent jurisdiction Is with the circuit court of the united states and as between those courts the rule I 1 is applicable that the one which has first obtained obtained jurisdiction in a given case must retain it evelti exclusively ively until i it disposes of it by a ninal final judgment or decree oe but when abo the of such a suit is set up to defeat another the case must be thenamae the same bame there must be tho the same parties oi or at least such as represent the same interest there must be the same rights asserted and the same relief prayed for tuis tois relief must be founded on the same facts and the title or essential basis ot of the relief sought must be the same The identity in thore there particulars should be such pending case had bad already been disposed of it could bould be pleaded in bar as a former ada adjudication adl adi cation of the same matter between the same parties it the case of barrows vs kindred 4 wallace which was an action of ejectment the plaintiff showed a good title to tho the land and defendant relied on a former judgment in his favor between the same parties for the siame same land the statute of illinois making a judgment in such an action as conclusive as in other personal actions except byway by way of new now trial but this court held that as in the second suit plaintiff introduced and relied upon a new and dif dlf different title acquired mince the first trial that judgment could be no bar because that title had not been boen passed upon by the court in the first suit but the principles which should govern in regard to the identity of the matter in issue in the two suits to make the cy of the one defeat the belier are as fully discussed in tho the case of buck vs colbath 3 wallace where that was the main que question as in any case we have been able to find it was an action of trespass brought in a state court against the marshal of the circuit court of the united states for seizing property of plaintiff under a writ of attachment from the circuit court and it was brought while the suit in the federal court was still pending bonding pon ding and while tho the marshal held the property subject to its itts judgment so 10 far as the lis is pendens and possession of the property in one court and a suit brought forthe for the taxing taking by its officer in another the analogy to the present case is very strong in that case ease the court sald said it is not true that a court having obtained jurisdiction of a subject matter of suit and of parties before it thereby excludes all other courts from the right to adjudicate upon other matters having a very close connection with those before the first court and in some instances requiring the decision of the same question exactly in examining into the tilo exclusive character of the jurisdiction in in such cases we must have regard to the nature of the remedies the character of the relief sought and the identity ot the parties in the different suits and it might havo hayo been added to the facts on which the claim for relief is founded aga A party says the court by way of exx ex ample glik gida having ving notes secured by a mortgage gaite gage on real estate may unless restrained by statute sue in a court of chancery to foreclose bis hib mortgage and in a court of law to rec recover judgment on his note and in another court of law in an action of ejectment for possession of the land laud here in all the suits sulta the only question at issue may be the existence of the debt secured bytho by tho the mortgage but as the relief sought sough is different and the modo mode of proceeding different the jurisdiction of neither court is affected by the proceedings in the tile other this opinion contains a critical review of the cases in this court of hagan ragan vs lucas 10 peters pek vs jenness Jen ness 7 how gal taylor vs carryl 20 how anz ana and freeman vs howe 24 21 how cited aud and relied on by counsel for appellants and we are satisfied it states the doctrine correctly the limits which necessity assigns to this opinion forbids our giving at length the pleadings in the case in the louisville chancery Chau cery court but we cannot better state what is and what is not the subject matter of that suitor sulton suit sult or controversy as thus presented and as shown throughout its course than thau by adopting the language ot of the court of appeals of kentucky in its opinion delivered at elt the decision of that suit in favor of the present appellants As suggested in argument says the court and apparently conc conceded ded on both sides this is not a case of division or schism in a church nor is there any question as to which winch of two beddies should be as the third or walnut street presbyterian church neither is there any controversy as to the authority of watson and gault to act as ruling elders but the solo inquiry to which we are restricted in our opinion is ia whether avery mcnaughton McNaugh ton tou and leech are also ruling elders and therefore members of the session othe of the church 1 the summary which we have already given of the pleadings in the present suit shows conclusively a different state of fact different issues and a different relief sought this is a caso easo of division or schism in tile tiie church it 15 a question as to which oft oot of two w e bodies shall be recognized as the thir third d or walnut street presbyterian church there is a controversy as to tile tho authority of watson and gault to act as ruling elders that authol ity being denied in the bill of complain complainants autt auti and aud so far from the claim of avery men ligh lighton tou ton and leech to be ruling elders being the sole inquiry in this oAse case it is a very subordinate matter and it depends upon facts and cirenia circumstances stances al together altogether different from those set up and relied on in the other suit buit and which did not exist when it was brought the issue here is no longer a mere more question of eldership but it is a separation ot of the original church members and officers into two distinct bodies with distinct members and officers each claiming to be the true walnut street presbyterian church and denying the right of the other to any such claim this brief sta statement of the issues in the two suits leaves no room for argument to show that the of the first cannot bo be pleaded either in bar or in abatement odthe of the second the supplementary petition filed by plaintiffs in tint that case after the decree of the chancery court had been reversed on appeal and which did contain very much the same matter found in the present bill was on motion of plaintiffs counsel and by order of the court dismissed without pre judice before benore this fult fuit was brought and of course was not a ott lis pendens at that time it is contended however that the delivery to tho the trustees and |
