45 N.Y.S. 765 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1897
The Metropolitan Court of the archdiocese of New York, mentioned in the defendant’s answer, it may be assumed was a tribunal duly organized within and for the ecclesiastical government of the Roman Catholic church. As such the court was vested with judicial functions to determine questions of faith, discipline, rules and custom pertaining to church government. And w;hen the right of property is dependent upon the question of doctrine, discipline or church government, the civil court, where the question may arise, will treat the determination made upon such question by the highest tribunal within the church organization as controlling in that respect. (Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Connitt v. R. P. D. C. of N. Prospect, 54 N. Y. 551.) Beyond that there can be no recognition in this State of the jurisdiction and judicial power of any .ecclesiastical court. The questions of civil rights of persons relating to themselves personally or to property, whatever may be their relation to church organizations and pertaining thereto, are the subjects of adjudication in the civil tribunals exclusively. (Miller v. Gable, 2 Den. 492.) The civil courts do not interfere with ecclesiastical matters in which temporal-rights are not involved.
When the plaintiff assumed the relation of pastor of- the parish ■to which he was assigned, he, in that relation, was subject to the
The adjudication of the Metropolitan Court is not pleaded as an
The judgment should he affirmed.
All concurred.
- Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the defendant, within twenty days, to amend the third defense, on payment of costs of demurrer and of this appeal.