*1 Mayflower Cong. Berkaw 1969] precluded testifying from were with Defendants present respect persons to what unnamed in alleged told defendants libelous commu Although nication meant them. This was error. hearsay, such evidence admissible show the publication and extent and effect of the to sustain general damage rep claim their defendants’ profession. utation and Publishing Poleski v. Polish American (1931), 254 Mich
Co. 15. remanded trial, Reversed and for new with costs to defendants.
All concurred. BERKAW v. MAYFLOWER CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH Opinion op the Court Religious Change 1. Societies —Established in Doctrine — Doc- op Congregation Property. trine —Vote —Church membership congregation of a church does not have the right by majority change to effect religious prac- vote a in tice against faithfully those who adhere to the charac- teristic doing doetrine of church, deprive so to the minority of the property. use church Religious Change 2. Societies —Established Doctrine — Doc- Property op trine —Church —Jurisdiction Courts. Civil questions eourts have no determining role process in the of resolving property disputes; there- summary fore judgment judgment and accelerated for de- fendant sought in an action plaintiffs which prevent merger ground entered into on the [1, [3] 45 Am 45 Am Jur, Jur, Religious References Religious Societies por Societies Points §§ § in Headnotes et seq. [June 18 Apr departure doctrine was represented ehureh rep- merger whether determination proper because a established doctrine was for resented where the the civil courts and not ehureh *2 departure any was made. majority that ehureh denied Change Religious Merger—Established Doctrine — 3. Societies — in Doctrine —Determination. merger Congregational participation by ehureh a Whether a repesented organization a with another by doctrine is to be determined from majority Con- a sinee each the members of power gregational is all ecclesiastical ehureh autonomous with vested in its assembled brotherhood. "Wayne, Appeal J. Swainson, John B. Sub- (Dock- April at 11, 1969, mitted Division et denied Detroit. Rehearing 5,892.) No. 1969. 26, Decided June August appeal 4, 1969. to denied Leave March 1970. See 383 Complaint Helen and others Berkaw, Joan Mayflower Congrega- against similarly situated, corporation, Michigan a for declara- Church, tional tory judgment merger and a that between quiet title to void, United Church Christ personal the real estate and defend- to plaintiffs, injunctive and for certain ant church judg- for accelerated Defendant’s motions relief. summary judgment granted. Plaintiffs ment and appeal. Affirmed. (Alfred Lindbloom, <£ E.
Beaumont, Smith Harris plaintiffs. counsel), for Spencer, (H. Trigg Dyhema, Wheat, Goodnow counsel), Connor, and Laurence D. Wood Gordon defendant. Long, G. curiae: Thomas Amicus Cong. Berkaw J.,C. and Before: Fitzgerald Lesinski, V. J. JJ. Brennan, appeal summary an C. J. This is Lesinski, granted judgments defendant, and Mayflower Congregational accelerated hy Wayne Church, county circuit court. following merger
The action arose of the Evan gelical Congrega and Reformed Churches and the tional Christian into new church, Churches United Church of Christ.* Pursuant to that merger, Mayflower Congre church, defendant local gational 204), Church, voted join the United Church of Christ. minority”
Plaintiffs constitute the “faithful
Mayflower Congregational
They
Church.
filed
quiet
realty
personalty
suit to
title
grounds
defendant church in themselves, on the
*3
the United Church of Christ did
conform
not
existing Congregational
May
the
of the
doctrines
plaintiffs
bringing
flower
In
action,
Church.
this
upon Michigan
relied
ship
the
doctrine that the member
congregation
right
of a
not
does
have the
by
majority
change
prac
effect,
vote, a
in
against
faithfully
tice as
those who
adhere to the
thereby
characteristic doctrine of and
church,
deprive
minority
property.
of
the use
(1959),
Seller
Davis
Court presented Four- reason First and issues to the United Amendments States Constitu- teenth tion. granted defendant’s motion for
The trial judgment, finding aas matter accelerated of law jurisdiction subject the court lacked matter reason of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. granted the court Moreover, defendant’s motion for judgment, finding summary genuine both no issue complaint of material fact failure of the Regarding summary state' cause of action. judgment, the court found as a matter of law that provisions by-laws of the constitution and abridge United Church of do Christ autonomy of defendant church and are neither man- datory regulatory, merely nor but recommended procedures describing voluntary relationship. appeal
Plaintiffs the decision of court, the trial contending juris- inter alia that trial court has quiet minority diction title in the where faithful departs Congregationalism. the church Presbyterian In Church in the United States Presbyterian Elisabeth Blue Hull Memorial (1969), US 440 L Ed Ct 658), January 2d a case decided on after 27, 1969, the briefs this case were submitted but discussed supplemental plain in the defendant’s brief and supplemental reply tiff’s brief, the United States Supreme held civil “no Court that the courts have *4 determining questions role in in the process disputes”. (Empha resolving property n supplied.) sis by Supreme
As Eliz stated the the Court, abeth Case involved: Cong. Church Berkaw oj? the Cpurt n dispute property which arose when “A church from a hierarchical withdrew local churches
two Georgia organization. general the local churches was made Under law church by property previously right used to a to turn on civil court general jury as whether the church aban- decision to departed from the tenets faith and or doned practice ated with it. local affili- at time the churches held question presented whether The applied Amendment, of the First as restraints through Amendment, the Fourteenth to the States property permit church and on to award civil court interpretation significance the basis of the assigns aspects of church doctrine.” civil court jury Georgia Supreme reversed the Court property granting local church verdict upon finding aban- of fundamental churches based donment of by general original doctrines that: reasoned church. It severely circumscribes the Amendment “The First may resolving play in role that civil courts property disputes. obvious, however, that not It is by property every claimed civil court decision organization jeopardizes pro- religious values courts do First Amendment. Civil tected merely by open- religion free exercise of inhibit prop- ing disputes involving doors to their erty. principles law, are there neutral And property disputes, developed which in all use ‘establishing’ applied can without churches be Amendment But First
which is awarded. prop- plainly jeopardized when church values are erty litigation turn on the resolution is made to n civil religious doctrine of controversies over courts practice. resolve If undertake to civil courts prop- adjudicate such controversies in order to present erty dispute, are of inhib- hazards ever development iting the free doctrine purely implicating matters secular interests *5 App [June 18 245 op Opinion the Court concern. Because of these hazards, enjoins employment the First Amendment government organs essentially pur- religious poses, Abington Schempp (1963), School District v. 844); L 374 US Ct Ed 2d Amendment therefore commands civil courts to de- disputes church resolving cide without underlying controversies over doctrine. religious organizations, Hence, States, uals must structure and individ- relationships involving church require property so the civil courts to questions.” (Emphasis sup- resolve ecclesiastical plied.)
We consider the Elizabeth decision to he controlling in the instant case. The fundamental inquiry majority, by ease this was whether the voting part to become a of the United departed Christ, doctrine. Clearly, grant plain therefore, order to the relief request, regarding depar tiffs ecclesiastical issues ture from doctrine must be resolved civil courts. expressly prohibited Such determination was Mary Elizabeth: Georgia “The have courts violated the command departure-from-doc-
of the First Amendment. implied theory they trine element trust which applied requires judiciary the civil to determine general whether actions of the church constitute departure’ such ‘substantial from the tenets of practice existing faith and at the time local churches’ affiliation that the trust in favor of the general church must be declared to have terminated. parts. This determination has two The civil court challenged must first decide whether the actions of general depart substantially prior reaching doctrine. In decision, such necessity interpretation must of make its own meaning of church If doctrines. the court should occurred, decide that a substantial has Cong. Church Berkaw op the Court go to determine whether issue on on then must departed place general has holds a which importance theology the traditional as to of such require A be terminated. civil court trust only assessing the determination after can make this relative from which ture-from-doctrine element *6 significance religion the of to the tenets depar- departure Thus, was the found. Georgia implied of the theory requires civil the court to determine trust religion interpre- very of a core matters at —the particular im- church doctrines tation of religion. Plainly, portance the doctrines those play- First Amendment forbids civil courts ing such a role.” plaintiffs allege a case, In the instant changes specifically no that counters and in Thus, is unlike Davis occurred. the case doctrine dispute supra, Scher, in a both where parties agreed change occurred, in doctrine that a ques- find that ecclesiastical and the could no dispute. agreement in is no tions were Where there departure occurred, the ecclesiastical conflict destroys jurisdiction prop- resolve the civil court erty dispute. Mary
Although Case Elizabeth involved organiza utilizing churches a hierarchical form in for a see no basis that case distinction tion, we inapplicable Mary congrega making ato Elisabeth organization. essence of form tional prohibition Supreme is of civil Court decision questions. ecclesiastical court determination collusion, or arbi fraud, absence of Thus, trariness, body, proper not the ecclesiastical In the doctrine. civil must decide church court, Presbyterian churches Case, since Elizabeth Presbyterian church involved, the decision were controlling. In doctrine was tribunals as the instant case, [June App Fitzgerald, J. power all ecclesiastical with autonomous is such, As brotherhood. assembled
vested its controlling members is of the decision questions. Under of ecclesiastical in determination to the United Fourteenth Amendments First and no role leaves civil courts Constitution, this States regarding disputes substantive matters. jurisdictional issue,
Due to our resolution plain- remaining contentions consideration tiff on unnecessary. appeal appellee. Affirmed. Costs to J., V. J. Brennan, concurred. specially). (concurring itWhile J. Fitzgerald, thing make is a foolish that, “It been written
has story prologue itself,”1 long in the short and to be briefly observing that strict I cannot refrain *7 catapults Mary application Case2 Elizabeth irony been have that churches ultimate us to the statutory protections, any fos divorced from tering legislatures, and state furnished influences perhaps those law save of from all the benefits “marginal” few cited Consoles.3 Mary be sancti should Elizabeth
I do not believe adopt specially the concurrence I this far, fied and case. Harlan in that of Mr. Justice is amenable to however, case, The instant Mary prohibitions since the Elizabeth imminent core decision question: around here revolves Congregationalism? No around-the-mul- isWhat Hull 601, 21 L Ed 2d US 1 2 Presbyterian The Gonzalez Memorial Apocrypha, [2] S Ct Presbyterian 658). Roman Catholic 74 L Ed Church Maccabees 131). the United I.I, Archbishop 32. (1969), 393 v. States Manila US Elizabeth [440] (1929), (89 Blue Ct People v. Martinovich reasoning tbe fact berry-busli remove us can perforce, question one or, is ecclesiastical that precluded to us. thus and creed, and faith v. MARTINOVICH PEOPLE v. WOLAK PEOPLE Preliminary Receiving Exam- Law — Goods —Criminal 1. Stolen of Crime —Evidence. ination —Elements preliminary examination on produced Evidence at defendants’ property concealing must charge receiving stolen and property, stolen, property the value of show that was property of such receiving, possession, or concealment knowledge property had that hy with the defendants being that identity property stolen, been guilty actual or previously stolen, constructive or received knowledge that defendants bound be defendants can been stolen before concealed had 750.535). (CLS 1961, over trial for § Preliminary Law — Examination —Evidence—Suffi- 2. Criminal ciency Trial. to Bind Over for required preliminary positive guilt at examina- Proof is not showing trial; over tion order to bind for there that a certain crime had been committed and probable to believe that the defendant committed cause is sufficient. Receiving Preliminary Exam- Stolen Goods —Criminal Law — Evidence—Sufficiency Trial— Bind ination — Identity Over of Goods. identity goods who from defendants exact seized receiving concealing property must are accused of stolen [1] [2-4] [5] 45 Am 5 Am Jur 21 Am Jur, Jur 2d, Appeal References Receiving 2d, Criminal and Error Stolen *8 for Points Law 449. Property § § [839] et in Headnotes § ei [2] seq. seq.