If the property was acquired in the ordi nary way of purchase, or gift, for the use of a religious society, the court will inquire who. constitute that society, or its legitimate successors, and award to them the use of the property.
In case of the independent order of the congregation, this is to be determined by the majority of the society, or by such organiza tion of the society as, by its own rules, con stitute its government.
In the class of cases in which property has been acquired in the same way by a society which constitutes a subordinate part of a general religious organization with es tablished tribunals for ecclesiastical govern ment, these tribunals must decide all ques tions of faith, discipline, or ecclesiastical government.
In such cases where the 'right of property in the civil court is dependent on the ques tion of doctrine, discipline, ecclesiastical law, rule, or custom, or church government, and that has been decided by the highest tribunal within the organization to which it has been carried, the civil court will ac cept that decision as conclusive, and be gov erned by it in its application to the case be fore it ; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 680, 20 L. Ed. 666 ; s. c. 11 Am. L. Reg. 430, with a full note by Judge Redfield.
Where a church is in full connection with a synodical body, those who secede, whether a majority or not, lose all right and privilege to the corporate property, and those who re main bold them ; Gable v. Miller, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 627.
The majority of a church cannot change its doctrines and still retain the property giv en to it against the minority adhering to the faith in which the church was founded ; Smith v. Pedigo, 145 Ind. 361, 33 N. E. 777, 44 N. E. 363, 19 L. R. A. 433, 32 L. R. A. 838; Mack v. Kime, 129 Ga. 1, 58 S. E. 184, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 675; Christian Church of Sand Creek v. Church, 219 III. 503, 76 N. E. 703.
Where property is devoted under a trust to a particular religious faith or form of church government, those who adhere, however small in numbers, are entitled to its use, as against those who abandon the doctrines of a church; Harmon v. Dreher, Speer Eq. (S. C.) 87; Mc Ginnis v. Watson, 41 Pa. 9 ; Keyser v. Stansi fer, 6 Ohio, 363 ; Hosea v. Jacobs, 98 Mass. 65; Nance v. Busby, 91 Tenn. 303, 18 S. W.
874, 15 L. R. A. 801.
In the leading English case, Free Church of Scotland v. Overtoun, [1904] A. C. 515, on the question of the right of the majority to unite with another religious organization, dif fering in essential points, it was held that the majority could not lawfully alienate the property from its original purpose and that it belonged to the minority who held to the original tenets of the founder.
Where the members of a parish sought• an injunction to prevent the vestry of a church from closing it, in order to carry on its work in another part of the parish, the injunction was refused; Burke v. Rector of Trinity Church, 63 Misc. Rep. 43, 117 N. Y. Supp. 255.
In some states, as Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts, statutes provide that the ap propriate Roman Catholic archbishop shall be and may become a corporation sole. See ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
An allegation that by the regulations of the Roman Catholic Church the bishop of the diocese holds all its property in his own name as trustee, for its benefit, and that each priest assigned to duty is entitled to hold the bishop individually liable for his salary, is not sufficient to sustain an action for salary brought by a priest against his bishop. A trust created by the rules of a church which is not shown to be capable of making contracts, accepting benefits, and compelling performance, is not recognized by law. The courts will not take judicial notice of the civil rights and powers of the Roman Catholic Church, so far as its civil rights and duties are concerned, in the absence of averment or proof Upon the subject. Where such a ques tion has been submitted to an ecclesiastical tribunal in the church, its decision, adverse to the claim, is a bar to an action therefor ; Bax ter v. McDonnell, 155 N. Y. 83, 49 N. E. 667, 40 L. R. A. 670.
A bishop is not liable to a priest for his salary ; both are fellow-servants of the same church ; Rose v. Vertin, 46 Mich. 457, 9 N. W. 491, 41 Am. Rep. 174. Those who deal with an unincorporated church must trust the per formance of civil obligations to the honor and good faith of its members ; Trustees for First Soc. of M. E. Church v. Clark, 41 Mich. 737, 3 N. W. 207.