Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

247 U.S. 1

38 S. Ct. 422

62 L. Ed. 939

Docket No. 257.

Shepard v. Barkley

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 23, 1918.

Decided May 6, 1918.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1918-05-06

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT Of APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, hereinafter for convenience referred to as the plaintiff church, is a large, national, voluntary religious organization, comprising many churches of the Presbyterian denomination throughout the country, united in a common religious belief and form of worship, and having an organization which embraces the various churches and congregations, all of which are subject to the authority of other ecclesiastical bodies called judicatories, with the final authority vested in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. “The executive body of each church or congregation is called a Session, which seems to have the functions of an executive committee. It is composed of members of the congregation, elected by it, called ruling elders, together with the regularly installed pastor who is ex officio the moderator. To constitute a Session there must be at least one ruling elder and the pastor. The Session has charge of the spiritual welfare of the congregation and the right to control the use of the property of the church for the purposes of worship. “Next above the Session in the organization is the Presbytery, consisting of all the ministers, — in number not less than five, —and one ruling elder from each congregation within a certain district. Subject to appeal, the Presbytery has jurisdiction over the churches in its district. The Session of any regular Presbyterian Church in Portland is subject”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Master v. Second Parish

“"* * * the court is of opinion that the doctrines by which the case is controlled have been so affirmatively and conclusively settled by a prior decision of this court as to cause it to be unnecessary as a matter of original consideration to restate them. Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 , 20 L.Ed. 666 . And the want of any possible reason for removing this case from the control of the doctrines of the Watson Case is, if needs be, conclusively shown by the many cases referred to by the court below in its opinion (8 Cir., 222 F. 669 , 138 C.C.A. 217 ), in which the Watson Case was made controlling and decisive as to controversies not in substance differing from the one here presented."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 102 So. 2d 714 - St. John's Presbytery v. Central Presbyterian Church of St. Petersburg

Relies on Watson v. Jones · Duvall v. Synod of Kansas of Presbyterian Church in United States · Sherard v. Walton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 9–0 · Decided 1918-05-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America (1952), Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1929)

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 10 states

16019181920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT Of APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

¶2Decided on the authority of Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679.

¶3222 Fed. Rep. 609, affirmed.

¶4Mr. Charles E. Morrow-, with whom Mr. Max D. Aber' was on the briefs, for appellants.

¶5Mr. Frank Hagerman for appellees.

¶6Memorandum opinion by

¶7Mr. Chief Justice White,

¶8by direction of the court.

¶9The court is of the opinion that the following propositions are well founded, although , some members of the *2coiirt differ concerning them(a) That the appeal in this . case brings up for review both the causes which were decided by the court below at the same time and both therefore will be controlled by the decree here to be rendered, (b) That the order allowing an amendment as to the form of the appeal and the parties which was previously made without prejudice to the right of the appellees to object to the same at the hearing on the merits was rightfully granted and the objection which was at the hearing on the merits , made by the appellees is without merit, (c). That under the case as made by the pleadings there is authority to review. .'

¶10The approach to the/merits being thus cleared, without any difference on the subject the court is of opinion that the .doctrines by which the case is controlled have been so affirmatively and conclusively settled by a prior decision of this court as to cause it to be unnecessary as a matter of original consideration to restate them; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679. And the want of any possible reason for removing this case from the control of the doctrines of the Watson Case is, if needs.be, conclusively, shown by the many cases referred to by the court below in its, opinion (222 Fed. Rep. 669) in which the Watson Case was made controlling ancl decisive as to controversies not. in substance differing fr^ni1 the one here presented. Sherard v. Walton, 206 Fed. Rep. 562; Helm v. Zarecor,213 Fed. Rep. 648; Sharp v. Bonham, 213 Fed. Rep. 660; Harris v. Cosby, 173 Alabama, 81; Sanders v. Baggerly, 96 Arkansas, 117; Permanent Committee of Missions v. Pacific Synod, 157 California, 105; Mack v. Kime, 129 Georgia, 1; First Presbyterian Church of Lincoln v. First Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Lincoln, 245 Illinois, 74; Fussell v. Hail, 233 Illinois, 73; Fancy Prairie Church v. King, 245 Illinois, 120; Pleasant Grove Congregation v. Riley, 248 Illinois, 604; Ramsey v. Hicks, 174 Indiana, 428; Bentle v. Ulay, 175 Indiana, 494; Wallace v. Hughes, *3131 Kentucky, 445; Carothers, v. Mosely, 99 Mississippi, 671; Hayes v. Manning, 263 Missouri, 1; Missouri Valley College v. Guthrie, 263 Missouri, 52; First Presbyterian Church v. Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 34 Oklahoma, 503; Brown v. Clark, 102 Texas, 323.

¶11Affirmed.

/247/us/1 · .json · Public domain