
    Riddle and others against Stevens.
    If members of a congregation sign a call to a minister, and engage if to provide for his comfortable ímd honourable maintenance in the ' manner set . forth in the subscription . .papers accompanying the call,” and by , such subscrip- ’ tion papers ) “ promise to pay to him or his order the sums annexed to their names, yearly,” with liberty to any subscriber to withdraw at the end of a year, they are not jointly hound for lite whole subscription, but each severally to the amount of his own subscription.
    •The Court has a right to strike out such parts of a statement made by the defendant under the act of 21 st March, 1806, as are scandalous, impertinent, and unnecessary.
    The proceedings of the Presbytery against a minister are evidence to shew his suspension or removal: but not of the details stated in them.
    Picas in abatement should not be put in after pleas in bar, unless under special circumstances, of which the Court must judge.
    It is unreasonable to put in a plea in abatement only the day before tbe trial.
    * There is no occasion for a formal issue when the cause goes to trial on the statements of the parties.
    It is not error, if the Court, in giving judgment on a verdict, reserve the right to settle the precise amount due by referees to be chosen by consent of the parties.
    If a statement follows the directions of the act of assembly, it is good, although the*, plaintiff, hi suing on a contract, does not state performance on his part.
    In Error.
    ERROR to the Common Pleas of Huntingdon county.
    This was an action brought at April*Term, 1810, by the Reverend Matthew Stevens against Robert Riddle, and thirty-one others, to recover on a written contract for services performed by the plaintiff as minister of the congregation of Shaver's creek. The defendants were signers of a writing known in the Presbyterian church by the name of a call. By this they invited tbe plaintiff to be their pastor, and concluded in the following terms- — “ And further, as we are persuaded “ that they who serve at the altar should live by the altar, we “ do promise, in order that you may be, as much as possible, ' . , ’ ) 
      “ freed from worldly incumbrance, to provide for your com- “ fortable and honourable maintenance, in the manner set jn f]ie subscription papers accompanying this our call, “during your continuance with us as our regular pastor. “ And in witness’ of ctur hearty desire to have you settled “ among us, we have hereunto set our names,- this- 2d Septem- “ her, Anno Domini, 1797.” This call was signed by about sixty-four persons. The subscription papers- which accompanied it, when it was presented to the Presbytery, contained about 150 names : the .whole sum subscribed to be paid annually amounting to 134 pounds, 6 shillings, and 9 pence. The subscription was headed by a writing whereby the subscribers promised to pay “ to the Reverend Matthew Stevens, “ or order, the sum annexed to their names, yearly and every “ year, during his performing the duties of a Minister of the “ Gospel at the Manor meeting-house, otherwise called Sha- “ vers creek meeting-house : but if any subscriber chooseth “ to withdraw his subscription, he shall have liberty to do so “ at the end of- every year, upon his paying the arrears that “ are due.”
    The plaintiff filed ño declaration, but in April, 1811, made a statement of his cause of action under the act of 21st March, 1806, claiming “of the defendant the sum of one thousand “pounds, lawful money of Pennsylvania,' due by the de- “ fendants to the plaintiff, by a written contract entered into “and dated the 2d September, 1797, by which the said de- “ fendants engaged and faithfully promised to pay unto the “plaintiff the sum of 134 pounds, 6 shillings, and -9 pence, “ by the year, for the services to be done and performed by “the said plaintiff, as the minister and pastor of the said defendants, till the 17th April, 1810, when he was dismissed from said congregation ; which sum of one thousand pounds “ the said plaintiff verily believes is justly due to him for the “ services aforesaid, as the minister and pastor of the said “ defendants, by the said defendants.-” The defendants, at April Term, 1813, pleaded non-assimpsit and payment, and non-assumpsit infra sex annos, with leave to add, alter, and amend, and plead specially. Upon these pleas issues were joined at the same Term. On.the 28th May, 181?, (the day before the trial,) the defendants filed what they called a counter-statement, consisting of a variety of matters thrown together without regard to form.
    
      On this counter-statement no formal issue was joined, hut the plaintiff moved the Court on the trial to strike out certain parts which contained matter of a-scandalous nature, impertinent and unnecessary to the defence. This motion was.granted, and the Court- gave their opinion and their reasons according to the act of assembly: to which the defendants took a bill of exceptions.
    The defendants offered in evidence the minutes of the proceedings of the Huntingdon Presbytery, dismissing the plaintiff from his pastoral charge, on a complaint made against him for improper conduct in his private capacity., The Court allowed the evidence so far as it went to prove the suspension or removal of- the plaintiff; but directed the jury that it was not evidence so far as it went to inculpate the plaintiff, or was alleged to have dissolved the.contract of the defendants. To this opinion the defendants expepted, and the Court sealed a bill of exceptions.
    The defendants’ counter-statement, among .other things, alleged, that they, together with several others, whose,names were not in the writ, and were still living, signed the calf to the plaintiff. This, which was termed a plea in abatement, the Court instructed the jury came too late.
    The Court also instructed the jury that the writing .on which the action was founded constituted a contract by which the defendants jointly assumed to pay the plaintiff the sum of 134 pounds, 6 shillings, and 9 pence a year.
    In the same counter-statement, Joseph Jackson, one. of the defendants,, alleged that the writ had - been served, on him, and pleaded that he was not the person named in the said writ, nor the person who signed the written paper alluded- to in plaintiff’s statement.
    
      -,Robert Riddle and James Fitzgerald severally pleaded a former suit and recovery for the same cause of action, on which, issue was.joined: and.several of the defendants pleaded relpases-on w-hich no issue was joined. The Court charged the jury that as to the particular pl.ea of four'or live of the defendants, it would not avail to discharge them from the obligation of the call: and that money received by the plaintiff on judgment ought to be defalked.
    - The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 2649 dollars,. 48 cents-. -The defendants moved for a new trial,,and in arrest ©f judgment, The Court over-ruled the motion for ti new trial, and gave judgment, u reserving to themselves the “ power hereafter to -appoint referees, - by consent of the par- “ ties, more fully to ascertain the amount due to the plaintiff “ according to the understanding and direction of the Court “ at the time of the verdict given,” •
    In this Court the following were assigned as errors by the plaintiffs in error:
    1. That the Court struck out part of a special plea after the jury was sworn. .
    2. That they rejected the proceedings of the .Huntingdon Presbytery.
    3. Their instructing the jury that the plea in abatement came too late.
    4. Their instructing the jury that the written call was a joint contract by the defendants to pay 134 pounds, 6 shillings, and 9 pence, per annum.
    
    , 5. The verdict and judgment against Joseph Jackson, whose plea was admitted by the plaintiff.
    6. That no issue was joined on the several pleas of Robert Riddle and James Fitzgerald, of a former recovery for the same cause of action.
    , ¡T. That no issue was joined on the pleas of a release from the plaintiff, pleaded by several of the defendants. ' .
    8. That, the judgment was for no certain sum, but subject to future liquidation.
    9. That the plaintiff, in his statement, did .not aver performance of his part of the contract.
    
      S. Riddle, for the plaintiffs in error.
    ■ 1. The special plea was proper: but if not, it was too late to strike it out after the jury was sworn.
    2. It was proper to shew for what the plaintiff was suspended : because in case of gross crime the minister cannot be restored without confessing his offence publicly. Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, 434. The Court had a right to judge whether the Presbytery had proceeded according to their own regulations.
    3. The plea in abatement was good till over-ruled regularly. If a defendant pleads in abatement after imparlance, the plaintiff must demur, or the plea stands. 1 Vent. 236.
    4. The defendants vyere not jointly bound. .This call is a'ot in the usual form, which is for a specific sum.. The promise was to pay according to the subscription papers accompanying the call. These papers shew that the subscribers might withdraw at the end of- any year. But whatever may be the construction of the call, it might be altered by the parties, and the evidence shews that in the understanding of the plaintiff himself, he yras to look to-the individual subscribers.
    
      5. This exception is relinquished.
    6. and 7. The only remark the Court made on these points was, that the several pleas of individuals did not discharge them from their joint, engagements.
    
      8. There was no judgment for any sum certain. The Court had no right to reserve to themselves the power to appoint referees.
    9. The statement of plaintiff ought to have averred that he had performed his part of the bargain.
    
      Huston and Watts, contra.
    
      1. That part of the counter-statement only was struck out, which indecently reflected on the plaintiff’s character. It was unnecessary also, hecause it might be given iii evidence on the general issue.
    2. The proceedings of the Huntingdon Presbytery which were rejected as evidence by the Court, were not on the complaint of this congregation, nor with a view to remove or suspend the minister; but on the complaint of an individual, wholly unconnected with the affairs of this' congregation. Only that part which had no relation to this cause was rejected. The part shewing the plaintiff’s suspension' was admitted.
    3. The plea in abatement came too late. Pleas in bar admit all those matters which are pleadable in abatement. If is highly improper to suffer such pleas after issue joined on the merits, and only the day before trial, at which time the plea in abatement was offered. The leave to add, alter, or amend, would not authorise a special plea, or plea in abatement with such short notice.
    4. The great point of dispute, is the construction that ought to be given to the call. If the signers of that paper are not jointly bound, the action cannot, be supported. The nature of the Presbyterian church government throws light On this contract. This requires, that the congregation shphld express, to .the Presbytery by their call, the provision to be "made for the minister. In this case they, sent a copy of the subscription paper along with the call. The original the congregation kept for their own security, that they might resort to the subscribers. Unless the contract was permanent the Presbytery would not consent, nor would the minister. Those who make the call are bound while the pastor continues. If any individual who signed the call signed also the subscription paper, and was sued for his subscription and recovered against, that would be no bar to an action on the call: but the sum paid would be deducted from the plaintiff’s demand.
    
      5. This error has been relinquished.
    6. and 7. The defendants had the full benefits of these pleas before the jury: and the sums recovered were credited to the defendants.
    8. The judgment is not uncertain, but for the sum found by the verdict. The terms annexed by the Court may be -a prejudice to the plaintiff; but nqt. to the defendants.
    9. As to the form of the statement, it is in the words of the act of assembly.
   Tilghman C. J.

(After stating the case.) On the counter-statement no formal issue was joined, but the plaintiff moved the Court to strike out certain points which contained matter of a scandalous nature, impertinent and- unnecessary to the defence. This motion was granted, and the Court gave their opinion and their reasons according to the act of assembly. This is the first error assigned.

1. The Court has a right to preserve the' purity of its re* cords. Its proceedings are not to be converted into a machinery for circulating slander. Whatever is necessary to bring the merits of the cause to trial must be placed on the record, however painful it may be to the feelings of the parties. But there the matter is to stop: and ,the Court may, strike out allegations which wound the character of one party without being of any real service to the other. In the present case nothing which could legally avail the defendants was struck out, except what they might have the advantage of in the issues formally joined upon the pleas of non-assumpsit and payment.. Now it would make no.difference to them, whether they- were permitted- to introduce their, evidence under one plea or- another, .1 am of opinion, therefore, that there is no error in this striking out.

2. The second error is the not permitting to be given in evidence the proceedings of the Huntingdon Presbyter}', on a complaint made against the plaintiff for improper conduct in his private capacity. These proceedings were in some respects directly pertinent to the issue. The plaintiff’s demand is for services rendered to the defendants as their pastor. The Presbytery, according to the rules and discipline of the Presbyterian church, had power .to suspend the functions of the plaintiff, or even to remove him from his ministry. So far as concerned his suspension or removal, the jury were directed to consider the proceedings as evidence. But no regard was to be paid to the details of evidence before the Presbytery. The particular facts alleged, or proved, were to have no effect on- the verdict: the decision of the Presbytery as to the suspension or removal of the plaintiff, was the only matter to be regarded. Every church has a discipline of its own. It is necessary, that it should be so : because, without rules and discipline no body composed of numerous individuals can be governed. But this discipline is confined, to spiritual affairs. It operates the mind and conscience, without pretending to temporal authority. No member of the church can be fined or imprisoned. But,.be he minister or layman, he may be admonished, reproved, and finally ejected from the society. ' So may he retire from the society at his own free will. Under these restrictions religious discipline may produce much good, without infringing on civil liberty. Both plaintiff and„ defendants-were subject to the laws of the church, both as to the induction and removal of the plaintiff According to these laws, it was not in the power of the defendants to remove the plaintiff. The Presbytery alone could do it, with a right of'appeal, first to the Synod, and in the last resort to the General Assembly. This being the case, it was to po purpose to enter into the particulars of the plaintiff’s misconduct before the jury. The cause had been heard, and decided by the Presbytery; and so far as regarded the plaintiff’s continuance in his ministry, that decision is binding, subject to an appeal to the superior ecclesiastical tribunals, as before-mentioned. The Court of Common Pleas was right, therefore, in deciding, that the proceedings before the Presbytery were evidence only so far as they proved the suspension or final discharge of the plaintiff.

3. The third error is the decision,'that what is called the plea in‘abatement in the defendants’ Statement came too late. The counsel for the defendants keenv ter suppose, that by the leave to add, alter; or amend, they had a right to plead uncontrouled by the Court, But it is' not so'. The pleadings are always under the controul of the Cour'tf." Pleas ill abatement ought not to be put in after pleas irf bar, unless under special circumstances of which the Court will" judged' It appeared to the Court, that it was unreasonable to put in a pléá in abatement only the day before trial;' and I Cannot say, I differ from them.

4. The fourth error being the great and substantial point upon which thé cause turns,’! shall not consider it till \ have taken notice of all minor 'objections. ; ' *•

51 The fifth error has been abandoned.

6. and T. The sixth is, that .two of the. defendants, Riddle and Fitzgerald, pleaded,' “ a former suit and 'recovery’’’ in, bar, on which no issue was joined; and the seventh is, thát several of the defendants pleaded releases, bn Which no issue was joined.. It has been observed before, that issues had been regularly joined on the pleas of non-asstímpsit and payment, before the defendants put in their counter-statement. These statements and counter-statements aré creatures of the act of assembly. It seems to have been supposed, that they might be put in by the parties without the assistance of counsel : arid' indeed the obvious intent of the act is to simplify the proceedings, so that they might be conducted without the assistance of counsel. There is no occasion, therefore, for a formal joinder of issue, when the cause goes to trial on the statements of the parties. ' It is now complained, that issues were not" joined’on the pleas contained in the counter-statement: and yet, when that paper was put in, it' could hardly have Been expected, that formal issues should be'joined: for it Is’so multifarious and' informal-, that the plaintiff could not easily take issue, but might' well have demurred to it. Both parties, however, were content to go to trial on the pleadifigs such as they were :' and it does not appear, that the defendants have been injured by it: because the Court gave their opinions to the jury on the validity of the pleas contained in the counter-statenjerif j and if they were wrong in that opinion the defendants may avail themselves of the error. The Court considered the matter of the pleas ás being before them under the act of assembly, although no issue was regularly joined and they instructed the jury, that the plea in abatement was put in. too late, and the pleas in bar were bad in substance. Whether they were right in their opinion as to the pleas in bar, will depend on the construction of the written cohtract which falls within the fourth error. . .

8. The eighth error is, that the judgment is for no certain •sum, but subject to future liquidation. But this is a mistake. The judgment is for the sum found by the verdict, to which is added a note intended for the benefit of the defendants, but forming-no part of the judgment. The object of this .note was to give credit to the defendants, for any payments for which receipts might thereafter be produced. It is not for the defendants, therefore, to complain of it.

9. The ninth error is, that the plaintiff’s statement does not iivev performance of his .part of the contract. There is nothing in this objection. The statement is exactly in conformity to the act of assembly. It describes the writing on which the plaintiff’s demand is founded, with sufficient certainty : mentions the sum which the defendants were to pay him by the year: and concludes with saying, that he verily believes the sum of 1000 pounds to be justly due to him for his services as minister and pastor of the defendants. This is quite sufficient.

I come now to the fourth and last error, the real point of the controversy. [The Chief Justice stated the charge of the Court, and the. written contract of the defendants.] The parties differ widely in their contruction of these writings. The plaintiff understands itas an engagement on the part of the signers of the call, to be jointly responsible to him during the whole term of, his continuing their pastor, for the whole amount of the several sums subscribed by themselves and others. On the other hand the defendants say, that they are bound each for himself only for the sum subscribed by him, and on the terms mentioned in the subscription paper. The call eontains no promise te pay any certain sum, but to provide for the plaintiff’s maintenance in the manner set forth in-the subscription papers. These papers then must be resorted to in ordered to explain the promise. What is the meaning of providing in the manner set forth, &c. ? I take it to mean, that each subscriber of the Call will pay the sum which he promises to pay -in the subscription paper, at the time, and subject to the liberty of withdrawing mentioned in that paper. It is not so clearly expressed as it might be; but the call, after giving an invitation to their minister, refers altogether to the subscription for the pecuniary part of the business. No sum is mentioned: no certainty can be attained, but by reference to that paper. It is said to be extremely hard on the plaintiff to depend altogether on an annual subscription, and to run the risk of the solvency of the individual subscribers: and it certainly is a most uncomfortable situation. Rutón the other hand, for the signers of the call to be responsible for an indefinite time, for the annual payment of a large sum, to be collected from others, is a serious engagement : especially as near two-thirds of the subscribers did not sign the call, and might withdraw at their pleasure. It is not, however, a question of hardship, but of construction. The plaintiff supposes, that his construction is strengthened by the custom of the Presbyterian church, and refers to the form of call which is recommended in their printed book-But, in my opinion, that reference makes in favour of the defendants. By the printed form the figures of the call promise to pay their pastor a certain sum by the year, quarter, or otherwise, without mention of any subscription paper. Now why was that form departed from, unless the signers of the call were unwilling to adopt it? The variation is too material to have happened by chance: and the greater the variation the stronger is the argument, that the defendants determined to reject the usual form, and make a special agreement for themselves. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the defendants were not bound jointly for the whole sum subscribed, but severally each for himself, to the amount of his own subscription, and on the terms mentioned in the paper. The judgment should, therefore, be reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

Yeates J.

My opinion in this tase will be confined to the great question in the cause upon the merits, whether the defendants below were jointly responsible to the plaintiff by their written engagement of 2d September, 1797, for the sum of 134 pounds, 6 shillings, and 9 pence, annually, during his continuance in the church of Shaver’s creek as pastor of the congregation. As to the supposed errors of a minor nature, resting chiefly in technical forms, I shall content myself with expressing- my entire concurrence in the remarks which have been made by the Chief Justice thereon: I cannot add to them.

' ’I he call, as it is termed, signed by 64 persons, and presented to the Presbytery, has been already read. It does not pursue the form pointed out in the Westminster confession oi faith, which requires a stated sum to be ascertained, for the-use of the minister who is invited to the pastoral charge: but the subscribers thereof “ promise to provide for the honour- “ able and comfortable maintenance of Mr. Stevens, in the u manner set forth in the subscription papers, accompanying u this their call, during his continuance -with them as their regular pastor.” The subscription papers thus referred to, and made part of the call, are signed by above 150 persons, with the sums of money severally subscribed opposite to their respective names, and contain a clause, k that if any subscriber chooseth to withdraw his subscription, he shall “ have liberty to do so at the end of every year, upon his “paying off the arrears that are then due.” Those different papers must be considered as one instrument, and construed in such a way as to do no violence to either. The signers of the call, it is true, promise to provide for their minister' an honourable and comfortable maintenance, — not any ascertained sum,' — but in the manner set forth in the subscription papers. Taking from the subscribers the liberty of with- ■ drawing their subscriptions would be a deviation from thq terms of the contract.. They promise for themselves individually, not for each other, and the manner of subscription is to govern. I take then the plain meaning of the engagement, reddendo singula singulis, to be no more nor less than this,— every person who has signed either paper is obliged to pay his annual subscription until he signifies his intention of withdrawing, when the year is closed, and pays off his arrearages. The minister is to run the hazard of the money being collected from the subscribers individually: no one is to be, recurred to in case of default by another. The plaintiff below must have adopted the contract in the same sense. He has commenced several suits against delinquent members in his own name; and has given l-eceipts to others, which would .be unauthorised acts in case the call was really a joint or several contract. I am of opinion, that the charge of the Court does not express the true and legal meaning .of the call, and* that therefore the Judgment of . the Court below should be reversed. , • -,

Gibson J. concurred.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.  