
    Salak, Appellant, v. St. Mary’s Greek Catholic Church Society et al.
    
      Argued December 3, 1934.
    January 7, 1935:
    Before Frazer, C. J., Simpson, Kephart, Maxey and Drew, JJ.
    
      Ben Branch,, for appellant.
    
      George A. Shutaclc, for appellees.
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

The controversy under consideration in this appeal, grows out of the one this day reviewed in Merman et al. v. St. Mary’s Greek Catholic Church of Nesquehoning, Pa., et al., 317 Pa. 33. Other points are raised here, however, and are elaborately argued; but the questions we are required to decide are, upon the record as made up, relatively few and simple.

John Salak, the appellant, in addition to having been a member of the St. Mary’s Greek Catholic Church of Nesquehoning, Pa., was also a member of the “St. Mary’s Greek Catholic Church Society of Nesquehoning, Carbon County, Pa.,” a beneficial society connected with said church, — hereinafter called the Society, — from which also be was expelled. Tbe legality of that expulsion is tbe question to be considered on tbis appeal.

Tbe proceedings were begun by a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel tbe Society, tbe principal defendant herein, to restore bim to membership. An alternative writ having been allowed, issued and duly served, tbe Society filed an answer and return thereto, to which plaintiff demurred. After a bearing upon tbe demurrer, tbe court below overruled it, and entered a “final judgment . . . for tbe defendants and against tbe plaintiff on tbe record, and tbe plaintiff’s application for a peremptory mandamus is now dismissed and denied.” From tbis judgment tbe present appeal was taken. Tbe judgment is right and must be affirmed.

Assuming, as tbe demurrer requires us to do, that all tbe well-pleaded facts in tbe answer and return are true, we find it averred therein “that membership in tbe [Society] is restricted to members of St. Mary’s Greek Catholic Church of Nesquehoning, and to those who profess tbe Greek Catholic faith. Tbe articles of incorporation state that membership in said [Society] shall cease when any member shall fail to pay bis monthly dues, etc., or for any other causes set forth in tbe constitution and bylaws of tbe [Society], Section 27, of article YI, of tbe by-laws of tbe [Society] provides that ‘Members of tbe Society shall be ipso facto expelled from tbe Society for tbe following reasons: (a) Renouncement of tbe true Greek Catholic Faith. . . ” It is then averred that tbe plaintiff “John Salak has renounced tbe true Greek Catholic Faith and has ceased to be a member of St. Mary’s Greek Catholic Church of Nesquehoning.” Upon tbis point it is pertinent to call attention to what we said in Krecker v. Shirey, 163 Pa. 534, 547: “Now it must be borne in mind that tbe organization of a denominational body or church involves tbe adoption of a religious creed and an ecclesiastical policy. To abandon or to repudiate either is to abandon or secede from tbe body whose authority is thus disregarded.” Tbe answer and return further says that “the said John Salak was excommunicated from membership in St. Mary’s Greek Catholic Church of Nesquehoning, Pa., and from the Greek Catholic Church by an order of the . . . Bishop of the Pittsburgh Diocese ... of which the aforesaid church is a part, after due notice to the said John Salak, and after hearings by the ecclesiastical authorities of the said Greek Catholic Church.” Pertinent to this we said in German Reformed Church v. Seibert, 3 Pa. 282, 291: “By the charter none but members of the German Reformed Church of Heidelburg, citizens of the Commonwealth, are corporators; and as a person excommunicated ceases to be a member, he loses his right as a cor-porator.” A like conclusion is stated in St. Casimir’s Polish R. C. Church’s Case, 273 Pa. 494, 500. The answer and return further says that, in the other suit above referred to, it was adjudged that appellant and his co-defendants therein “are no longer members of St. Mary’s Greek Catholic Church of Nesquehonning, Pa.,” which, under the charter and by-laws of the Society, ipso facto expels him therefrom.

It is unnecessary to further detail the facts; under those above set forth, admitted by the demurrer to be true, the court below could not properly have reached any other conclusion than the one it did.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.  