
    Trustees of the Organ Meeting House v. William Seaford et al.
    From Rowan.
    A Court of'Equity will not, upon a dispute respecting the title to church properly, .decide a religious controversy between its mem" bers.
    The bill charged, that in 1786, one Lutrie Sejfret executed a deed of conveyance, for a valuable consideration, “ to the elders and trustees, and their successors in office, of the Lutheran Congregation belonging to the second Creek Organ Meeting-House,” for a tract of land on which a meeting-house was afterwards erected : That under the said conveyance, the predecessors of the Plaintiffs liad entered and enjoyed peaceable and uninterrupted possession of the premises, for the purpose of divine worship, according to the Lutheran form, until tiie year 1820, when a part of the members composing the Lutheran Church adopt- d a general synod, a form of church government previously unknown to the Lutheran Church —that the Defendants, in the year 1820, were elected elders, deacons and trustees of the Organ Church, in the belief that, they would faithfully adhere to the form of c])urc|, government established by their ancestors — that, 'n vlo®i!’-ion °f the trust reposed in them, the Defendants liad sent delegates to the general synod, and had excluded ft.l¡m f¡ie meeting-house several clergymen regularly ordained according to the Lutheran form, and also the Plaintiffs and those by whom they were appointed, all of whom adhered to the old form of church government— that in 1826, the Plaintiffs were duly elected and ordained as trustees, elders and deacons, by a constitutional number of those adhering to the primitive church. The prayer for relief was general.
    A copy of the deed was filed as an exhibit. It conveyed the land in dispute for the consideration of £5, to “ the trustees and elders, and their successors in office, for the Lutheran Congregation, belonging to the second Creek Organ Meeting-Eiouse,” but was absolute upon its face, not specifying any particular purpose, to which the premises were to be appropriated.
    The answer denied, that the Plaintiffs had been duly elected .elders and trustees of the Organ Church congregation ; and alleged, that at the time of this pretended election, the Defendants were acting trustees and elders of the church, and that the Plaintiffs, and those whom they represented, constituted a very small minority of the members. These allegations were fully supported by the testimony.
    
      Nash, for the Plaintiffs.
    
      Gaston, for the Defendants.
   Hall, Judge.

— It appears that the Organ MeetingHouse was erected by its members: that the land on which it stands was conveyed to its trustees and elders by the grantor, for the consideration of £5. Whether that sum was the full value of the land does not appear. Nor does it appear, that the grantor belonged to that church, or professed the same tenets, which they held.— There was no condition annexed to the grant, the observance of no rules of faith, nor church discipline, nor any rules for the government of the church prescribed or enjoined. It was simply a conveyance of the land for a valuable consideration. And as long as the church exists, particularly since the passage of the act of 1796 (Rev. c. 457,) the church will hold the land. Whether the grantor would have any claim to it, in case the church were to become Mahometan or Pagan, or profess their belief in the heathen mythology, I am not. now, nor shall I ever be called upon to give an opinion. I am also spared from giving any opinion, provided they worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. fSee the 19th section of the bill of rights.J But I am free to give the opinion, that as long as their religious tenets and devotions arc confined to the sphere of Christianity, the grantor can have no claim; whether the conveyance shall be considered to be made upon a valuable consideration, or whether it shall be considered to be a donation. If the grantor has no right, on what foundation does the Plaintiff’s claim rest? It appears, that they are seceders from the church, and are not the trustees or representatives of it; that they were a minority of the members before their secession. Had they remained in the church, they must have yielded to the go<* vernment of the majority. Much less can they have any control over it, when they are no part of it. It is a rule applicable to aggregate corporations or to societies, that the will of the majority must govern. A contrary rule would be as absurd, as to say, that a lesser number contained more units than a greater.

With respect to the allegation made by the Plaintiffs, that the Defendants, or the church which they represent, have strayed from the true faith, or tiiat errors have crept into the church government, the answer is, that on that question, it is not for them, nor this Court to decide. It might be more than difficult to qualify any earthly tribunal to decide it. As the Plaintiffs are not members of the church, they cannot claim to control it, more than any other persons who are not connected w¡fh jt.

Per Curiam.

— Bill dismissed with costs.  