#### Masbruch, Respondent, vs. von Oehsen and others, Appellants.

*April 12*

May *2, 1916.*

*Religious societies; Interference with member’s rights: Personal wrong of trustees: Injunction: Parties: Jurisdiction of civil courts.*

1. In an action to restrain trustees of a religious society from interfering with the exercise by plaintiff of his rights as a member of the corporation, a complaint alleging that defendants acted unlawfully, beyond the scope of their authority as trustees, and contrary to the constitution, by-laws, and ordinances of the corporation, in causing plaintiff’s name to be stricken from the church roll and in denying to him his rights as a member of the corporation, to which he had always paid his dues and contributed large sums of money, and that their acts were neither authorized nor assented to by the corporation, shows that such acts were the personal tort of the defendants; and the corporation itself, though a proper party defendant, is not a necessary party.

2. Upon the facts so alleged the action does not involve an interference with church faith, doctrine, or discipline, nor the review of any action of the corporation through its officers, but is based on an unlawful interference with civil rights secured to the plaintiff by the constitution- and by-laws of the corporation, which wrong the civil courts have jurisdiction to prevent or redress.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Grant county: Geoege ClemeNtsoN, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

This action was brought to restrain the defendants, trustees of an incorporated church bearing the title of Evangelische-Lutherischen Eriedens Gemeinde zu Platteville, Wisconsin, also known and described as I)ie Corporation der Deutschen Evangelische-Lutherischen Eriedens Kirche zu Platteville, Wisconsin, from interfering with the plaintiff in the exercise of his rights of membership in that corporation by virtue of a resolution or order of the defendants directing the secretary of the corporation to strike his name from the roll of members, and from preventing him from taking part as a member of the corporation in the meeting of the members, and from *209interfering with or preventing plaintiff from exercising and using tbe rights and privileges belonging to him as a member.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants were trustees of a religious corporation organized under the laws of the state of Wisconsin; that said corporation was duly perfected as a corporation for religious purposes under the statutes of Wisconsin and had existed for more than twenty years immediately preceding the commencement of this action, and maintained a church and school at the city of Platteville in Grant county, Wisconsin; that for the conducting of the business of the corporation the articles of organization provided that a board of trustees composed of six persons should be elected, whose chairman should be the permanent minister^ who in case of a tie should cast the deciding vote, and that two of the trustees should be elected to the office of .church elders; that the articles of organization also provided that in accordance with the laws of Wisconsin the trustees should hold office for three years, and further provided that the organization should have the right through the trustees to buy and to sell, to receive gifts and bequests, and to sue and be sued, and that religious services shall be held in the German language as long as five members of the organization desire it; that the corporation adopted certain by-laws and ordinances which have been in force for many years and are still in force, under which the temporal affairs of said corporation are administered and the services in said church are conducted, and prescribing the duties and rights of members and officers and the method of admitting persons to membership in said organization and the method of suspending and expelling members from said organization.

Other provisions of the by-laws and ordinances are set forth in the complaint.

The complaint further alleges that said church ordinances provide a method of excluding members who have failed to observe the provisions of the church ordinances, but provide for a hearing before the organization and the decision of the' *210organization in a meeting of tbe members; that neither by the articles of organization, by-laws, or ordinances is any other method provided for the excluding or expelling of a member from said organization or corporation; and that neither the articles of organization, by-laws, or ordinances of said corporation give to or confer upon tire board of directors or any officer or member thereof, or any other person, or any board or committee, power or authority to exclude a member or to strike his name from the list of members, or to exclude a member of said corporation from any right, privilege, or prerogative which such membership confers or secures.

It is further alleged in the complaint that exclusion or expulsion of a member of said corporation under the by-laws and ordinances deprives him of all rights and privileges as a member of said corporation and deprives him and his family of the right to participate in the ceremonies and services of said church, and among other privileges deprives him of the right to send his children to the school conducted by said organization, and of the privilege of burial from the church of said organization, and from the right to receive spiritual services of the resident pastor of the church, and from obtaining the services of said pastor in cases of baptism, confirmation, communion, marriage, sickness, and death; that during all the years of its existence said organization has been and is an independent organization and church, not subject to or subordinate to any other church or religious body; that for several years immediately preceding the commencement of this action plaintiff has been a member of said organization in good standing and has contributed a considerable sum of money for the support of said corporation; that on the 5th day of July, 1914, the defendants, trustees of said, corporation, without cause and unlawfully, caused and directed the secretary of said board of trustees to strike the name of this plaintiff from the roll of members of said corporation, and said secretary did strike plaintiff’s name from the roll of members, *211and said trustees bave ever since refused to restore bis name to tbe roll of members and refuse to permit plaintiff to exercise tbe rights and privileges of a member of said corporation, as a result of wbicb plaintiff bas been and is deprived of all rights and privileges as a member; that plaintiff’s name was stricken from tbe rolls-without notice and without bis knowledge or consent, and that said acts of defendants were not done in pursuance of any action or order of tbe members of said corporation, and were contrary to tbe articles of organization of said corporation and not authorized by any provision of the by-laws or ordinances.

Tbe prayer is that the defendants be restrained and enjoined from excluding or attempting to exclude tbe plaintiff’s name from tbe roll of members of said corporation, and from preventing plaintiff from taking part as a member in tbe meetings, and from interfering with or preventing plaintiff from exercising tbe rights wbicb lawfully belong to him as a member, and for general relief.

Tbe defendants demurred to the complaint on tbe grounds: (1) want of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (2) that tbe court bad no jurisdiction of tbe person of tbe defendants; (3) tbe court bad no jurisdiction of tbe subject of tbe action; (4) defect of parties by reason of omission of tbe corporation as a defendant.

Tbe demurrer was overruled with leave to answer upon payment of $10 terms. Erom tbe order overruling tbe demurrer this appeal was taken.

Eor the appellants there were briefs by *Kopp & Brunch-horst,*and oral argument by A. *A. Brunchhorst*and *A. W. Kopp.*

To tbe point that membership in a church involves no civil or property right wbicb will give tíre civil courts jurisdiction to review tbe action of tbe church authorities, they cited *Hatfield v.*DeLong, 156 Ind. 207, 59 N. E. 483, 51 L. R. A. 751; *Waller v.*Howell, 20 Mise. 236, 45 N. Y. Supp. 790; *Pinhe v.*Bornhold, 8 Ont. L. Rep. 575; *Sale v.*
      *212
      *First Regular Baptist*Church.62 Iowa, 26, 17 N. W. 143; also cases cited in notes to 36 L. R. A. N. s. 941

*J. W.*Murphy, for tbe respondent.

KerwiN, J.

Tbe defendants are trustees of a corporation organized under tbe laws of tbe state of Wisconsin. Tbe corporation was a proper party defendant in tbe instant suit, but under tbe allegations of tbe complaint it was not a necessary party.

Tbe allegations of tbe complaint negative tbe idea tbat tbe defendants were acting witbin tbe scope of tbeir authority as trustees wben tbey struck plaintiff’s name from tbe cburcb roll and denied bim bis rights and privileges as a member of tbe corporation. Tbe complaint shows tbat tbe acts of the defendants were neither authorized nor assented to by tbe corporation, but were without authority and contrary to tbe constitution, by-laws, and ordinances of tbe corporation. Under such circumstances tbe acts of tbe trustees were tbeir wrong, tbeir personal tort, and not tbe wrong or tort of tbe corporation.

Tbe allegations of tbe complaint show tbat tbe plaintiff has never been excluded from tbe corporation, and tbat all tbe acts and doings of tbe defendants in striking his name from tbe roll and denying bim bis rights and privileges as a member of tbe corporation are without authority and unlawful; tbat tbe corporation never authorized, ratified, or assented to tbe acts of tbe defendants; tbat plaintiff is still a member of said corporation in good standing; tbat plaintiff has contributed large amounts of money to said corporation and has always paid bis dues; tbat since defendants struck plaintiff’s name from tbe roll of members of tbe corporation tbey have refused and still refuse to permit plaintiff to exercise tbe rights or privileges of a member of the corporation, and refuse to permit bim to take part as a member in meetings of *213tbe members of tbe corporation and threaten to refuse to recognize bim as sucb member in tbe future.

It is contended by appellants that tbe court bas no jurisdiction of tbe person or subject matter and that tbe complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Under this bead it is insisted that tbe case made involves matter of church doctrine and discipline and is beyond tbe jurisdiction of civil courts. Tbe rule contended for by appellants and to which many authorities are cited, is stated in 24 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.) 348, thus:

> “The ecclesiastical courts have exclusive jurisdiction in matters of church government, church organization, religious tenets, the laws of religious adjudications, and all other matter pertaining solely to the church as such: with these the civil courts cannot interfere. The .jurisdiction of the civil courts to interfere with ecclesiastical controversies is limited to those cases in which the rights of property or civil rights are involved.”

The cases cited by appellants’ counsel do not reach the instant case. Here it is not a question of attempted interference with church faith, doctrine, or discipline, nor review of any action of the corporation through its officers. Under the allegations of the complaint the civil rights of the plaintiff secured to him by the constitution and by-laws of the corporation have been unlawfully interfered with to his injury by the defendants.

The civil courts have jurisdiction to redress such wrongs, even though done by the corporation. *West Koshkonong Cong. v.*Ottesen, 80 Wis. 62, 49 N. W. 24; *State ex rel. Cuppel V. Milwaukee Chamber of*Commerce, 47 Wis. 670, 3 N. W. 760; *Hellstern v. Katzer,*103 Wis. 391, 79 N. W. 429; *Marien v. Evangelical Creed Cong.*132 Wis. 650, 113 N. W. 66; *State ex rel. Weingart v. Board, etc.*144 Wis. 516, 129 N. W. 630.

*214In tbe instant case, however, no claim is made against -tbe •corporation. Tbe allegations of tbe complaint are to tbe effect that tbe acts of tbe defendants were not tbe acts of tbe corporation, but tbe unauthorized and unlawful acts of tbe defendants, and were null and void. We are convinced that tbe complaint states a good cause of action against tbe defendants and that th% corporation is not a necessary party defendant.

*By the Oourt.*— Tbe order is affirmed.