Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1854-07-19

iluuU III question anu etuat III auUtl4o4l ~
these defendants there are nearly thirty
eight hundred preachers belonging TO the
travelling connection of the Church North.
each of whom have an interest inlhe fund.
in the same right, SO that it is impossible.
In view of sustaining just decision insthe
matter, to make them all parties to the
bill.
The complainents also. aver that this
bill is brought by the authority, aud un-
der the direction ofthe General and an.
nual conferences of the Church, South,
and for the benefit of the same. and for
themselves and all the preachers in the,
travelling connection, and all other minis
ters and persons having an interest in the
property.
The defendants. in their answer. admit
most of the facts charged in the bill, as it
respects the organization. government.
discipline. and faith of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, as it existed at and
previous to the year 1874. They admit
the passage of the resolutions, called ths
"plan of separation.'' at the session of
the General Conference of that year, by
the majority stated. But they deny that
the resolutions wer9 duly and legally
passed aud, also, deny that the General
Conference possessed the competent pow
er to pass them, and submit that they
were, therefore. null and void. They al
so submit that, if the General Conference
possessed the power, transportation con,
templated was made dependent Upon GER
tain conditions, and among others,
change ofthe Sixth Restrictive Article in
the constitution of the Church, by u vote
of the annual conferences, which vote the
said conferences refused.
The defendants admit the erection of
the Church South into distinct ecclesi-
aslical organization but deny that this
was done agreeably to the "plan of sep
aration." They deny that the Methodist
| Episcopal Church as it existed in 1914,
or ut any time. has been divided into two
distinct and separate ecclesiastical organ
izatious and submit that the. separation,
and voluntary withdrawal from this
Church of portion of the bishops, minis
ters. and members. and organization into
n Church South, was an Unauthorized
separation, and that they have thereby
renOunced and forfeited all claim, either
in law or equity. to any portion of the
property in question. The defendants ad-
nit that the Book Concern at Cincinnati
with all the houses. lots, printing presses,
/ etc., is now, and always has been, bcne-
! Gcialy the property of the preachers be.
/ Ion ginT to the travelling connection of the
Methodist Episcopal Church; but insist
that, if such preachers do not, during life,
continue in such travelling connectin and
in the communion. they IU-teit for them
selves and their families all ownership in,
or rI fho 4
the produce tLcrecff they Gdmit that tie
Book Concern was originally commenced
and established by the travelling preach
ers of this Church upon their own capi-
tai. with the design in the first place Of
circulating religious knowledge and that
at the General Conference Of 1896 it was
determined, that the profits derived from
the sale ofbooks should in future be devo-
ted wholly 10 the relief of travelling
pre- achers, supernumerary and worn out
preachers, and the widows and orphans
of such preachers and the defendants
submit, that the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South is not entitled at law or
in equity to have division of the prop
erty of the Book Concern, or the produce,
or to any portion thereof; and that the
ministers, preachers, or members, in con-
nection with such Church, arc not euti.
tied to any portion Of the same and fur.
ther, that being no longer travelling preach
ers belonging to the Methodist Episcopal
Church, they are not so entitled, without
a change Of the Sixth Restrictive Article
Of the constitution" Of 1908 provided for
in the "plan Of separation" as condi.
ton OF the partition Of said fund.
Nl,o e., 80. ., n
of the proceedings Of the General Confcf-
ence Of 1914 relating to the separation Of
the Church, and OF the proceedings OF the
southern conference, in pursuance of
which a distinct and seperate ccclesiasli-
cal Organization south took place
There is no material controversy be-
tween the parties as it respects the facts.
The main difference lies in the intorpreta.
tion and effect to be given to the acts and
proceedings Of these several bodies and
authorities Of the Church. Our opinion
will be founded almost wholly Upon facts
alleged in the bill, and admitted in the
answer.
An objection was taken, on the argu
ment, to the bill for want Of proper parties
TO maintain the suit. We think the Oh
lection not well founded.
The rule is well established. Iliat where
the parties interested are numerous, and
the suit is for an object common to them
all, some of the body may maintain bill
on behalf of themselves and Of the others;
and bill may also bo maintaincd against
a portion Of numerous body of defen.
dants, representing common interest
(Story Eq. PI. sec. 81, 9s, 90. 1903, lo7,
ITO. i'll. II6. 12o; 2 Mitf Pl. Jer. Ed
1877, 2 page 10. Milne and Or. 1874,
6I9; g De. Grex and Smaie, lO2, 122
Mr.. Justice Story. in his valuable irea.