The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-05-16
HUNDLEY SUIT ENDED
WILL NOT BE REINsrATED BY
 THE CHURCH.
In a Lengthy Opinion the Supreme Court Rules That Church Can Not Be Compelled to Re-
 store Membership.

by Mir. Justice Haralson the Supreme Court of Alabama yesterday decided that court cannot interfere with the ecclesiastical affairs of church where no civil rights are involved.
 The case Is that of Orrville M, Hund- ley against Ira F. Collins and others, and is another chapter in the litiga- tion in the courts of Madison County between the Hundley family and the Christian Church of Huntsville. The land on which the church was built was donated by Mrs. Mary R. Hund- ley and her family contributed largely to the construction of the building. A mortgage was held on the property and because of dissensions which arose in the congregation, the church doors were closed.
 raised but a faction of the congrega- tion declared that the Hundleys were responsible for the litigation. The Board of Elders held meeting in June, 1900, and withdrew fellowship from several members of the Hundley family. This meant that they were suspended as members of the congre- gation and from further participation in its affairs.
 Orrville M. Hundley was a member of the Board of Trustees of the church.
 
 of Elders With his suspension these prerogatives were denied him.
 Action was begun in the courts for his reinstatement as a member of the church. as a member of the Board of Trustees and a memyer of the Board of Elders. A petition'for a mandamus was filed. To this petition the defen- dants. Ira P. Collins and others, de- murred. The lower court denied the mandamus. sustained the demurrer and dismissed it. An appeal from this de- cision was taken to the Supreme Court and 1t was upon this appeal that de- cision was handed down yesterday af- firming the decision of the lower court.
 After reviewing the act incorpdrat- ing the Christian Chucrh of Hunts vile. Justice Haralson says:
 Tt is to be observed that these pro- visions of the Code relate alone to their properties or temporali- ties. and have no reference to the churches or societies as such, which bodies as spiritual or ecclesiastical or ganizations exist independent of their charters. A church or religious soci- ety may exist for all the purposes for which it was organized independently of any incorporation of the body under the statutes of the State; and, it is a matter of common knowledge that they exist and are never incorporated. For the promotion of religion and charity they may subserve all the purposes of their organization, and. generally, need no incorporation except incidentally, to further these objects. They do not on that account place themselves beyond the pale of the protection of the law as to properties. for the lack of incor- poration. It Is the province of court of equity to protect such organizations in what they hold in order to sustain trusts, because of their charitable uses, which would otherwise be held void. Justice Haralson gives his authorities for this ruling and continues: "wherever there Is an incorporated church there are two entities. the one the church, as such not owing its ec- clesiastcal or spiritual existence to the civil law. and the legal corporation. each separate though closely allied. 1 The church Is a voluntary as- sociation of its members for l the purpose of maintaining the public worship of God and is not corporation nor a quasi-corporation. I On the other hand corporation IS formed for the acquisition and taking care of the property of the church. and Is in no sense ecclesiastical in its l functions
 After showing by various authori- ties that the corporation and the church are in no respect corelative Jus ! tice Haralson says:
 The foregoing is quite sufficient to show that the spiritual entity called the church, made up of members be- longing to it, existingi without any special law to that effect, is different and distinct body in the contemplation of the law, from the same body when taI SfatntaG for the purpose-the two having different func- tions to perform. the one religious and the other civil"
 The history of the case is reviewed and the averments of the petition are recited. The petitioner having prayed that he 'be restored to membership in said church. and to his relation as elder therein and thereof" Justice Haralsor says: Ut is not pretended that this act was done by the corpor- ation, and not by the church. The petition sets out paper drawn and presented as the foundation of the church's action. It begins by an ad- monition addressed to the Dear Rreth- ren and Sisters'-an address of Chris tian endearment usual among church people-reminding them that 1t is their solemn duty to obey the word of God, in that l. commands them to withdraw themselves every lhhb walketh disorderly; and proceeds to aver wherein the petitioner and certain others had been guilty of disorderly conduct No one can presume that such paper referred to the brethren and sisters in their corporate capacity There were no prop erty interests involved nothing touch ing wha: are termed the temporalities of the church. as contradistinguished from its spiritualities.
 "s If the civil courts may in this instance interfere to question the exclusion of the petitioner. they may do so in any instance where a member of that or any other church Is removed, on the allegation of irregular and un- fair proceedings for the purpose. This would open a door to untold evils in the administration of church affairs, | not consistent with the principles of religious freedom as recognized in this i country, where there is no established | church or religion, where every man is | entitled to hold and express with free dom his own religious views and con victions. and where the separation of church and State Is so deeply entrench- ed in our constitutions and laws.
 "These views are in accord with the decisions of other States and of the Supreme Court of the United States"
 Justice Haralson quotes exhaustively [ from reports bearing on similar cases ! and concludes as follows:
 There can be no difference in the principles announced as argued by ap- nellant's counsel. whether they are sought to be applied in a court of law | or in courts of equity. It is clear from i
 u.Nk no