The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-01-11
PRECEDENT FOR PASTORS.
They Are Liable for Damages for
Refusing Burial.

The supreme court has established
new precedent for pastors OF churches
to follow in the decision which 1t rem
dered Saturday in the suit of John G.
gchaeffer again the Evangelical Iu-
theran St Paul church in SedgWlck
county. 1t rules that pastors cannot
enforce the rules Of church unless
given specific authority to do so.
The case in question is the one in
which Rev. John krenke, pastor or the
-s4lurch sued, refused to allow SchaeHer
to bury his daughter in the church GEM
et6rv although Schaeffer owned a lot IN
the cemetery and had buried the child's
Mother there. AS result OF krenke's
action Schaeffer brought suit against
k.m and the trustees of the church in
and the church as a corpora
ton. The supreme court holds that the
suit is good against the pastor but not
against the others.
Schaeffer's wife, who was a member
of Rev Mr.. Krenke's church, died in
1899. Schaeffer bought lot in the
church cemetery and buried her there.
Two years later his daughter died with
scarlet fever, and the doctors ordered
the body buried as soon as possible be-
cause of the nature of the disease
Schaeffer sent a neighbor to prepare the
grave, but Krenke sent word to him
that only members of the church We're
permitted to be buried in the cemetery,
and he would not allow Schaeffer to
bury the child by the side of its mother.
ney five miles distant, to make ar
rangements to bury the child there, but
those sent failed to find the authorities,
and the funeral procession had to turn
back again after it had started for
Cheney and wait until the next day be-
fore arrangements could be made.
As a result of this action on account
of the pastor, Mr.. Schaeffer brought
suit for actual and punitive damages
as stated. The supreme court in its
opinion saws:
"The matter contained in the answer,
being verified. was sufficient to put the
burden upon Mr.. Schaeffer to prove the
authority on the part of Krenke to
speak for the corporation and for its
trustees in their individual capacities.
This not having been done he failed to
make out any case against them. AS to
Mr.. Krenke his only justification was
that the church had rule under which
he assumed to act. but merely as vol
unteer, he distinctly disclaiming any
right or authority from the congrega-
ton to so act.
1.-THE law not being made to enforce
the amenities nor always the ethics Of
life, recognizes the right of a church
to enact and enforce such a rule, and
had such rule been in existence at the
time Mr.. Schaeffer purchased his lot
or had there at the time been reserved
in the bylaws of the corporation the
right to the corporation to subsequent
~ enact such a rule, he would be bound
Ln0IeDyS DuL 10 SuCn showing IS found
in the evidence. Neither could Mr..
Krenl5e justify his action under rule
of the church even had such rule been
binding upon Mr.. Schaeffer, when he
had no authority to speak for the
church. One may not push himself for
ward to defend the contract rights of
another without authority and while
disclaiming authority.
I'VE think the action of the court be-
low was correct as to the corporation
and the trustees and wrong as to Mr.
Krenke-"