Title: Missionary Baptist Conv. v. Wimberly Chapel Baptist Ch.
Citation: 170 Kan. 684, 228 P.2d 540
Docket Number: 38,172
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: March 10, 1951

170 Kan. 684 (1951)
228 P.2d 540
In the Matter of Wimberly Chapel Baptist Church of Osage County; THE MISSIONARY BAPTIST STATE CONVENTION OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
THE WIMBERLY CHAPEL BAPTIST CHURCH OF OSAGE CITY, KANSAS, I.B. BUCKNER, et al., Appellees.
No. 38,172

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 10, 1951.
P.A. Townsend, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellant.
No appearance for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WERTZ, J.:
This was an action by the Missionary Baptist State Convention of Kansas, a religious corporation, for an order dissolving and declaring extinct the Wimberly Chapel Baptist Church of Osage City, Kansas, and transferring its property to the Missionary Baptist State Convention under G.S. 1949, 17-1713a, 17-1713b and 17-1713c. Plaintiff has appealed from an order of the trial court holding the mentioned statutes unconstitutional.
Appellant, the Missionary Baptist State Convention, filed its application in the lower court for an order declaring the Wimberly Chapel Baptist Church extinct, its application alleging in substance that E.B. Hicks is the executive secretary of the Missionary Baptist State Convention, a religious corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of Kansas, and authorized and empowered to transact business in this state; that he is duly authorized by the corporation to file this action asking the court to declare *685 Wimberly Chapel Baptist Church of Osage City, Kansas, extinct, and asking for an order declaring said church extinct and vesting title to the church property in the Missionary Baptist State Convention, describing the property; that the Wimberly Chapel Baptist Church comes within the provisions of G.S. 1949, 17-1713a, 17-1713b and 17-1713c; that the membership of the Wimberly Chapel Baptist Church is so diminished in number and financial strength as to render it impossible and impracticable for said church to maintain religious services or to protect its property from depletion; that the trustees elected by said Wimberly Chapel Baptist Church at the time when the church was functioning have died or moved away and there are no qualified successors; that said church should be dissolved and declared extinct, and the title and possession of property of the church should vest in the Missionary Baptist State Convention; and continues with a prayer for the relief requested. The application was duly verified, and summonses were issued and notice served as directed by the lower court. No answer or other pleading was ever filed by the Wimberly Chapel Baptist Church or any of its alleged officers or members.
After answer day and in due time, appellant presented its evidence to sustain the application. The Reverend E.B. Hicks testified that he is the executive secretary of the Missionary Baptist State Convention, a religious corporation duly authorized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Kansas, with headquarters located in Topeka, Kansas; that Wimberly Chapel Baptist Church is a part of the organization of the Missionary Baptist State Convention and that said Wimberly Chapel has ceased to exist as a church; that it became a part of the state convention by vote of the membership and participated in the over-all program of the state convention and as such, under the church rules and laws, the state convention had jurisdiction over it; Wimberly Chapel has not functioned as a church in accordance with the tenets of the state convention for about ten years; there still remain about five members; the church property has depreciated; "some time ago, someone sold the parsonage, had it torn down and removed from the church property without authority, and there is no one to protect the church property now in dilapidated condition; that he made a personal survey of the situation and that Wimberly Chapel has made no report to the state convention as is required, nor has it recently attended the annual meetings. Wimberly Chapel has had *686 no pastor since about 1940; when the last pastor was there, it was considered a mission station because it was unable to afford a fulltime minister and the convention underwrote part of the expense, and when he left, no effort was made to secure another pastor. One of his (Hick's) duties was to visit the churches and see if they were functioning in accordance with the usual tenets of the Baptist Church; that this church is not; when it ceased to operate as a Baptist Church and stopped making reports and attending the annual sessions, it lost its status.
I.B. Buckner, the only remaining member who appeared at the trial, testified: That Wimberly Chapel does not have regular services; that he is the only remaining member of the church he knows of; that he sold the parsonage because others were beating his time disposing of it and he knew if he didn't get rid of it, it would soon be gone; that on request, he turned the money over to the county attorney; that he is willing for the property to be turned over to the state convention; there are no young people in the church and it is in bad repair as it has been locked up for months; he doesn't know when the church had a meeting to transact business; it had been years; the last services were held by the Methodists. At the conclusion of his testimony, the court said:
No appearance was made in the lower court on behalf of Wimberly Chapel Baptist Church and as a result, nothing was filed on its behalf in this court.
The lower court took the case under advisement, and subsequently on the 13th of May rendered judgment holding G.S. 1949, 17-1713a, 17-1713b, and 17-1713c to be unconstitutional and wholly void and by reason thereof, that no jurisdiction was conferred on the court to determine the issues involved, and the cause was dismissed.
Appellant brings the case here and assigns as error the court's ruling on the constitutionality of the mentioned statutes. Those statutes are as follows:
At the outset, it is noted that appellant's verified application complied with the statutes in all respects; that service of summons was had on all parties to be affected thereby, that no appearance or answer was filed on the part of defendant denying any of the allegations contained in the application. Moreover, appellant's evidence amply sustained the allegations of the application. The question of constitutionality of the statutes in question was neither raised in the pleadings nor presented by the parties to the action at any stage of the proceedings.
It may be stated that while courts will not refuse to pass on the *688 constitutionality of statutes in any proceeding in which such determination is necessarily involved, unnecessary consideration of attacks on their validity will be avoided and courts will not assume to pass upon constitutional questions unless they are properly before them. (11 Am. Jur. 720, § 93) As a general principle, courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of acts of the legislature if the merits of the case in hand may fairly be determined otherwise without so doing. (11 Am. Jur. 723, § 94) The general rule of law is well stated in 16 C.J.S. 220-225, that a court will not inquire into the constitutionality of a statute on its own motion; that only those constitutional questions which are duly raised and insisted upon and are adequately argued will be considered. Accordingly the invalidity of a statute, to be relied on, must ordinarily be specifically raised by the pleadings. Goldwater v. Superior Court, 49 Ariz. 260, 66 P.2d 233, is authority for this point, in which case it was held that the question of constitutionality of a law will not be considered where the question was not briefed and was not suggested when application was made. See also State ex rel v. Nolte, 315 Mo. 84, 285 S.W. 501; Jahn v. Berzon, 255 App. Div. 1023, 8 N.Y.S.2d 640; Smith v. City of Buffalo, 191 Misc. 439, 78 N.Y.S.2d 540; State v. McInerney, 63 Wyo. 280, 182 P.2d 28; State ex rel. Rand v. Seattle, 13 Wash. 2d 107, 124 P.2d 207. This court stated in The State v. Dolley, 82 Kan. 533, 108 Pac. 846:
We again held in Stelling v. Kansas City, 85 Kan. 397, 116 Pac. 511:
In the instant case, we find nothing in the record to justify the trial court in raising, on its own motion, the question of constitutionality of the foregoing statutes. It will be time enough for the court to pass on the validity of the statutes in that regard when, in a proceeding, the question is properly raised by some party who is hurt thereby, and when it is properly presented and briefed to the lower and appellate courts. The question of the constitutionality of these statutes was not before the lower court and as a consequence is not before this court.
*689 The record discloses that the appellant brought itself within the provisions of the mentioned statutes in the instant case, both by its pleadings and its evidence, and that it was entitled to judgment for the relief prayed for.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the case remanded with instructions to set aside the dismissal, reinstate the case, and enter judgment for appellant.
HARVEY, C.J. dissents