{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35563/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35563","id":"gutenberg_35563","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35563","summary":null,"tags":["Burial laws -- United States","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Ecclesiastical law -- United States"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\n\n                     The Clergyman\u2019s Hand-book of Law\n\n                       The Law of Church and Grave\n\n                                    By\n\n                        Charles M. Scanlan, LL.B.\n\n   Author of \u201cScanlan\u2019s Rules of Order,\u201d \u201cLaw of Fraternities,\u201d \u201cLaw of\n                              Hotels,\u201d etc.\n\n                      New York, Cincinnati, Chicago\n\n                            Benziger Brothers\n\n                                   1909\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nImprimatur\nPreface\nChapter I. Introduction\nChapter II. What Is A Church?\nChapter III. Constitutional Law\nChapter IV. Statutory Law\nChapter V. Unincorporated Church Societies\nChapter VI. Incorporated Religious Societies\nChapter VII. Superior Authority\nChapter VIII. Inferior Authority\nChapter IX. Membership\nChapter X. Heresy And Secession\nChapter XI. Excommunication\nChapter XII. Elections\nChapter XIII. Officers\nChapter XIV. Meetings\nChapter XV. Church Records\nChapter XVI. Church Tribunals\nChapter XVII. State Courts\nChapter XVIII. Evidence\nChapter XIX. Contracts\nChapter XX. Pews\nChapter XXI. Property\nChapter XXII. Religious Services\nChapter XXIII. Bequests, Devises, And Gifts\nChapter XXIV. Taxation\nChapter XXV. Eleemosynary Institutions\nChapter XXVI. Schools\nChapter XXVII. Parent And Child\nChapter XXVIII. Husband And Wife\nChapter XXIX. Indians\nChapter XXX. Juvenile Courts\nChapter XXXI. Libel And Slander\nChapter XXXII. Crimes\nChapter XXXIII. Cemeteries\nChapter XXXIV. Miscellaneous\nIndex\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIMPRIMATUR\n\n\n_Nihil Obstat._\n\nREMY LAFORT,\n\n_Censor Librorum_.\n\n_Imprimatur._\n\nJohn M. Farley,\n\n[cross] _Archbishop of New York_.\n\nNEW YORK, January 15, 1909.\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1909, BY BENZIGER BROTHERS.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe three learned professions, medicine, law, and theology, overlap; and a\nman who does not know something of the other two can not be prominent in\nhis own. Laws relating to Church matters are scattered through such a vast\narray of law books that it would be a burden for a clergyman to purchase\nthem, and without special training he would not know where to look for the\nlaw. Therefore a law compendium covering those subjects relating to Church\nmatters must be of great value to a clergyman.\n\nThere is another view of this subject. When she was mistress of the world\nthe laws of the Roman Empire were for the Roman citizens, particularly the\npatricians; the canon law was the law of the Christian people of conquered\ncountries and the Christian plebeians of Rome. In the United States we\nhave the same common law for the President and the hod-carrier, for the\nmultimillionaire and the penniless orphan, for the clergy and the laity.\nConsequently, in this practical age a knowledge of the law of the country\nwith which the clergy come constantly in contact is expedient, if not\nnecessary.\n\nThe poet says:\n\n\n    \u201cWhat constitutes a state?...\n            Men, who their duties know,\n    But know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain.\u201d\n\n\nTo insure harmony and good order, every Church should obey the laws of the\ncountry; but if any law should impose upon the rights of the Church in any\nway, the ruling authorities, the cardinal and bishops, if the wrong is\nnational, should unite in a petition to the United States Congress,\nclearly stating the grievance and asking for its redress.(1) If the\ngrievance should be within a State, the bishop or bishops of the State\nshould present the matter to the Legislature of the State. If the\nPresident or the Governor has authority to remedy the matter, go direct to\nhim. Such was the practice of the wisest of the Popes.(2) The author never\nknew of an instance in which a clergyman having a real grievance failed in\nobtaining a full and fair hearing from the powers that be, from the\nPresident downward. This method seems to be more in harmony with the\nrelations of Church and State in a free government, and more intelligent\nthan to have a convention of working men, who have little time to make a\nstudy of Church matters, pass resolutions, the passing of which generally\nends the action of a convention.\n\nIn the chapters that follow, the author has refrained from giving a great\nmultitude of authorities, but has endeavored to give such as are\nsufficient to sustain the text. For example, under the first section, and\nmany others, a list of citations covering several pages might be given.\nThat would add to the expense of the volume and would not be within its\ncompass. The book will better fulfil its purpose by clear, brief\nstatements of the rules of law, and if a reader desires to investigate\nfurther, the citations given will guide his way.\n\nCHARLES M. SCANLAN.\n\nMILWAUKEE, JANUARY 23, 1909.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION\n\n\n*1.* _Law, Religion._\u2014From the dawn of the science of law it has been\ninfluenced by religion or antagonism to religion. This is very evident in\nthe ancient laws of Babylonia, Egypt, Phenicia, Israel, India, and\nIreland. It would be impossible to make a study of the law of any of said\ncountries without gaining a knowledge of its religious system, whether\npagan or otherwise.(3)\n\n*2.* _Religions._\u2014Ancient nations might be classified into pagan and those\nthat worshiped the universal God. However, some of the nations at one time\nwere pagan and at other times had a fair conception of the supernatural.\nAlso, in Egypt, the class of higher culture and education believed in the\none omnipotent and omniscient Being, but the populace, who could be\ncontrolled more readily by flattering them in their notions and giving\ntheir childish conceptions full sway, worshiped idols.(4)\n\n*3.* _Authority, Right._\u2014In those nations where the ruling authority had\nthe proper conception of the Almighty, there was a strong, persistent\ngrowth of law upon the basis of natural right; while in the pagan nations\nlaws were arbitrary and despotic.(5)\n\n*4.* _Philosophical Foundations._\u2014The laws of Greece, down to the time of\nPlato, were thoroughly pagan. But, following the philosophical foundations\nlaid by Plato and Aristotle, unintentionally and unwittingly the laws of\nGreece became imbued with the spirit of natural law.(6)\n\n*5.* _Rome, Natural Justice._\u2014Prior to the introduction of Grecian law\ninto Rome, the laws of that nation were pagan. Grecian law from its\nintroduction to the time of Octavius was the civilizing element of the\nempire. Then it took a turn for the worse, the element of natural justice\nbeing reduced and the element of arbitrary rule becoming dominant.(7)\n\n*6.* _Canon Law._\u2014We will now turn to the first period of canon law, which\ncovers the early history of the Church up to the reign of Constantine the\nGreat.(8)\n\nCanon law is composed of the following elements:\n\n\n    1. Holy Scriptures;\n    2. Ecclesiastical tradition;\n    3. Decrees of Councils;\n    4. Bulls and rescripts of Popes;\n    5. The writings of the Fathers;\n    6. Civil law.(9)\n\n\n*7.* _Early Christians._\u2014Owing to the persecutions, the early Christians\nwere, in a sense, isolated from the State; they held their property in\ncommon, and were governed in matters among themselves by the canon law.\nHowever, for want of freedom of discussion and publication, they were\nunable, even within a single nation of the empire, to promulgate a system\nof canon law. The foundation of canon law being laid, its development upon\nthe manumission of the Church was rapid.(10)\n\n*8.* _Persecutions, Defenses._\u2014During the religious persecutions the\nChristians almost had law forced into them by surgical operations. The\nnecessity for their making defenses in the Roman tribunals induced many of\nthem to give Roman law a careful study. Also, the great number of\nChristians held for trial on all sorts of accusations made that branch of\nthe law of the realm very lucrative for lawyers, and called into the field\nmany Christians. Incidently, men studying for the priesthood made a study\nof Roman law with a view to avoiding its machinations and continuing their\nfunctions as clergymen without being caught in the net of persecution.(11)\n\n*9.* _Constantine, Blending the Law._\u2014When Emperor Constantine became a\nChristian (325 A.D.), there was a great change, and the members of the bar\nand judges were mostly Christians. It then became necessary for students\nof law to study the principles of divine right as taught in the Church,\nand while the books of the civil law were read by students for the\npriesthood, the Scriptures and the works of the Fathers were read by the\nstudents in law, thus blending the law of the two realms to some\nextent.(12)\n\n*10.* _\u201c__Benefit of the Clergy,__\u201d__ Ecclesiastical Court._\u2014As the old\nRoman Empire decayed and its power waned, the new one, \u201cThe Holy Roman\nEmpire,\u201d gradually implanted itself in southwestern Europe. The\nhumiliation that the divine law and the clergy suffered in being brought\ninto the common courts gave rise to a system of courts within the Church\nfor the purpose of enforcing her morals, doctrines, and discipline. Those\ncourts were established in all Christian countries and had jurisdiction of\nall felonies excepting arson, treason, and a few other crimes that from\ntime to time were put under the special jurisdiction of the state courts.\nWhenever a clergyman was arrested for a crime, he pleaded the \u201cbenefit of\nthe clergy,\u201d and his case was transferred from the state court to the\necclesiastical court. Also, when a clergyman was convicted in the state\ncourt of any crime for which the punishment was death, he could plead the\n\u201cbenefit of the clergy,\u201d which was a protection against his execution.(13)\n\n*11.* _Estates, Guardianship._\u2014Besides the jurisdiction already referred\nto, the ecclesiastical court had jurisdiction over the settlement of\nestates and the guardianship of children, which varied in different\ncountries and was very indefinite in some of them.(14)\n\n*12.* _Middle Ages, Common Law._\u2014During the Middle Ages there was a\nconstant effort on behalf of the ecclesiastical courts to extend their\njurisdiction, and a counter-effort on behalf of the state courts to assume\njurisdiction of cases under the ecclesiastical law. In England, from the\nconquest of William the Conqueror to the Reformation, the extension of the\njurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts brought the new element of\nEnglish common law into the canon law; and much of the canon law,\nfollowing the jurisdiction assumed by the state courts, became the common\nlaw of the kingdom of England.(15)\n\n*13.* _Gratian, Reformation._\u2014The canon law reached its full development\nin the twelfth century, when Gratian, the Blackstone of his age, compiled\nthe system, but it subsequently lost its influence when the Reformation\nprevailed.(16)\n\n*14.* _Bologna._\u2014The great school of jurisprudence, both of canon and\ncivil law, was located at Bologna, Italy, which reached its zenith in the\nthirteenth century. To it students flocked from Western Europe, and from\nit were obtained the professors of law in the universities of England and\nother countries.(17)\n\n*15.* _Church and State._\u2014In most of the Christian countries, the Church\nand State were united, and many of the judges in the civil courts were\nclergymen.(18)\n\n*16.* _England, Roman Law._\u2014On account of England\u2019s being subject to Rome\nin its earliest age, and afterward because of its being conquered by\nFrance, the Roman law was pretty thoroughly intermixed with the native\nEnglish law in the minor matters of the people, and governed in the more\nimportant ones.(19)\n\n*17.* _America, English Law, Civil Law._\u2014The portions of America that were\nsettled by the English, which included the original thirteen colonies,\nwere under the English law. In Virginia the Episcopal Church, which was\nthen the church of England, was made the church of state. Canada and that\nportion of the United States formerly known as Louisiana were governed by\nthe civil law of France. Wherever the French government had no authority\nor civil officers, the government was directly under the missionaries of\nthe Church.(20)\n\n*18.* _Religious Tolerance, Established Church._\u2014The English law and\nEnglish ideals prevailing in the original thirteen colonies,(21) there was\na strong effort made by many of the delegates to the constitutional\nconvention to have the Episcopal Church made the established church of the\nnew republic. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were probably the\nstrongest opponents of the scheme, and outside of the great Carroll of\nCarrollton, they were the most earnest advocates of religious tolerance.\nThe necessity for the fathers of this republic to be united, and their\nbeing unable to unite upon any church, caused the idea of an established\nchurch to be eliminated. Thus was established in our republic the freedom\nof conscience and the guarantee that no one shall be persecuted on account\nof his religious convictions.(22)\n\n*19.* _Tribunals._\u2014The ecclesiastical courts as a part of the state system\nand the \u201cbenefit of the clergy,\u201d have been abolished in England and\nAmerica. However, as we shall see further on, tribunals in the nature of\nthe ecclesiastical court exist in churches and fraternities of all kinds\nin the United States.(23)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. WHAT IS A CHURCH?\n\n\n*20.* _Church, Religious Society._\u2014Bouvier\u2019s definition of \u201cChurch\u201d is: \u201cA\nsociety of persons who profess the Christian religion.\u201d Chief Justice\nShaw\u2019s definition is: \u201cThe church is neither a corporation nor a\nquasi-corporation, but a body of persons associated together for certain\nobjects under the law. An aggregate body of individuals associated\ntogether in connection with a religious society. The term religious\nsociety may with propriety be applied in a certain sense to a church as\nthat of religious association, religious union, or the like; yet in the\nsense church was and is used in our law, it is synonymous with parish or\nprecinct and designates an incorporated society created and maintained for\nthe support and maintenance of public worship. In this, its legal sense, a\nchurch is not a religious society. It is a separate body formed within\nsuch parish or religious society whose rights and usages are well known\nand to a great extent defined and established by law.\u201d(24)\n\n*21.* _Doctrine, Constitution._\u2014A church in law is a mere fraternal\norganization. It may or may not have a written constitution, but it must\nhave some central doctrine as its foundation or constitution.(25) Many of\nthe Protestant denominations claim that the entire Bible is their\nconstitution. The Jews may be said to consider the Old Testament as their\nconstitution. All revealed truths may be said to be the constitution of\nthe Catholic Church,(26) and when a doctrine concerning faith or morals is\nauthoritatively declared by the Church to be a truth, it becomes a\ndogma.(27) The Apostles\u2019 Creed is an example of several dogmatic truths.\nThe code of the Church is the Ten Commandments. A few sects, by a majority\nvote, make and change their constitutions at will.\n\n*22.* _By-Laws._\u2014By-laws of the different religious organizations differ\nwidely, from the decrees of the great councils of the Catholic Church down\nto the vote of the congregation of an independent denomination.\n\n*23.* _Church, Religious Society._\u2014A church in one sense is more limited\nthan a religious society; the latter comprehending all the members of the\nsame faith. Even in the Catholic Church we hear of the Church of France,\nthe Coptic Church, etc., spoken of in this sense. And in a still more\nlimited sense we use the word as a synonym for parish. However, when the\nword \u201cthe\u201d is used before church written with a capital letter, Catholics\nunderstand it to apply to the Roman Catholic Church in its entirety, while\nsome non-Catholics apply it to Christendom.\n\n*24.* _Church, Christians, Religion._\u2014The missions established in\nCalifornia prior to its admission into the Union were, in law, practically\nindependent organizations and had no legal connection with the Church.\nEvery society organized for the purpose of propagating the practice of\nreligion may be a church in law.(28) The courts have made a distinction\nbetween Unitarians, who are considered Christians, and Deists, Theists,\nFree Religionists, and other infidels.(29) A sect or denomination without\na given system of faith is not recognized as a religion in law.(30)\n\n*25.* _Doctrine, Standard._\u2014To ascertain the tenets and doctrines of a\nchurch, resort must be had to history and to prior and contemporary\nstandard writings of its members on theology.(31)\n\n*26.* _Ecclesiastical Corporations, Religious, Quasi-public\nCorporations._\u2014Ecclesiastical corporations, in the sense in which the word\nis used in England, Germany, and France, are unknown to the United States,\ntheir places being supplied by religious societies or corporations\nconsidered as private bodies, in contradistinction to public or\nquasi-public corporations, such as towns, villages, cities, counties, and\nstate. Therefore, the law of private corporations applies to religious\nsocieties and churches.\n\n*27.* _Sect, Sectarianism._\u2014The Supreme Court of Nevada defines \u201csect\u201d as\nfollows: \u201cA religious sect is a body or number of persons united in\ntenets, but constituting a distinct organization or party, by holding\nsentiments or doctrines different from those of other sects or people. In\nthe sense intended in the constitution, every sect of that character is\n\u2018sectarian\u2019 and all members thereof are sectarians.\u201d(32) In Pennsylvania\nthe court adopted the definitions given in the Standard and in Webster\u2019s\ndictionaries.(33) The Supreme Court of Missouri, citing Webster\u2019s and the\nCentury dictionaries, gave the following additional definition of\nsectarianism: \u201cSectarianism includes adherence to a distinct political\nparty, as much as to a separate sect.\u201d(34) The Presbyterians(35) and the\n\u201cShakers\u201d(36) have been adjudged sects.\n\n*28.* _Sectarian._\u2014\u201cSectarian\u201d has received more contradictory\nconstructions than any other equally simple word in the English language.\nIn Wisconsin the \u201cKing James\u201d Bible was held to be a sectarian book;(37)\nbut in Kentucky it was held that neither the Douay nor the \u201cKing James\u201d\nBible was a sectarian book.(38) The Missouri court extended sectarian so\nas to apply to the Republican party.(39) In Illinois an industrial school\nfor girls in which the Catholic Sisters were employed as teachers, was\nheld a sectarian institution;(40) while in Wisconsin, the \u201cWisconsin\nIndustrial School for Girls,\u201d a private corporation organized and\nconducted by Protestant ladies, has received appropriations from the State\nand has had its reports published at state\u2019s expense, as a non-sectarian\ninstitution.(41) In New York the religious garb of the Catholic Sisters\nwas practically decided to be sectarian;(42) but in Pennsylvania and\nWisconsin it was decided that the dress of the Sisters was not\nsectarian.(43)\n\n*29.* _Worship, Services, Mass._\u2014Any act of adoration, reverence, praise,\nthanks, honor, or veneration given to God, is religious worship.(44) A\nSunday-school where the Bible was read and a hymn sung and a state\ntemperance camp-meeting where a prayer was said and hymns were sung, were\nheld to be places of divine worship.(45) But a priest\u2019s house where he had\na room fitted up for a chapel, was held to be not a place of worship.(46)\nIt is very difficult to draw a line\u2014no matter what curves you may give\nit\u2014between the Protestant system of worship, which consists of the reading\nof the Bible, the singing of hymns, and the reciting of prayers, and such\nservices in the public schools. Also, there would seem to be no _legal_\ndifference between a prayer said or a hymn sung by a Catholic and a\nProtestant. As we have no established church in this country, we have no\nstandard for prayers, hymns, or music.(47)\n\nMore solemn and impressive than her prayers adapted for schools is the\nMass of the Catholic Church, defined thus: \u201cThe Mass is the unbloody\nsacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.\u201d(48) It is defined in 26 Cyc,\n940, as follows: \u201cA religious ceremonial or observance of the Catholic\nChurch;(49) a Catholic ceremonial celebrated by the priest in open church,\nwhere all who choose may be present and participate therein;(50) the\nsacrifice in the sacrament of the Eucharist or the consecration and\noblation of the Host.\u201d(51)\n\n*30.* _Parish._\u2014A parish has two meanings. In some States it is a minor\ndivision of public territory; but in States where there is no such\ndivision of territory, the State using instead \u201ccounty\u201d or \u201ctown,\u201d a\nparish rather applies to the people belonging to a particular church, who\nworship at a particular place. It is in the latter sense in which a parish\nshould be construed in church law.(52)\n\n_Parishioner._\u2014A parishioner must be defined in harmony with the meaning\nof the word \u201cparish.\u201d(53)\n\n*31.* _Clergyman._\u2014A clergyman is a man in holy orders or one who has been\nordained in accordance with the rules of his church or denomination.(54)\n\n*32.* _Minister._\u2014A minister is one who acts as, or performs some of the\nfunctions of, a clergyman.(55)\n\n*33.* _Rector or Pastor._\u2014A rector or pastor is a clergyman who has charge\nof a parish.(56)\n\n*34.* _Religion._\u2014Religion is still further distinguished, but not very\nsatisfactorily defined, for the reason that etymologists have not agreed\nupon the derivation of the word. When the matter was brought before our\ncourts and it became necessary to give a definition, the highest court in\nour country gave the following: \u201cThe term \u2018religion\u2019 has reference to\none\u2019s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they\nimpose of reverence for His being and character, and of obedience to His\nwill. It is often confounded with _cultus_ or form of worship of a\nparticular sect, but it is distinguishable from the latter.\u201d(57) One of\nour highest courts held that \u201creligion,\u201d as used in the trust provision in\na will for the purchase and distribution of religious books or reading as\nthey shall be deemed best, means \u201cChristian.\u201d(58) But the Supreme Court of\nanother State held that \u201creligion\u201d is not equivalent to \u201cChristian\u201d\nreligion, but means the religion of any class of men.(59) Judge Willis\ndefines \u201creligion\u201d thus: \u201cIt is what a man honestly believes in and\napproves of and thinks it his duty to inculcate on others whether with\nregard to this world or the next; a belief in any system of retribution by\nan overruling power. It must, I think, include the principle of gratitude\nto an active power who can confer blessings.\u201d(60)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW\n\n\n*35.* _Religious Tests._\u2014The constitution of the United States provides\nthat \u201cno religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any\noffice or public trust under the United States.\u201d(61)\n\n*36.* _Test Oath, Attainder._\u2014No test oath of any kind, whether religious\nor otherwise, can be required of a citizen of the United States. Therefore\nthe test oath of Congress requiring an officer to swear that he never\nvoluntarily bore arms against the United States, was held\nunconstitutional. Exclusion from any vocation on account of past conduct\nis punishment and contrary to the constitution on the subject of bills of\nattainder.(62) But there is a limitation to this rule to prevent the open\nviolation of the laws of the United States or any State under the cloak of\nreligion.(63)\n\n*37.* _Establishment of Religion, Free Exercise._\u2014The first amendment to\nthe United States constitution provides that \u201cCongress shall make no law\nrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise\nthereof.\u201d\n\n*38.* _Sovereignty, States, Bigamy._\u2014The courts have held that this\nprovision applies to Congress only, and can not be construed to interfere\nwith the sovereignty of the several States; that the constitutional\nguarantee of religious freedom was not intended to prohibit legislation\nagainst polygamy; and that section 5352 of the United States Revised\nStatutes against bigamy, is constitutional. Also, that on a trial for\nbigamy in Utah, a man who was living in polygamy was not competent to\nserve as a juror.(64)\n\n*39.* _Church of the Latter-Day Saints._\u2014In 1851 the assembly of the\nso-called State of Deseret, which subsequently became the territory of\nUtah, incorporated \u201cthe Church of the Latter-Day Saints.\u201d In 1887 Congress\nrepealed the act of incorporation and abrogated the charter, which the\nSupreme Court held was within its plenary powers. The pretense of\nreligious belief can not deprive Congress of the power to prohibit\npolygamy and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiments of\nmankind.(65)\n\n*40.* _Crime, Religion._\u2014The law prohibiting any person who is a\npolygamist or bigamist, or who teaches, advises, counsels, or encourages\nthe same, from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit, is\nconstitutional; and a crime is none the less so, nor less odious, because\nit is sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as religion. A\nstate has the right to legislate for the punishment of all acts inimical\nto the peace, good order, and morals of society.(66)\n\n*41.* _Donation, Hostile, Religion._\u2014On the other hand the United States\nSupreme Court declared the legal right of donees of a college to make as a\ncondition of the donation that all ecclesiastics, missionaries, and\nministers of any sort, should be excluded from holding any station of duty\nin the college or even visiting the same. The condition being only\nnegatively derogatory and hostile to the Christian religion, did not make\nthe devise for the foundation of the college void.(67)\n\n*42.* _Christian Scientist._\u2014A law requiring a person to be a physician to\ntreat the sick, is constitutional; and the defense of a person who has no\nlicense to practise, that he is a Christian Scientist, is not good. Also,\na parent must furnish a doctor for his sick child, notwithstanding that he\nbelieves in prayer cure.(68)\n\n*43.* _Protestant._\u2014In the early days, under the constitution of the\nState, the courts of Massachusetts practically held that the Protestant\nreligion was the religion of that State.(69) Also, the constitution of New\nHampshire referred to different Christians, and the court in construing\nthe terms \u201cRoman Catholic\u201d and \u201cProtestant,\u201d held that any one who did not\nassent to the truth of Christianity as a distinct system of religion,\ncould not be classed as either. The court stated that Mohammedans, Jews,\npagans, and infidels, are neither \u201cCatholics\u201d nor \u201cProtestants.\u201d The term\n\u201cProtestant,\u201d as used in the constitution of New Hampshire, includes all\nChristians who deny the authority of the Pope of Rome. When the children\nof Protestant parents renounce that religion, and voluntarily accept\nanother, they cease to be Protestants.(70) At present under the\nconstitution of New Hampshire, the legislature may authorize towns or\nparishes to provide for the support of Protestant ministers.(71)\n\n*44.* _Hospitals, Sisters, Appropriation._\u2014In 1864, Providence Hospital,\nof Washington, was incorporated by an act of Congress, for general\nhospital purposes. In 1897, $30,000 was appropriated for the District of\nColumbia to put up two isolation buildings in connection with two\nhospitals in that city, to be operated as a part of such hospitals.\nProvidence Hospital was selected as one, and because it was in charge of\nSisters of the Roman Catholic Church, the right of Congress to make the\nappropriation was disputed. Among other things, Judge Peackham says:\n\u201cWhether the individuals who compose the corporation under its charter\nhappen to be all Roman Catholics, or all Methodists, or all Presbyterians,\nor Unitarians, or members of any other religious organization, or of no\norganization at all, is of not the slightest consequence with reference to\nthe law of its corporation, nor can the individual beliefs upon religious\nmatters of the various incorporators be inquired into.\u201d The appropriation\nwas \u201cfor two hospital buildings to be constructed in the discretion of the\ncommissioners of the District of Columbia on the grounds of two hospitals\nand to be operated as a part of such hospitals.\u201d(72)\n\n*45.* _Constitution, Rights._\u2014The provisions in the constitution do not in\nany way interfere with property rights obtained by a church organization\nprior to its adoption.(73)\n\n*46.* _Aid, Contracts._\u2014Under the constitution of the United States,\nCongress cannot make appropriations for nor give aid to any denomination.\nAlso, similar provisions are in many of the constitutions of the States.\nHowever, many cases arise out of contracts which border upon these various\nrules, and in some States the constitutional provision of the State is\nsuch that the State Legislature may legislate concerning religion and give\ncertain aid and support thereto. Paying rent to a congregation for a\nschool-room is not an appropriation or aid to a church contrary to the\nconstitution.(74)\n\n*47.* _Protestant Teacher, Tax._\u2014Formerly every parish in Massachusetts\nwas obliged to elect and support a Protestant teacher, and might erect\nchurches and parsonages. To provide the expenses thereof, a tax might be\nassessed upon the polls of the inhabitants.(75) Until 1890 New Hampshire\npermitted a tax to be levied in towns for religious purposes. It is still\nlegal under the New Hampshire constitution to tax the inhabitants for the\npurpose of supporting Protestant teachers, but not to support a teacher of\nany other denomination.(76) A section of land in every township in Ohio\nwas set apart for religious societies, in which they all shared\nequally.(77) Vermont had a similar provision.(78)\n\n*48.* _Office, God._\u2014The constitutions of Arkansas, Mississippi, North\nCarolina, South Carolina, and Texas, prohibit a man from holding office\nwho denies the existence of a Supreme Being; and the constitutions of\nDelaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Tennessee, make all clergymen ineligible\nto hold a civil office.(79)\n\n*49.* _Religious Liberty, Bible, Religious Garb, Wages._\u2014The authorities\nare not uniform as to what constitutes a violation of religious liberty.\nThe question of whether the reading of the Bible in the public schools is\na violation of the constitution, is an open one in some States and in\nothers the courts have passed upon it, some holding that it is a violation\nof the constitution,(80) and some holding that it is not.(81) The weight\nof authority seems to permit the reading of the \u201cKing James\u201d Bible,(82)\nand where portions only are read, as in \u201creading books\u201d prepared for\nschool work, or where the children are not obliged to be present during\nthe exercises, the cases seem to be unanimous that it is not a violation\nof the constitution.(83) In Pennsylvania the court held that while Sisters\nin their religious garb might be teachers in the public schools, they\ncould not give instruction in the Catholic religion at the schoolhouse\nbefore or after school hours, or at any other time use the school building\nfor religious purposes. Also, in Wisconsin the court decided that while a\nportion of a parochial school building might be leased for public school\npurposes and the Sisters be employed therein as teachers, religious\nexercises and instructions could not be given in such leased premises.(84)\nIn New York it was held not only that Sisters could not wear their\nreligious garb or pray in school, but that they could not collect wages\nfor teaching.(85)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. STATUTORY LAW\n\n\n*50.* _Wisconsin, Mississippi, New York._\u2014The statutory law of the\ndifferent States of the Union is so varied and the laws of one State are\nof so little interest to the people of another that it would be almost\nuseless and beyond the boundaries of this work to give the substance of\nthe various statutes. In some States there is a limitation upon the real\nestate that a church or charitable organization may hold, and in other\nStates there is no limitation whatever. Wisconsin, perhaps, occupies the\nextreme of greatest liberality, by not only allowing full freedom in\neverything relating to religion and charity, but it further excepts from\nthe limitation all rights of alienation of real estate granted or devised\nto a charitable association or to literary or charitable corporations\norganized under the law of the State. The State of Mississippi probably\nstands at the other extreme both in the narrowness of its constitution and\nstatutory law, and prohibits any devise or bequest of any personal\nproperty or real estate in favor of any religious or ecclesiastical\ncorporation or any religious or ecclesiastical society. Neither does it\nexempt a clergyman, physician, or lawyer, from examination as a witness\nconcerning information that he obtained in the performance of his\nfunctions or duties as such. Its judges, however, are more liberal than\nits legislators, and I know of no instance in which a clergyman,\nphysician, or lawyer, as a witness, was sent to jail for contempt of court\nfor not divulging information obtained in his professional capacity.\nProbably New York has the most complete code(86) relating to religious\ncorporations.\n\n*51.* _Real Estate, Parish, Diocese, Taxation._\u2014It is very important that\na congregation about to purchase real estate should examine and understand\nthe statutory law of the State governing the powers and authority of the\nChurch as a civil organization. In some States there is no special law for\nincorporating religious societies; while in most States there are special\nprovisions therefor. For this reason, I emphasize the fact that no parish\nor clergyman is justified in organizing a congregation or purchasing land\nwithout first knowing the law of that particular State. But generally it\nis best that each congregation be incorporated and that its property be\nheld in the name of the corporation, so that the debts of one corporation\nwill not embarrass the diocese, and that bequests and gifts made to a\nchurch may be enforced in the courts. The proceedings to incorporate are\nfully stated in the statutes of each State. One of the things of the\nutmost importance is that any notice to be given must be given strictly as\nrequired by law.(87) Another is to incorporate in the way that avoids\ntaxation.(88)\n\n*52.* _Riot, Damages._\u2014Under a statute providing that a person whose\nproperty is destroyed by riot may bring suit against the county for\ndamages, a corporation for religious purposes, as well as an individual,\nhas a right of action.(89)\n\n*53.* _Use, Change, Parsonage, Discipline, Doctrine, Curate._\u2014When a fee\nsimple is acquired by a religious corporation, without restriction as to\nquantity, but limiting the purpose of its use, a subsequent Legislature,\nwith the consent of the corporation, has power to change or abrogate\naltogether the restrictions as to the use of the land.(90) And the\nLegislature may empower the church corporation to convey a house devised\nto it for a parsonage with a condition that it be kept in repair, and\ninvest the proceeds in other property to be held for the same purpose.(91)\nA State legislature can not interfere in church discipline and doctrine,\nas by legislating what shall constitute a curate in the Catholic\nChurch.(92)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. UNINCORPORATED CHURCH SOCIETIES\n\n\n*54.* _Partners, Debt, Liability._\u2014Where several go into an undertaking\nwithout first being incorporated they are usually liable as partners, each\none being responsible for the whole debt. In some States the same\nliability exists where an attempt has been made to incorporate, but there\nwas a failure to comply fully with the law.(93) There is some authority\nfreeing the individual members of a religious society from liability for\nthe debts of such society,(94) and holding that an agent of such society\ncould not bind the society in their associated capacity by a promissory\nnote,(95) but the rule is that the members of an unincorporated society\nwho actively incur lawful debts or ratify them after their creation are\npersonally liable. There are exceptions to this rule by statute or\ndecisions in a few States.(96) Also, the law of personal liability is\nsettled in England.(97)\n\n*55.* _Pastor, Salary._\u2014In a late case in Wisconsin where a pastor had a\ncontract with his congregation as to his salary, after the clergyman\u2019s\ndeath his heirs recovered the unpaid part of his salary in an action\nagainst a few of the individual members of the congregation.(98)\n\n*56.* _Building, Materials._\u2014The members of the building committee of an\nunincorporated church are liable for materials purchased by them for the\nchurch, notwithstanding that the seller charged the materials in the name\nof the church, and that at the time that the purchase was made, he was\ntold that the money for payment was to be raised by subscription among the\ncongregation.(99)\n\n*57.* _Management, Disability._\u2014An unincorporated society is managed by\nthose who are competent to transact their own business. Therefore, it\nwould seem that members must be men over twenty-one years of age, and not\nunder legal disability. The minor sons in a family who have continued\ntheir attendance at the religious services until of full age, are\nconsidered members.(100)\n\n*58.* _Shakers, Sect, Catholic Church, Trustees, Funds._\u2014Although the sect\ncalled Shakers is not incorporated, yet it has been allowed to take and\nhold property for church purposes.(101) In Massachusetts, by statute, a\nsect may take and hold property for religious purposes without\nincorporation.(102) The Roman Catholic Church is a recognized public\ncorporation by most nations, including the United States.(103) No\nindividual member of any such body has any title to the lands it holds,\nbut the lands are the property of the society in its aggregate\ncapacity.(104) After property has been acquired, the trustees have no\nright to distribute it among the members, as such power could not be\nconferred upon them by a majority vote even when approved by an order of\nthe court. The contributors did not intend their funds to be so disposed\nof, and if they failed to attain the use intended, they must be returned\nto the donors, and if not called for, would escheat to the state.(105)\nWhere an unincorporated society has purchased property and taken the title\nthereto in the name of one of its members, when it subsequently\nincorporates such member may be required to execute a conveyance to the\ncorporation.(106)\n\n*59.* _Contract, Binding._\u2014Persons forming a religious society may make a\ncontract for the support of its minister by a majority vote.(107) When\nsuch unincorporated society by a majority vote enters into a contract or\ncompromises a suit, it is binding upon the minority.(108)\n\n*60.* _Court, Trust._\u2014Any member of an unincorporated society may go into\na court of equity on behalf of himself and others to enforce the execution\nof a trust in favor of the society.(109)\n\n*61.* _Societies, Membership, Forfeiture._\u2014Voluntary religious societies\nwhen not restricted by their charters or articles of association, may make\nby-laws declaring what shall constitute membership and what shall operate\nas a forfeiture thereof, applicable to existing as well as to future\nmembers. Where money is voted to be raised by an assessment to be made at\na subsequent period, a person who was a member of the religious society at\nthe time that such vote was passed, but withdraws before the time of\nassessment, is not liable to taxation.(110)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. INCORPORATED RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES\n\n\n*62.* _Special Law, General Laws._\u2014In most of the States there is a\nspecial law under which congregations may be incorporated. New York is a\ngood example.(111) Where such law does not exist, the congregation may be\nincorporated under the general laws. For business reasons each\ncongregation should be incorporated.(112)\n\n*63.* _Officers, Discipline, Property._\u2014When a church society incorporates\nit becomes a private corporation, and the officers are bound to manage the\nproperty in the most upright and careful manner according to the\ndiscipline of the church.(113) When a parish incorporates, the title to\nthe parish property vests in the corporation, to which trustees may be\ncompelled to convey it.(114)\n\n*64.* _Incorporation, Evidence._\u2014The certificate of incorporation or\ncharter of a religious society or a certified copy thereof from the public\nrecord, is the proper evidence thereof.(115) Secondary evidence and\nevidence _aliunde_ may be competent in some forums.(116) In most States if\nincorporation is alleged in the complaint, it need not be proved unless\ndenied by an affidavit or a verified answer.\n\n*65.* _Congregation, Members._\u2014The act of incorporation applies only to\nthe particular congregation petitioning for it and does not extend to\nother churches, even though they are a subsequent growth within the same\nterritory.(117) Incorporation once established is presumed to\ncontinue.(118) When a new religious society is formed and incorporated,\nconsisting of individuals from existing parishes, the members of the new\nsociety from the time of its incorporation cease to be members of the\nrespective parishes to which they had belonged.(119)\n\n*66.* _Temporal Affairs, Management._\u2014A majority of a religious\ncorporation at a regularly called meeting may, by a vote taken, bind the\nminority in all temporal affairs.(120) The character of membership in the\nreligious corporation may be very different from that of membership in the\nchurch.(121) The fact that a member has been declared out of the church by\nan ecclesiastical tribunal, may not affect his rights in the management of\nthe temporal concerns of the corporation.(122)\n\n*67.* _Corporators, Change._\u2014In isolated cases here and there it has been\nheld that a majority of the corporators of a religious society has the\nright to change the form of church government, as from the Congregational\nChurch to an organization in connection with the Presbyterian Church.(123)\nBut it is a general rule that a majority of the congregation can act only\nconsistently with the particular and general laws of the church\norganization, but not in violation of them.(124)\n\n*68.* _Constitution, Subsequent Laws._\u2014An ecclesiastical society formed\nbefore the adoption of the state constitution is not by that constitution\nand subsequent laws concerning religious societies divested of its legal\ncharacter.(125)\n\n*69.* _Name, Change._\u2014The name of an ecclesiastical corporation is\narbitrary and a change or alteration in its name does not affect its\nidentity.(126) A charter will not be granted to a church with a name so\nlike another church in the same State, that one may be taken for the\nother.(127)\n\n*70.* _Church, Regular._\u2014In church organizations those who adhere to the\nregular order of the church, legal and general, though a minority, are the\ntrue congregation and constitute the corporation if incorporated.(128)\n\n*71.* _Notice, Legal._\u2014All the proceedings of a corporation, including\nnotice, must be in accordance with the constitution and by-laws, and no\nbusiness transacted contrary thereto is legal.(129)\n\n*72.* _Control, Secede, Vested Rights._\u2014The officers of a church\ncorporation have control of the business management for all civil\npurposes, excepting as otherwise provided by the articles of organization,\ncharter, or by-laws of the corporation. However, the by-laws must not\ncontravene the laws of the State.(130) A charter was refused in\nPennsylvania which provided that the congregation might, by a majority\nvote, dissolve or secede from the central body and divide the\nproperty.(131) A charter of incorporation may be amended in harmony with\nthe principles, discipline, and objects of the church, but not\notherwise.(132) The fact that incorporation of a church confers certain\nrights and privileges under the charter, such charter being accepted, does\nnot give the church corporation any vested rights.(133)\n\n*73.* _Consolidation, Control, Dissolution._\u2014So far as the State law is\nconcerned, two different denominations may form one corporation;(134) or\ntwo or more congregations of the same organization may form one\ncorporation.(135) Where such consolidation is attempted, the new\norganization must have control of all the property.(136) So long as\ndifferent congregations attempting to consolidate retain their respective\nidentities, they do not form a single corporation.(137) It is a general\nrule that a corporation may be dissolved by taking the steps required by\nlaw. As there are various statutory provisions in the different States,\neach case had best be attended to by an attorney. In some States there is\na provision that where a corporation fails to carry out its functions for\na stated time, it thereby becomes dissolved. The omission of a parish for\none year to elect officers, does not necessarily operate as a dissolution\nunder such statute. In case of dissolution under a statute of that kind,\nthe property of the church is not forfeited to the State.(138)\n\n*74.* _Debt, Limited._\u2014The amount of debt which the trustees of a\nreligious society may be authorized to create, may be limited by its\nconstitution.(139)\n\n*75.* _Conditions, Effect._\u2014Where $1,000 was given defendants to erect and\nmaintain forever a Lutheran church and prohibiting the grantee from\nalienating or disposing of or otherwise changing or encumbering the land\nby deed, a mortgage given to secure a legitimate debt was held valid, as\nthe legal title was in the corporation and a court of equity could not\nrefuse to enforce the mortgage for the payment of an honest debt under\ncolor of protecting a charitable use.(140) But property given a\ncongregation for the maintenance of a church that becomes dissolved,\nreverts to the heirs as a resulting trust.(141) A corporation that has\nbeen authorized to purchase land may execute a mortgage for the purchase\nmoney or a part of it without further authority.(142) Where by an ancient\nagreement a meeting-house was to remain in a particular place, a vote of\nthe congregation will not justify pulling it down, and an action of\ntrespass will lie for razing it and damages will be given for the value of\nthe building.(143)\n\n*76.* _Suits, Parties._\u2014When a church is incorporated, it should be sued\nin its corporate name; but when the bishop of the Catholic church holds\nthe legal title to the land in litigation, he should be made a party.(144)\nAnd if there are two sets of officers contending for control, service of\nthe papers upon the intruders may not be sufficient. The safer practice is\nto serve upon both.(145) A suit by the trustees of a religious society to\nrestrain other parties claiming to be trustees from interfering in the\nmanagement and control of the society property, is properly brought in the\ncorporate name of the trustees and not in the name of the State.(146)\n\n*77.* _Incorporation, Sufficient._\u2014Where the articles of incorporation\nwere drawn and signed in the form required by law, excepting as to the\nacknowledgment, and were recorded, and the corporation organized in good\nfaith, it became a _de facto_ corporation and was sufficient to entitle it\nto sue to prevent certain members from perverting the use of its\nproperty.(147)\n\n*78.* _Dissolution, Fund._\u2014The corporation of a congregation can not by\nseceding and a majority vote dissolve the corporation where it is a part\nof a superior body.(148) But the courts have plenary powers over\ncorporations under the United States jurisdiction, such as territories,\nand may dissolve a corporation.(149) The fact that the dissolution is\ncontrary to, or authorized by church discipline, makes no difference as to\ngranting the dissolution, as such discipline can not supersede the state\nlaw.(150) On dissolution of a religious corporation, the surplus fund\nderived from a legacy should be disposed of in the manner the court\nbelieves to be most in harmony with the will of the contributors to the\nfund, could they have foreseen the event.(151)\n\n*79.* _Reorganization._\u2014A church corporation may reorganize and be\nreinstated into all rights that it formerly had.(152) The steps to be\ntaken to reorganize are usually provided by statute and should be closely\nfollowed. Upon the reorganization, the old corporation becomes\nterminated.(153)\n\n*80.* _Meetings, Majority, Quorum._\u2014In corporate meetings, meetings of\nboards, and meetings of committees duly called, a majority vote of those\npresent determines the action of the body. If the membership is\nindefinite, those who attend such meeting constitute a quorum; but if the\nmembership is definite, it requires a majority of the voting members to\nconstitute a quorum, unless the law of the State or the constitution\n(articles of organization) or by-laws provide a different number.(154)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. SUPERIOR AUTHORITY\n\n\n*81.* _Protestant, Ministers, Bishop._\u2014In most church organizations the\nauthority is divided into superior and inferior. In countries where there\nis an established Protestant church, the superior authority is first in\nthe king and queen and secondly in the bishops. The inferior authority is\nin the ministers and secular officers of the church. Where there is no\nestablished church, the synod or bishop is the superior authority. Thus\ndecisions of our courts usually apply to all churches alike.\n\n*82.* _Roman Catholic Church, Pope, Bishops, Delegated._\u2014In the Roman\nCatholic Church the superior authority is first in the Pope and secondly\nin the other bishops. This superior authority is graded and some of it may\nbe delegated, as in case of a Papal delegate. But the general rule that\ndelegated authority can not be again delegated by the delegate without\nspecial authority applies to church matters.\n\n*83.* _Bishop, Discipline, Clergy._\u2014Within his diocese the bishop is the\nexecutive officer, the legislature, and the judiciary; but he is subject\nto the superior authority of the Church. The bishop may make laws for his\ndiocese, subject to the limitation of the general doctrine and discipline\nof the Church. He has original jurisdiction of all causes arising in his\ndiocese, and may decide them in the first instance and inflict such\npenalties, suspension, or excommunication, in accordance with the canons\nof the Church, as he deems fit. The clergy are subject to his orders and\ndiscipline according to the canon law. However, without special contract,\nthe bishop is not civilly liable for the salary of a priest under him,\neither while he is actually in the line of his assigned duties or while\nwaiting to be assigned.(155)\n\n*84.* _Local, Secular Matters._\u2014There is still another division of\nsuperior and inferior authority: the local corporation or congregation has\nnothing whatever to do with the doctrinal or disciplinary functions of the\nChurch; but has only such powers and authority with regard to secular\nmatters as is provided by the laws of the State or conferred by the\narticles of organization, charter, and by-laws. Also, unless there is some\nother rule to the contrary, only the male members who are over twenty-one\nyears of age, have a voice and vote in such corporation.(156)\n\n*85.* _Unincorporated, Authority._\u2014When a church is not incorporated, all\nits elections and proceedings, so far as they are not contrary to the laws\nof the State, must be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the\nChurch; and the rule that the inferior authority must give way to the\nsuperior authority in all matters within the limitations of the\nconstitution and laws of the organization, prevails.(157) However, courts\nare not always clear on the last part of this rule.(158)\n\n*86.* _Tribunal, Action, Appeal._\u2014When any question arises and is being\nadjudicated in the tribunal of the church organization, either as an\noriginal action or on appeal, the State court will not interfere so long\nas the proceedings are in accordance with the rules and regulations of the\nchurch, unless some vested right to property is in question or some one\u2019s\nright as a citizen of the State or of the United States is being\ninfringed.(159)\n\n*87.* _Spiritual Authority, Excommunication._\u2014Neither the Pope nor the\nbishop has any but spiritual authority within the State.(160) The law of\nthis country considers excommunication as expelling from membership; but\ndoes not tolerate interference with civil or property rights of citizens.\nTherefore, major excommunication _non tolerati_, is unlawful in the United\nStates.(161) However, a bishop is not liable for any expression of his\nopinion as to the extent of his episcopal authority nor for any act of\nomission in the exercise of his spiritual functions.(162) The civil courts\nwill not go behind a church authority to inquire as to excommunication,\nbut may examine as to the competency of the tribunal according to the laws\nof the denomination.(163)\n\n*88.* _Constitution, Limited, Decisions._\u2014A written constitution is not\nnecessary to prove the connection between a subordinate and superior\necclesiastical body; but it will be inferred from the circumstances of the\ncase.(164) The superior may dissolve or reorganize an inferior body as a\ncongregation.(165) In fact the superior authority, in religious matters,\nis plenary, excepting as limited by the laws of the State and the\nconstitution of the Church.(166) The decisions of the ecclesiastical\ntribunals in all cases on doctrine, order, and discipline, are conclusive\nin the state courts.(167)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. INFERIOR AUTHORITY\n\n\n*89.* _Priesthood_, _Discipline_.\u2014The inferior authority in the Church may\nbe said to be in the priesthood, whose rights and duties are fixed by the\ncanon law, but who are still further subject to the reasonable diocesan\nrules made by the bishop. The disciplinary relation of a priest to his\nbishop is substantially the same as that of a captain to his colonel, and\nimplicit obedience in accordance with the discipline of the Church may be\nstrictly enforced by the bishop in so far as it relates to ecclesiastical\nmatters, including doctrine and discipline, in which the priest can not\nresort to the courts of the State, but must submit to the tribunals of the\nchurch.(168)\n\n*90.* _Congregation, Insubordinate, Discipline._\u2014The male members of a\ncongregation are invested with no visitorial or controling power, but only\nsuch authority as is given under the laws of incorporation.(169) Where an\ninferior organization, as a congregation, refuses to receive a clergyman\nappointed by the bishop, it is an act of insubordination to the\necclesiastical authority of the Church and in violation of its discipline,\nwhich authorizes the issuing of a peremptory mandamus commanding them to\nadmit the clergyman.(170)\n\n*91.* _Pastor, Parish, Relation._\u2014When a clergyman\u2019s connection with a\nchurch had been duly dissolved, he ceased to be pastor of the church and\nan arrangement with the parish to retain his relation as pastor of such\nchurch was nugatory and void.(171)\n\n*92.* _Clergymen, Citizens._\u2014Clergymen residing in an incorporated town\nare not exempt from the performance of any duties required of citizens,\nunless such exemption is given by statute.(172)\n\n*93.* _Doctrine and Discipline, Authority._\u2014In all matters concerning\ndoctrine and discipline of the Church, the inferior authority, such as\nministers, priests, and deacons, as well as the congregation, must submit\nto the decision of the higher authority, whether bishop, synod, or\ncouncil.(173)\n\n*94.* _Sect, Suit, Property._\u2014A number of people formed a congregation and\nbecame incorporated in 1810, the members being mostly of Presbyterian\nextraction. This independent congregation bought and paid for property,\nthe title vesting in the corporation. In 1811 the congregation passed\nresolutions unanimously that it \u201cwould be imprudent and unscriptural\u201d to\nestablish a new religious sect, and voted to join the First Reformed Dutch\nChurch, which had an organization of inferior and superior authority. The\ncongregation was received into and became a part of the general\norganization, and remained so until 1860, when a majority of the\ncongregation voted to employ a Methodist minister, and when his name was\nsubmitted to the superior authority, the \u201cclassis,\u201d he was rejected as not\nbelonging to the church. Then by a majority vote, the congregation seceded\nand assumed its first name, and thereafter brought suit for the church\nproperty. The court held that by joining the First Reformed Dutch Church,\nthe title of the property vested in the congregation of that church as\nrepresented by its corporation, and that when the majority seceded and\nleft the church, they had no right nor title to any of the property. And\nthe court laid down the general rule that a majority of a church\ncongregation may direct and control any church matters consistently with\nthe particular and general laws of the organization or denomination to\nwhich it belongs, but not in violation of them.(174)\n\n*95.* _Priest, Salary._\u2014The fact that a bishop who holds the title to all\nthe diocesan property in his own name in trust appoints a priest to the\nparish or as chaplain to a hospital, does not give the priest a right of\naction against the bishop personally for his salary. The relation of\nbishop and priest is not that of employer and employe, but is that of\necclesiastical superior and inferior.(175)\n\n*96.* _Curate, Induction, Rector._\u2014The _jus patronatus_ of the Spanish law\nhas been abrogated in Louisiana. The wardens of the church can not compel\na bishop to institute a curate of their appointment, nor is he in any\nsense subordinate in his clerical functions to the wardens of any church\nwithin his diocese.(176) In the absence of a positive rule of the\necclesiastical body, no ceremony of induction is necessary for the rector\nof a parish.(177) A clergyman appointed \u201cpermanently\u201d to a rectorship\nholds it for an indefinite period during the pleasure of the contracting\nparties, and either of the contracting parties may give the other notice\nof termination, and with the concurrence of the higher ecclesiastical\nauthority of the diocese, a change may be made.(178) It is doubtful,\nhowever, whether in most States a permanent appointment would not be\nconstrued as a contract for life, determinable only for good cause.(179)\n\n*97.* _Controversy, Tribunal, Decision._\u2014When the clergyman and his\nparishioners submit a controversy to an ecclesiastical tribunal, the\ndecision, if not impeached for good cause, is justification in the party\nconforming to it.(180) And a minister who submits to a church tribunal and\nis ousted after fair hearing and trial, can not obtain a writ of mandamus\nfrom the civil court to compel his reinstatement.(181) Also, after a\nminister has been dismissed in due manner by the tribunal of his\ndenomination, the civil court will enjoin him from usurping his\noffice.(182)\n\n*98.* _Priest, Dwelling, Servant._\u2014A Catholic priest in charge of a\ncongregation at the will of the bishop and occupying a dwelling-house\nbelonging to the church, is a servant and not a tenant, and his right to\noccupancy ceases with his services.(183) The law is different with regard\nto a Methodist minister who is in charge of his parish by an annual\nconference and can not be ejected by the congregation or bishop until the\nnext conference, as he has possession of the church property without\nsuperior authority.(184)\n\n*99.* _Injunction, Bishop, Priest, Trial._\u2014On application for an\ninjunction to restrain the bishop from passing a sentence against a\npriest, the only ground on which a court can exercise jurisdiction is that\nthe threatened action of the bishop will affect the civil rights of the\npriest.(185) A bishop can not remove a priest without an accusation,\nhearing, or trial, and forbid him to exercise any priestly function where\nsuch removal would cut off the priest\u2019s income and destroy his means of\nliving in his vocation.(186) However, in the same case it was held that a\ncomplaint stating that the bishop failed and neglected to assign the\nplaintiff to the exercise of his office of priest in said diocese to the\nplaintiff\u2019s damage, etc., failed to show that any right of property or\ncivil right was involved and the priest was non-suited, while in the\nformer case an injunction was issued against the bishop.(187)\n\n*100.* _Confession, Privacy, Authority._\u2014A Catholic priest, although about\nto administer an office of his religion to a sick person at the latter\u2019s\nrequest, has no legal authority, by virtue of his priestly character, to\nforcibly remove from the room a person lawfully there.(188)\n\n*101.* _Debts, Permission, Presumed._\u2014Notwithstanding a rule or\necclesiastical law of the church that a pastor shall not contract debts in\nthe name or for the sake of the church without the written permission of\nthe bishop, such written permission is not evidence that debts contracted\nunder it are the legal debts of the bishop. The authority which bishops\ndelegate to priests is under the ecclesiastical law and prima facie\necclesiastical authority, and must be presumed to be so in the absence of\nall evidence to the contrary.(189)\n\n*102.* _Official Acts, Subscriptions._\u2014The official acts of a minister\ncoming in question incidentally, unless contrary to the statute, are as\nvalid as the official acts of any other officer.(190) A clergyman who was\nengaged to conduct dedication services and was requested by the officers\nof the local corporation to solicit subscriptions for paying off the\nindebtedness of the church, but was not appointed agent to receive such\nsubscriptions, had no authority to accept a subscription for the\ncorporation.(191)\n\n*103.* _Exemptions, Clergy._\u2014The exemptions given ministers by the\nstatutes of some States are liberally construed.(192) Without any\nstatutory exemption, the clergy are liable for all duties required of\nother citizens.(193)\n\n*104.* _Minister, Contributions, Deposed._\u2014No religious teacher or\nminister can be enjoined from receiving voluntary contributions, although\nhe has been deposed by some ecclesiastical tribunal.(194)\n\n*105.* _Fees, Usages, Excess._\u2014The fees of a priest of the Catholic Church\nare regulated by the laws and usages of that Church, and where in this\ncountry the pew rent and collections go for the support of the priest and\nthe current church expenses, a priest is not accountable for the excess of\nsuch collections over these expenditures.(195)\n\n*106.* _Salary, Fees._\u2014Under the act of March, 1814, incorporating a\ncongregation, the congregation, being the legal owners and temporal\nadministrators of the property which it was authorized to hold, had the\nexclusive power to fix the salary of the parish priest or the tariff of\nfees for marriages, burial, etc. No such power could be exercised under\nthat act by the Pope or any bishop.(196)\n\n*107.* _Clergyman, Salary._\u2014Where a clergyman agreed with a congregation\nthat the salary should be what could be raised by subscription, the\ncongregation was bound to use due diligence in procuring subscriptions,\nand as it did so, that was all that the clergyman could recover.(197)\n\n*108.* _Curate, Services._\u2014In an action by a curate against a religious\ncorporation for personal services, the court will not inquire into the\nspiritual relations existing between the parties, but will examine their\nlegal rights only.(198)\n\n*109.* _Minister, Dismissal, Money Advanced._\u2014After a parish has voted to\ndismiss the minister, it is not competent to prove irregular conduct or\nimmorality in answer to his claim for salary, without alleging it in the\nvote of dismissal.(199) In Illinois it was held that a priest who advanced\nmoney from his private resources for improving church property, had an\nequitable lien upon the property for all the money advanced, with legal\ninterest.(200) But in Pennsylvania, where a priest under the direction of\nthe bishop built a church in his parish for mission purposes, and in doing\nso expended some of his own money, it was held that in the absence of\nproof of any rule or custom of the Catholic Church making the payment of\nsuch expenses obligatory on the parish, that he could not recover the\nmoney so expended from his congregation.(201)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. MEMBERSHIP\n\n\n*110.* _Business, Religious Membership._\u2014Unless there is some other law or\nrule to the contrary, the male members of the congregation over twenty-one\nyears of age constitute the business membership of a religious\nsociety.(202) But the question of membership of religious societies or\ncongregations is left to be determined by the rules of the religious\ndenomination to which they belong.(203) And where a condition of\nmembership is that the person must contribute to the support of the church\nand be a communicant, if he is not a communicant he is not entitled to\nvote.(204)\n\n*111.* _Regular, Doctrines, Support._\u2014The ones who adhere and submit to\nthe regular order and doctrines of the church, although a minority,\nconstitute the true congregation.(205) At least two things must concur to\nqualify a person as a voter: first, stated attendance at divine worship in\nthe congregation; and, second, contribution to the support of the\nchurch.(206) The list of members kept by the clerk or secretary of the\ncongregation is evidence of membership.(207) A person who denies any part\nof the system of theology received and taught by the denomination is not a\nmember of the church.(208)\n\n*112.* _Factions, Authority._\u2014Where two factions of a church, each\nclaiming to be the church, try members of the other faction, a court may\ndetermine which of the factions is the authorized authority or that the\naction taken by either or both of them is nugatory for want of\nauthority.(209)\n\n*113.* _Faith, Burial._\u2014Whether a person died in the faith of the Roman\nCatholic Church so as to be entitled to burial in its cemetery, is not a\nquestion within the jurisdiction of civil courts, but must be decided by\nthe ecclesiastical authorities.(210)\n\n*114.* _Rules, Membership._\u2014Every denomination has the right to prescribe\nby rules, its constitution, or its by-laws, the conditions of membership;\nand any one who will not subscribe to and practise the doctrines of the\ndenomination is not a member.(211)\n\n*115.* _Minor._\u2014Where the legal members of a society that is incorporated\nconsist of male members of the church of full age, when minor sons become\nof age, they become legal members of the corporation, provided they remain\nin the church.(212)\n\n*116.* _Officers, Non-Members._\u2014It has been held that a person may be an\nofficer or member of the church corporation or its temporal concerns\nwithout being a member of the denomination.(213)\n\n*117.* _Debts, Unincorporated Parish._\u2014In Connecticut members of an\necclesiastical society formed by voluntary association under the statutes\nof the State are not individually liable for the debts of such\nsociety.(214) But where there is no statute on the subject, the members of\nan unincorporated parish are liable for lawful debts contracted or\nratified by them, and their property may be levied on for such debts\nincurred or judgments rendered while they are members of the society.(215)\nThe members of an unincorporated parish may be sued to recover the salary\nof a deceased pastor up to the time of his death.(216)\n\n*118.* _Execution, Property._\u2014While an execution against a territorial\nparish may be levied on the property of a member of the parish, it can not\nbe levied on property of a person who ceased to be a member before the\nlevy.(217)\n\n*119.* _Incorporated, Subscriptions._\u2014The members of an incorporated poll\nparish are not individually liable on a judgment and execution against the\ncorporation, excepting on the unpaid subscriptions.(218)\n\n*120.* _Expelled, Merits._\u2014Mandamus can not be resorted to to restore a\nmember regularly expelled from his church, as a court will not inquire\ninto the merits of the case.(219)\n\n*121.* _Lay Members, Appointed._\u2014Where the statute provides that two lay\nmembers of the corporation of a Catholic parish shall be appointed\nannually \u201cby the committee of the congregation,\u201d the members of the\ncongregation have no right to elect said two members, and those appointed\nin the proper manner are lawful officers.(220)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. HERESY AND SECESSION\n\n\n*122.* _Mother Church, Control._\u2014A majority of the members of a\ncongregation can not by their vote leave the church and transfer the\nproperty of the congregation to another church so long as any portion of\nthe congregation remains faithful to the mother church of which such\ncongregation forms a part. Such minority shall retain control of the\nproperty.(221)\n\n*123.* _Seceders, Funds._\u2014Nor can seceders from a religious denomination\nretain the funds in their hands as trustees on the ground that they were\nmembers of the society when the funds accrued.(222) The title to church\nproperty in a divided congregation is in that part of the congregation\nwhich is acting in harmony with its own law; and the ecclesiastical laws\nand principles which were accepted among them before the dispute began are\nthe standards for determining which party is right.(223)\n\n*124.* _Society, Foreign Language, Independent._\u2014The formation of a\nsociety distinct from the rest of the congregation for the purpose of\ninstruction in a portion of the doctrine of the same church in a foreign\nlanguage is not a separation from the congregation, although it has its\nown minister and officers.(224) Where an independent congregation of one\ndenomination votes unanimously to go over to another denomination, and the\ntitle to the church property is in the parish corporation, the seceders\ntake with them the church property.(225)\n\n*125.* _Subordinate, Incorporated._\u2014A religious society subordinate to\nchurch judicatures, which declares itself independent and becomes\nincorporated under the general law of the state and subsequently purchases\nland and takes title in the name of the corporation, holds such land\nindependently of such church judicatures.(226)\n\n*126.* _\u201c__Church,__\u201d__ Seceders, Debt._\u2014Where a religious society amended\nits constitution as provided therein, those who adhered to the amended\nconstitution constituted the \u201cchurch,\u201d and those who refused to do so were\nseceders.(227) After seceding, a member of a parish is liable for a debt\nexisting at the time of his secession.(228)\n\n*127.* _Bible, Constitution, Withdrawal._\u2014A religious organization that\ntakes the Bible as its constitution can not declare a member a seceder who\ninterprets it contrary to the Augsburg Confession of the\ndenomination.(229) What amounts to a voluntary withdrawal of members from\na religious association, is a question of law.(230)\n\n*128.* _Majority, Obligation._\u2014The fact that a majority of the members of\na religious corporation secede therefrom by a vote, does not affect its\nobligation entered into prior thereto.(231) Two factions of a church\nseparating and keeping up different organizations may both still retain\ntheir membership in the denomination.(232)\n\n*129.* _Division, Funds._\u2014Where there is a division in a denomination by\nthe secession of a part of the members from the mother church, the\nLegislature has no authority to divide the funds and give a part to the\nseceding division.(233)\n\n*130.* _Methodist, Slaveholding, Non-Slaveholding, Quarrel, Schism,\nSecession._\u2014The division of the Methodist church into distinct\norganizations of slaveholding and non-slaveholding States, was not a\nsecession and neither division lost its interest in the common\nproperty.(234) A quarrel in a congregation growing out of an illegal\nelection followed by the majority excluding the minority from the church,\nis not a schism, and is no ground for a division of the church\nproperty.(235) The secession of a whole congregation does not carry with\nit the church property; and those who are left and adhere to the mother\nchurch retain control of the property.(236) When the seceders from one\nchurch join another, they forfeit all claim to any interest held by the\nformer and lose identity with it.(237)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. EXCOMMUNICATION\n\n\n*131.* _Definitions, Minor._\u2014Excommunication, as construed in law, is the\nofficial announcement by the superior authority of the termination of\nmembership in a religious body and the forfeiture of spiritual privileges\nof the church. It is one of the methods of discipline in the nature of\nexpulsion from membership in a fraternity, and the fact of expulsion from\na church is conclusive proof that the person expelled is not a member of\nsuch church. Whether the excommunication was wrong or not can not be\nexamined into in the courts of the State, and such expelled member can not\nmaintain a suit in relation to church property nor vote for trustees.(238)\n\n*132.* _Major Excommunication._\u2014As excommunication _non tolerati_ affects\nthe rights of citizenship, it is not lawful in England nor the United\nStates. To say that A. has been excommunicated in any form, if untrue, is\nslander.(239)\n\n*133.* _Vote, Sentence._\u2014When a vote of excommunication from a church has\nbeen passed in the Congregational church and the offender thereby declared\nno longer a member, the sentence may be promulgated by being read in the\npresence of the congregation by the pastor.(240)\n\n*134.* _Trustees, Disqualified._\u2014The trustees of a church who have been\nexcommunicated are not thereby disqualified in law to act as\ntrustees.(241)\n\n*135.* _Devise, Void._\u2014A parent may leave money to a child payable in\nyearly instalments on condition that said child shall continue to be a\nmember of a particular church and attend the regular meetings thereof, and\nin case he fail so to do that the bequest be thereupon paid to a\nmissionary society. Such a devise is not contrary to the constitution of\nthe State of Wisconsin and is not void for any other reason.(242)\n\n*136.* _Fraternity, Excommunicated, Bequest._\u2014Where a church member was\nalso a member of an insurance fraternity connected with his church, the\nconstitution of which required that every member of the fraternity should\nbe and remain a practical Roman Catholic, when he was excommunicated from\nmembership in the church he thereby forfeited his benefit certificate in\nsuch fraternity.(243) Also, a condition that a bequest shall be forfeited\nif the legatee should not marry a Protestant wife, the daughter of\nProtestant parents who have always been Protestants, was held to be valid\nand not an infringement of any constitutional right.(244)\n\n*137.* _Action, Expulsion._\u2014An action can not be maintained against the\nparish corporation for expulsion from the church.(245)\n\n*138.* _Forfeiture of Membership_.\u2014Any member may forfeit his membership\nin a church.(246)\n\n*139.* _Insubordination, Expulsion, Hearing._\u2014The authorities in the\nchurch, under its rules and discipline, have a right to exclude members in\nthe church, for insubordination.(247) If the church has no rules as to\nexpulsion of members, the common law prevails, and a member can not be\nexpelled without due notice and fair hearing.(248)\n\n*140.* _Injunction, Mandamus, Sepulture._\u2014An injunction will not be\ngranted to prevent the expulsion of a member contrary to the charter and\nby-laws of the denomination; but if a member be expelled without warrant\nof law, he has his remedy by mandamus for reinstatement.(249) A person who\nhas been expelled can not maintain an action for restoration in order to\nenjoy the right of sepulture, as it is premature.(250)\n\n*141.* _Expulsion, Illegal._\u2014The attempt of a minority of a church to\nexpel the majority of the members and turn over the property to another\ndenomination is illegal. However, the same would be true if it were done\nby the majority.(251)\n\n*142.* _Freedom, Faith, Doctrine._\u2014The constitution in declaring the\nfreedom of all men to worship God according to the dictates of their own\nconsciences, does not give a church member the right to repudiate the\nfaith and doctrine on which the church was founded, and at the same time\nto insist on his right to exercise and enjoy the benefits and privileges\nof a member of such church.(252) Every person joining a church, impliedly,\nif not expressly, agrees to conform to its rules and to submit to its\nauthority and discipline.(253) A person who has been expelled from a\nreligious society can not maintain an action for services rendered the\nsociety while he was a member.(254)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII. ELECTIONS\n\n\n*143.* _Time, Place, Void._\u2014Where a religious society that is incorporated\nholds an election for trustees, which is held at the wrong time or place,\nthe election is void.(255)\n\n*144.* _Voting, Communicants, Attendance._\u2014A by-law of a church that\nprohibited any person whose pew rent was in arrears more than two years\nfrom voting at a church meeting, is valid and reasonable.(256) Where a\ncharter of a religious society allowed only members being communicants to\nvote after they had attained the age of eighteen years, to entitle a\nmember of the congregation to vote it was necessary that he should have\ntaken the sacraments after the age of eighteen years.(257) Where the right\nto vote was limited to members who contributed not less than ten shillings\nannually toward the support of the church, those who were challenged for\nwant of complying with the rule can not do so after being challenged and\nthen vote.(258) Stated attendance at divine worship in the church,\ncongregation, or society, and contribution to the support of such church,\nmay be made the tests of the right of a person to be a voter at an\nelection. The attendance of a wife or children of the family is not\nsufficient to confer the right to vote on the husband or father.(259)\n\n*145.* _Voters, Poll List._\u2014Parol evidence is admissible to prove the\nnumber of persons entitled to vote in a church society, notwithstanding\nthat there is a register of names of the stated hearers in such church\nkept by the clerk of the trustees.\n\n*146.* _Notice, Quorum, Majority, Strangers._\u2014It is not necessary that a\nmajority of the members of a religious society be present to constitute a\ncorporate meeting. Those present at a regularly called meeting of which\ndue notice has been given to all the members, constitute a quorum; and, in\nthe absence of a rule to the contrary, a majority of the votes cast\ncarries any question.(260) The presence of strangers, unless they vote,\nwill not vitiate the proceedings. If they should vote, unless their votes\ndetermine the election, it will not be void.(261) The casting of a few\nillegal votes that would not change the result of the election does not\nmake it void.(262)\n\n*147.* _Challenge, Ground._\u2014The right of a person to vote at any meeting\nmay be challenged. The proper time to challenge a voter is when he offers\nhis vote. After his vote has been received it can not be thrown out on the\nground that he was disqualified.(263) A church election for which due\nnotice has been given, that has been fairly conducted, and all the\nrequirements of the statute or rules of the church complied with, is\nconclusive.(264) Without due notice, all proceedings are void.(265)\n\n*148.* _By-Laws, Usage._\u2014If there is no law of a religious society\ndetermining the mode of conducting an election, the corporation may\nprovide by-laws therefor; and if the corporation should fail to make such\nby-laws, a long established usage will govern.(266) Also, if the time an\nelection is to be held is provided for, but the manner of conducting it is\nnot, the meeting may be conducted according to established usage.(267)\n\n*149.* _Ballot, Hand Vote._\u2014The vote of a religious society at an annual\nmeeting for the election of officers that the officers shall always be\nchosen by ballot, does not vitiate an election of officers by hand vote at\na subsequent annual meeting. But a provision in the constitution or\nby-laws requiring a ballot must be complied with.(268)\n\n*150.* _Hold Over, Successors._\u2014When the election of the new trustees is\ninvalid, the old trustees hold over until there will have been a valid\nelection of their successors.(269) But where a board that was illegally\nelected employed a minister who had no notice of such illegality, he was\nentitled to his compensation according to the contract.(270)\n\n*151.* _Majority, Votes Cast._\u2014Where the majority of a congregation\nprotested against the proposed candidate, but failed to vote for any one,\nsuch candidate who received the greatest number of votes cast, was\nlawfully elected.(271)\n\n*152.* _By-Law, Tickets._\u2014When a by-law provides that \u201cif besides the\nnames there are other things upon the tickets, such tickets are not to be\ncounted,\u201d a ballot having an engraved eagle on it should be rejected.(272)\nHowever, in a very recent case under a statute that specifically provided\nwhat should be printed on the general election ballot, and in addition\nthereto the Union Labor label was printed thereon, the court held that the\nstatute should be strictly construed in favor of the voter and that the\nticket should be counted.(273)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII. OFFICERS\n\n\n*153.* _Charter, By-Laws._\u2014The articles of organization or the charter\nwhich is the constitution of the corporation may provide who may be\nofficers of a religious society and limit their authority. The\nconstitution usually gives further authority to make by-laws which are\nbinding on the officers as well as on the members.(274)\n\n*154.* _Unincorporated Church, Incorporated._\u2014The officers of an\nunincorporated church can only be elected by the members of the church,\nunless there is some law of the State or rule of the church that provides\nfor appointing them. In an incorporated congregation, the charter and\nby-laws of the corporation determine whether the officers shall be elected\nor appointed.(275)\n\n*155.* _Trustees, Control._\u2014A statute passed in 1813 providing that a\ncertificate of incorporation by the bishop, vicar-general, pastor of the\nchurch, and two others selected by them and their successors shall be a\nbody corporate, does not constitute the trustees the corporation in place\nof the congregation so as to make the acts of a majority of the trustees\nbinding on the corporation in the absence of proof of other\nauthority.(276) Under the statutes of Louisiana providing for the\nincorporation of congregations for the purpose of administration and\nrevenues, it was held that the corporation had full control and was\nresponsible to the congregation alone and could not be controled by the\nclergy. The congregation had the right to elect others in the places of\nthose amoved by reason of their misuse or abuse of their powers.(277) And\nin Massachusetts, under the law for incorporating Catholic parishes, no\none but the trustees have any power.(278)\n\n*156.* _Membership, Office._\u2014Where church membership is necessary to hold\noffice in the church corporation, it is a binding condition\nprecedent.(279) An officer who withdraws or is expelled from a religious\norganization thereby terminates his office.(280)\n\n*157.* _Certificate of Election._\u2014A certificate of election of officers is\nprima facie evidence thereof, but the truth may be shown _aliunde_ and a\nwrong certificate may be cancelled by a judgment of a competent court on a\nwrit of _quo warranto_ or proceeding under a statute of the State. Also,\nif the certificate does not conform to the law, it is insufficient.(281)\n\n*158.* _Term, Successors, Contest._\u2014Where there is no term of office\nfixed, the presumption is that an officer continues as such until proof to\nthe contrary is established,(282) or until his successor shall have been\nelected and shall have qualified.(283) Also, the officers elected for a\ncertain term can not be amoved by electing new officers before the end of\nthe term.(284) When officers or committees have been elected \u201cfor the\nensuing year,\u201d they shall hold office until superseded by their duly\nelected successors. Where two sets of officers were elected at a meeting\nof a religious corporation and the set that was elected according to the\ncharter continued in office by appointment thereafter, it was too late for\nthe irregularly elected officers to make a contest for the offices after\nthe term for which they had been elected had expired.(285)\n\n*159.* _By-Laws, Preside._\u2014At an election of trustees under by-laws that\nprovide that certain officers shall preside, if there are no such officers\nmembers may be selected to preside in their places.(286)\n\n*160.* _Note, Overdraft, Interest._\u2014The president and secretary of a\nchurch corporation have no authority to make a promissory note unless\nauthorized by the board of trustees.(287) Neither has the treasurer\nauthority to make an overdraft on a bank with the action of the\ntrustees.(288) The trustees of a parish, however, may make a note binding\nthe congregation for the payment of the money used in building a\nchurch.(289) But when the trustees have an interest in the transaction,\nadverse to the congregation, they are disqualified from acting.(290) When\ntrustees had claims against the congregation which they included with\nother claims that third parties had against the church, they could not put\nthem in a judgment note so as to get a lien upon the church property. When\nofficers do not bind the congregation, they usually bind themselves.(291)\nThe trustees of an unincorporated church can not bind it beyond the\nexpressed powers granted by the members.(292)\n\n*161.* _Board, Control._\u2014When the laws of the organization give control of\nmatters to the board of trustees, the majority of the members of the\nchurch can not control the action of the trustees contrary to the usages\nand regulations of the church.(293)\n\n*162.* _Treasurer, Accepting a Draft._\u2014A parish treasurer has no authority\nunder any condition to bind the corporation by accepting a draft in favor\nof a third person. A treasurer elected for the purpose of receiving and\ninvesting funds in his individual name, holds such funds as trustee for\nthe church and is subject as such trustee to a court of equity. Persons\nclaiming to be trustees of a church but never getting possession of their\noffices or the property of the church, can not maintain an action against\nother persons who are in possession and have been duly elected.(294)\n\n*163.* _Note, Trustees._\u2014A church will not be bound by a note which was\nexecuted by two of its trustees and sent around to other trustees to sign\nit, where there was no vote of the board of trustees at an authorized\nmeeting to borrow or to execute such note.(295) A meeting of a board must\nbe called as required by law or the by-laws of the organization, and in\nthe absence of any such all members must be notified a reasonable time\nbefore the time fixed for holding the meeting. However, if all the\ntrustees are present and agree to hold a meeting it is valid; but it would\nbe well to put such consent in writing and have all the members sign\nit.(296)\n\n*164.* _Money, Powers._\u2014The treasurer of a congregation has no right to\nreturn to members moving out of the parish a part of the money paid for\nthe church by them.(297) Officers of a corporation have no powers only\nthose conferred upon them by the charter and by-laws of the corporation or\nby a majority vote of a duly called meeting of the congregation.(298) When\nthe trustees of a church are authorized to execute contracts for the\nchurch, they should act as a body or delegate the power to one of their\nnumber or ratify the acts of one of their number.(299) The individual\ndisjointed action of trustees of a religious society, at various times and\nplaces, although assented to by a majority, is not the action of the\nboard, and is not binding on the society. To make the action of the board\nof trustees binding, they must duly meet and by a vote determine their\naction.(300)\n\n*165.* _De Facto Officers._\u2014The acts of _de facto_ officers can not\nusually be questioned in a collateral proceeding, such as to set aside a\nconveyance, when the merits of the question do not involve the\nelection.(301) Being elected does not alone make a person a _de facto_\nofficer; but he must also be acting in the particular office to which he\nclaims to have been elected.(302) But one who has entered into a contract\nwith the officers of a congregation is estopped from denying their\nauthority to make such contract.(303)\n\n*166.* _Trustees, Thanks, Charge._\u2014Where trustees have taken care of funds\nwithout charge, the only entry kept being a vote of thanks from time to\ntime, they could not afterward charge a commission on the moneys handled\nby them for such services.(304)\n\n*167.* _Discretion, Excommunication._\u2014A court has no authority to control\nthe exercise of the judgment or discretion of the officers of a church in\nthe management of its funds so long as they do not violate its\nconstitution or by-laws.(305) Excommunication does not always remove an\nofficer of a church corporation.(306) The legal rights of a bishop in\nregard to the temporalities of a church where they are not prescribed by\ncivil law, must rest, if at all, upon the ecclesiastical law, which must\nbe determined by evidence.(307)\n\n*168.* _Key, Possession, Right._\u2014Having the key of a church, is prima\nfacie evidence of possession, but the right of possession is a matter of\nproof.(308)\n\n*169.* _Church, Bishop, Debts, Salary of a Priest._\u2014Where a church is not\nitself liable because it is not incorporated, the Roman Catholic bishop of\nthe diocese is not personally liable for moneys borrowed by the pastors of\nsuch church in the name of the church, which were partly invested in real\nestate which was put in the bishop\u2019s name in the usual manner, although\nthe bishop\u2019s permission was necessary before borrowing the money, and\nnotwithstanding that the bishop raised some of the money to pay some of\nthe debts and the mortgage on the real estate of the church on his\npersonal security, and he received part of the borrowed funds from a dying\npastor and handed it over to his successor.(309) Also, a bishop is not\npersonally liable for the salary of a priest whom he engages. They are\nfellow servants working for the Church and not in the relation of employer\nand employee any more than are a general and captain in the same\narmy.(310)\n\n*170.* _Note, Building Committee._\u2014In an action on a note given by the\npastor of a church for money borrowed to pay bills for the erection of the\nchurch building, in which the plaintiff sought to charge the building\ncommittee, and it appeared from the plaintiff\u2019s testimony that the title\nto the property was in the bishop and the committee did not handle any of\nthe funds, but was a shifting body to whom the pastor only went for advice\nand consultation, it was held that the plaintiff could not recover.(311)\n\n*171.* _Fraud, Trust._\u2014Where a \u201cprophet\u201d induced members of his\norganization, by his fraud and deceit, to convey to him all their property\nin discharge of a religious duty and then refused to account to them, the\ncourt declared the trust closed and divided the estate among the members\nin proportion to the money, property, and labor contributed by each of\nthem.(312)\n\n*172.* _Superioress, Money._\u2014A person who contributed money for the\npurpose of repairing a convent, the money being turned over to the\nsuperioress and the convent not being incorporated, upon the project being\nabandoned subsequently a personal judgment could not be obtained against\nthe superioress for the money contributed.(313)\n\n*173.* _Loan, Priest._\u2014If a man lends money to a priest for the purpose of\npaying a note against the congregation left at the bank for collection, he\ncan recover the money so paid from the congregation.(314)\n\n*174.* _Warden, Wages, Sexton._\u2014A church warden who was hired by the\ntrustees of a church can not collect his wages by an action against the\npriest of the parish.(315) A church accepting the services of a sexton is\nliable to him therefor, whether the by-laws were observed in employing him\nor not; nor will the fact that any party (as in this case the Ladies of\nthe Altar Society) agreed to contribute to his annual salary, defeat his\nrecovery of the whole from the church employing him.(316)\n\n*175.* _Sewing Circle, Money._\u2014A church may maintain an action against a\nsewing circle to require it to pay over money collected for the benefit of\nthe church.(317)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV. MEETINGS\n\n\n*176.* _Business, Notice, Meeting._\u2014Where, in the transaction of the local\nbusiness of a religious society, whether incorporated or not, meetings of\nthe members shall become necessary, in order to make such meetings legal\ndue notice thereof should be given to every member. The notice should\nspecify the exact time and place where the meeting will be held, and no\nchange can be made except at such time and place. Unless some other place\nis specified, the parish church is the proper place for holding meetings.\nIf the church should be locked and the key can not be found, a meeting\nshould be held at the door or at the nearest practical place to the church\nwhere all the members may assemble, and then by a majority vote they may\nadjourn to any convenient near place accessible to all the members.(318)\n\n*177.* _Acts, Void, Lawful, Clerk._\u2014The acts of a majority of the members\nof a corporation, unless done according to law and in conformity with the\ncharter and by-laws of the corporation, are absolutely null and void.(319)\nThe only lawful manner by which a congregation can express itself, is by a\nmeeting regularly called and held upon due notice.(320) The notice of a\nmeeting should be authorized by the trustees or other authority of the\nchurch, and given to all the members. The clerk of the board of trustees,\nunless authorized to do so, has no authority to sign the name of the\nmembers of the board to a notice, and a meeting called in that way is\nillegal.(321)\n\n*178.* _Special Meeting, Notice._\u2014When a meeting is special, the notice\nmust state for what purpose the meeting is called. If it fails to do so it\nis void, and unless all the members are present and consent to the holding\nof the meeting, all business transacted is illegal and void.(322) Notice\nof a special meeting that states one specific purpose for which it is\ncalled, and then states \u201cto transact any other business that may legally\ncome before the meeting,\u201d is not good for any purpose except the one\nspecified.(323)\n\n*179.* _Meeting, Consent._\u2014A valid meeting can not be held by a\ncorporation, unless notice has been given in conformity with the laws and\nrules and regulations of the corporation or the consent of every person\nwho is entitled to be present at the holding of such meeting. In the\nlatter case the consent should be in writing and signed by all the\nmembers.(324) However, a person who attends a meeting and takes part in it\nwithout objection, is estopped from raising the question of notice.(325)\n\n*180.* _Notice, Principal Service, Custom._\u2014When a rule of a church\nrequired notice of a meeting to be given at the principal service, a\nnotice given at an earlier service only, was void.(326) But where the\nordinances of a church specified that the election of officers should be\nat least six days before the end of their term, and it became the custom\nof the church to hold the election on a movable holiday which sometimes\nwas less than six days, the election was held valid.(327)\n\n*181.* _Adjournment._\u2014Where a meeting was noticed for one day and held on\na different day without notice of adjournment, all acts done were void and\nthe officers elected were neither _de jure_ nor _de facto_ officers.(328)\n\n*182.* _Proof of the Notice._\u2014The proper proof of the notice would be the\nreturn of the officer serving the notice, in some States; and in others an\naffidavit of the person who served the notice. The proof of the services\nof a summons would be sufficient unless there is some other law or rule to\nthe contrary.(329)\n\n*183.* _Presiding Officer._\u2014When the laws of the organization provide who\nshall preside at a meeting, but the minister contrary to such laws and\nagainst objections presided over the majority of the congregation, and the\nminority was presided over by the proper person, and both elected\nofficers, the officers elected by the minority were the lawful ones.(330)\nHowever, where a meeting is presided over without objection by a member\ninstead of the proper officer, the acts of the body are lawful.(331)\n\n*184.* _Voters, Rules._\u2014Unless the laws of the State otherwise provide,\nevery religious organization has the right to determine who shall vote at\nits meetings and elections. If those provisions are reasonable, they are\nlawful. Under such provisions it has been repeatedly held that where there\nare rules requiring annual subscriptions to the church,(332) only those\nwho rented and paid for pews, or those who paid a certain annual tax, or\nthose who went to communion, were entitled to vote.(333) And where there\nwas no rule, it was held that one who has not contributed to the\nchurch(334) and persons who attended church only occasionally and\ncontributed only when they attended, were not qualified voters.(335) In\nthe last case it was stated that a qualified voter is one who has attended\nregularly during the year and has contributed to the support of the\nchurch.\n\n*185.* _Quorum, Majority._\u2014A quorum of a congregation usually consists of\nthose present at a duly called regular meeting, and a majority of those\npresent is sufficient to carry questions, unless by rule or law otherwise\nprovided.(336) But where there is a definite body in a corporation which\nhas established no other rule, a majority of the members of the\ncorporation constitute a quorum.(337) Where the minutes of the clerk\nstated that upon due notice the members of the corporation met, a quorum\nis presumed.(338)\n\n*186.* _Votes, Challenge, Inspectors, Casting Vote._\u2014The reception of\nillegal votes does not invalidate an election unless they change the\nresult.(339) If the presiding officer refuses to allow a qualified voter\nto vote, the right may be enforced through civil courts.(340) When votes\nhave been received without challenge, it is then too late to raise the\nobjection that the persons have no right to vote.(341) It is the duty of\nthe inspectors to determine the qualifications of an elector at the time\nthat he offers to vote, and before he votes; and if they decide in the\nexercise of their judgment, without malice or improper motives, the\nregularity of the election can not be questioned.(342) When a rule allows\nthe presiding officer to vote and another rule states that he shall have\nthe casting vote in case of a tie vote, he still had the right to cast the\ndecisive vote.(343) Illegal voting in a religious society probably is not\nan indictable offense, but it is a disorderly act.(344)\n\n*187.* _Written Notice, Prayer Meeting._\u2014Where a five days\u2019 written notice\nis required to hold church meetings, an oral notice given on Sunday\nevening at the prayer meeting is not sufficient for a meeting on the\nfollowing Wednesday. But a vote taken on Sunday to hire the minister and\nfix his salary, is not void.(345) Churches and benefit societies, such as\ninsurance fraternities, being charitable organizations, may do business\nconcerning such association on Sunday.(346)\n\n*188.* _Expulsion, Damages._\u2014A man who has been wrongfully expelled from a\ntemperance society for religious reasons may recover damages\ntherefor.(347)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV. CHURCH RECORDS\n\n\n*189.* _Evidence, Entries, Minutes._\u2014The record of the proceedings of a\nreligious society is evidence as to its doings, both in its own tribunals\nand the courts of the State. Such record consists of entries required to\nbe made by the laws or rules of the society, the laws of the State, and\nthe minutes adopted by the society. Therefore, it is of the greatest\nimportance that it be kept with great exactness, omitting nothing that is\nimportant.(348) Also, the minutes of all the meetings should be correct\nbefore being duly adopted. All erasures and interlineations should be\ncertified by the clerk and then signed by him.\n\n*190.* _Uniformity._\u2014Every entry required to be kept by the laws of the\nState as well as the rules of the Church, should be kept as to births,\nmarriages, and death. Every diocese should have uniform record books in\nall parishes and every pastor should keep blanks printed in the form of a\npage of the record book, to issue certificates when required.\n\n*191.* _Marriage, Death, Baptism, Birth, Church Records._\u2014The church\nrecords duly kept in accordance with the discipline of the church, are\nadmissible in evidence to prove marriage, death, and baptism. Where the\nrecord is incomplete, as giving the date of baptism only, it is not\nadmissible in proof of date of birth. But if it gives the date of birth,\nit is _prima facie_ proof thereof.(349)\n\n*192.* _Certified Copies._\u2014Under statutes, certified copies of the record\nmade by the custodian thereof are admissible in evidence in any case where\nthe original would be admissible. Also, one who had compared a copy with\nthe original record may testify to the same. The rule, as given,\nsubstantially prevails under statutes in the following States: Alabama,\nGeorgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,\nMinnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin;\nand also, in Ontario, Manitoba, and the Dominion of Canada.\n\n*193.* _Rule of Admissibility._\u2014A certified copy of the record of a\nbaptism taken from a church register by the parish priest, when admissible\nat the place where such record is kept, as in Ireland, is admissible to\nprove the same fact in the State of Missouri.(350)\n\n*194.* _Proper Record._\u2014A book kept by a minister, which contained a\nregular statement in proper form of the admission of members, choice of\nofficers, and transaction of business of the church, which was the only\nbook kept by the parish, is the proper record of the church.(351)\n\n*195.* _Name, Record._\u2014The author would like to emphasize the importance\nof correct records. Frequently we find no Christian name given in the\nrecords of birth, which practically makes the record worthless. When a\nchild is born it is entitled to a name, immediately, which should be given\nand be correct. At least the first Christian name should be correct; a\nmistake in a middle name is not material. This is true of deeds and\nrecords of all kinds, but practically of births, deaths, and\nmarriages.(352)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI. CHURCH TRIBUNALS\n\n\n*196.* _Jurisdiction, Privileges._\u2014It is usual for every fraternity to\nhave a tribunal of its own for the trial of members who break its laws or\nviolate its discipline. Within their jurisdiction, the laws of the State\ngive such tribunals great privileges and courts show them great respect.\nThe Freemasons, the Knights of Columbus, etc., and most of the churches,\nhave such courts.(353)\n\n*197.* _Trial, Property, Priest._\u2014In most of the States a court will not\ninterfere with the fair trial of a church tribunal. Neither will the court\nentertain a controversy concerning the title or right of possession of\nreal or personal property excepting at the instance of some person\nclaiming a right thereto derived from or recognized by the law of the\nState or of the United States.(354) But when the bishop has deprived a\nsubordinate priest of his authority to officiate as such, he may enjoin\nthe priest from making use of the church property.(355)\n\n*198.* _Doubt, Legal Rights._\u2014The foregoing rule has some doubt cast on it\nin Delaware and Massachusetts. The investigation of a dispute between\nmembers of a church by a committee according to church regulations,\nconsented to by the parties, in which both take part, can have no effect\non their legal rights. If the State law provides for cases of the kind, it\nis superior and must be submitted to. Also, an award or proceeding of a\ncommittee is not evidence for or against either party. However, any\nstatement made, or admissions of the parties, if not of a recognized\nconfidential nature, may be given in evidence on the trial in a court of\nthe State.(356) The judgment of a mutual ecclesiastical council legally\nconvoked will not bind either party rejecting it.(357)\n\n*199.* _Bishop, Priest, Redress._\u2014When a bishop removes a priest in the\nregular way according to the rules and discipline of his church, the\npriest has no redress.(358) Also, when a priest has submitted his case to\nthe church tribunal according to the discipline of his church, he must\nabide by its decision, excepting where his civil rights or property rights\nas a citizen are involved, when he may appeal to the laws of the\nland.(359)\n\n*200.* _Trial, Counsel._\u2014The question whether a minister on trial in a\nchurch tribunal is entitled to be heard by counsel or attorneys depends\nupon the laws of the church, and it can not be said as a matter of law\nthat he is entitled to counsel.(360)\n\n*201.* _Removal, Suspension, Trial._\u2014In the United States under the laws\nand discipline of the Catholic Church a priest may be removed from the\ncharge of a congregation at the pleasure of the bishop, without trial; but\nhe can not be suspended from his priestly functions without specific\naccusation and trial.(361)\n\n*202.* _Charges, Fair Trial, Hearsay Evidence._\u2014When a clergyman or\nofficer is to be removed or a member of the congregation is to be\nexcommunicated, it is necessary to fully state the charges against him and\ngive him an opportunity for a fair trial according to the laws and rules\nof the religious society before rendering final judgment. All the\nallegations of the complaint should be made upon positive knowledge of the\ncomplainant or upon evidence that is admissible to prove the case in\ncourt. Rumor or gossip, known as mere hearsay evidence, is not sufficient\nto base a charge against the character of any one.(362)\n\n*203.* _Trial, Testimony, Slander._\u2014A church judgment, where there has\nbeen a full and fair trial or when members submit to the church tribunal,\nand the judgment has only been rebuke, censure, suspension, or\nexcommunication, is usually upheld by the courts; and when the testimony\ngiven on such trial is concerning immoral or scandalous conduct or crime,\nif those taking part act in good faith and within the scope of the\nauthority of the church, they are protected by law and not liable to an\naction for damages for libel or slander.(363)\n\n*204.* _Remedies, Secular Courts._\u2014In cases involving church doctrine and\ndiscipline only, all remedies within the church must be exhausted by a\nmember before the secular courts will interfere, if they will interfere at\nall.(364)\n\n*205.* _Notice, Waiver._\u2014When the laws of the church provide the tribunal\nand procedure, if the person proceeded against avoids the service of the\nnotice or refuses to submit to the court, the notice of trial required to\nbe served might thereby be considered waived and the tribunal might\nproceed with the trial in the absence of the accused.(365)\n\n*206.* _Appeal, Decision, Limitation._\u2014The right to appeal from one court\nto another of higher jurisdiction is generally recognized.(366) If after\ntrial in the lower tribunal of the Church, an appeal is taken, the\ndecision on the appeal is binding upon the parties and also upon the\ninferior tribunal.(367) In the Anglican and some other churches, there is\nno limitation as to time when offenses against the discipline of the\nchurch may be inquired into.(368)\n\nThe Catholic Church has a limitation as to prescriptive rights, to-wit:\n\u201cThree years in case of movable property; ten years in case of a right, or\nof immovable property, _inter praesentes_; twenty years in the same case,\n_inter absentes_.\u201d(369) Also, there are limitations in canonical cases,\nvarying from one to twenty years.(370) There is no statute of limitation\non lawful debts.\n\n*207.* _Procedure, Judge, Juror, Witness._\u2014If there are no rules of\nprocedure prescribed by the church tribunal, the proper practice is to\nfollow the State courts; as, for example, where the State law forbids an\nofficer of the court who has an interest in the proceeding to sit as judge\nor juror, the same would apply to the church tribunal, it being the common\nlaw of the land. Also, in States where a person who is interested in a\nmatter is not a competent witness, in the absence of a different rule in\nthe church, the same rule would apply in the church tribunal.(371)\n\n*208.* _Catholic Discipline._\u2014A church member has no right to sue any one\nin holy orders in the civil court without leave. That is, a layman or\npriest should obtain leave of the bishop to sue a priest. In some\ncountries it is ground for excommunication to violate the rule. This rule\nis analogous to the general rule that a sovereign state can not be sued\nwithout its consent.(372) In this country, where there is no\necclesiastical court recognized in law, leave is rarely asked.(373)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII. STATE COURTS\n\n\n*209.* _Decision, Ecclesiastical Matter._\u2014The decision of the highest\ntribunal of the church on a purely ecclesiastical matter will not be\ndisturbed by civil courts unless it is in open defiance and express\nviolation of the constitution of such body.(374)\n\n*210.* _Right of Property, Civil Rights._\u2014Where there are several church\ntribunals one above another, when the highest tribunal having jurisdiction\nof the case has decided a question as to the right of property, a civil\ncourt will accept such decision of the church tribunal as conclusive.(375)\nThe courts give way to the usages and regulations of the church so far as\nthey are not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the\nState.(376) As far as civil rights are concerned, the statute of\nlimitations may be pleaded even where those rights are founded upon some\nlaw or rule of the denomination.(377)\n\n*211.* _Creed, Factions, Property, Management._\u2014The supreme court\nexercises no ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but accepts what the highest\necclesiastical authority in each church promulgates as the faith and\npractice of that church, and will not determine for itself what that faith\nor creed is in order to establish the rights of respective factions in the\nchurch to the church property. But a majority of a congregation that\nsecedes from the church and forms a new organization can not claim any of\nthe property.(378) The civil courts will not interfere with church\nmanagement so far as concerns the spiritual discipline of the members, but\nwhere civil rights of property are involved, the courts may determine\nthem.(379) The civil rights of a religious society or its members are\nwithin the jurisdiction of the State courts.(380)\n\n*212.* _Trust, Court of Equity._\u2014A conveyance in trust for the use of a\nchurch vests the use in the church and it will be protected by a court of\nequity.(381)\n\n*213.* _Injunction, Closing Church, Paying Money, Disturbances._\u2014A court\nof equity will issue an injunction against the trustees of a church from\nwrongfully closing it or keeping it closed even against a small\nminority.(382) Church property vested in trustees of a religious body is\nheld under trust and a court of equity has jurisdiction to enforce the\ntrust.(383) A court of equity may restrain the trustees of a church from\npaying money to a duly deposed minister.(384) But a court of equity will\nnot interfere to quell religious disturbances when no question as to\nproperty or civil rights is involved. The board of trustees of a church\ncan not remove a priest against the will of the congregation.(385)\n\n*214.* _Suits, Parties._\u2014Where a number of persons have contributed to the\nerection of a church, it is not necessary for all who contribute to join\nin an action to restrain a sale of the property for mercantile\npurposes.(386) Any member of a church not incorporated may come into a\ncourt of equity in behalf of himself and others and enforce the execution\nof a trust in favor of the church.(387) The same rule would apply to a\nchurch where any one in authority is violating the law.(388) If several\ncongregations of a diocese are interested in litigation, to hold all the\nproperty of the diocese liable for the debt of a parish, each congregation\nis entitled to be made a party.(389)\n\n*215.* _Complaint._\u2014A complaint that the plaintiffs hold one doctrinal\nstandard and the defendants another is sufficiently definite without\nexplaining the difference between the two.(390)\n\n*216.* _Church Tribunal, Courts._\u2014Courts are reluctant to interfere in the\nchurch doctrine or discipline or inquire into the regularity of the\nproceedings of the church tribunal. When such tribunal has deposed a\npastor or expelled a member, it is final. However, in contracts, property\nrights, and civil rights of a citizen, the courts take jurisdiction. It is\nno defense to a pastor\u2019s expulsion that there is salary due him.(391)\n\n*217.* _Unincorporated Congregation, Actions, Interest._\u2014An unincorporated\ncongregation may be sued on contract in its associate capacity, though no\npersons are named as trustees or committeeman.(392) In all actions by or\nagainst a congregation the civil courts will not permit suits to be\nbrought by complainants who have no interest either legal or equitable in\nthe temporalities of the church.(393) A suit against a society of Shakers\nconsisting of indefinite membership with changing additions, withdrawals,\nand deaths, whose property is held in common without any individual\ninterest, may properly be brought in equity as the remedy at law would be\ninadequate.(394)\n\n*218.* _Blasphemy, Sabbath, Lord\u2019s Prayer, Bible._\u2014Christianity is a part\nof the common law of the United States; it is on this ground that\nblasphemy and violation of the Sabbath are made criminal offenses and that\nthe Lord\u2019s Prayer and the Bible are used in the schools.(395)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII. EVIDENCE\n\n\n*219.* _Judicial Notice._\u2014A church takes judicial notice without proof of\nits own rules, laws, and doctrines. Every other fact should be proved\naccording to the rules of evidence of the church, and in the absence of a\nchurch rule the following rules of the courts of this country should\nprevail:\n\n1. Nothing should be admitted in evidence unless it directly proves or\ndisproves an evidentiary fact forming a link of a chain of facts that will\nprove a fact in issue.\n\n2. It is sufficient to prove the substance of the issue, unless the exact\nword or thing forms the issue.\n\n3. The burden of proof is on the one who asserts the fact, whether it is\nstated affirmatively or negatively, and its proof is necessary to his\nmaking a case.\n\n4. The best evidence that the case in its nature affords must be produced.\n\n5. Mere hearsay evidence shall not be allowed, excepting:\n\n(a) Matters of public or general interest.\n\n(b) Declaration against interest.\n\n(c) Dying declarations.\n\n(d) The testimony of witnesses since dead or absent.\n\n(e) Admissions.\n\n(f) Confessions.\n\n*220.* _Competent Witness._\u2014Everybody who has the use of reason and\nunderstands the import of an oath is a competent witness.\n\n*221.* _Confessions, Secret Societies._\u2014At common law, confessions were\nadmissible; but there is no case in the United States since 1813 where the\ncourt has sent a priest to jail for contempt for refusing to disclose a\nconfession, and no case in which a priest disclosed a confession.\nImmediately after a priest was committed for contempt for refusing to\ndivulge the secrets of the confessional, in 1813, New York enacted the\nfollowing law: \u201cNo minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination\nwhatsoever, shall be allowed to disclose any confession made to him in his\nprofessional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules\nor practice of such denomination.\u201d A similar law has been adopted in the\nfollowing States and Territories: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado,\nIdaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North\nDakota, Ohio, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,\nWisconsin, Wyoming, and Hawaii. The secrets of a secret society are not\nprivileged, and a member as a witness must answer all relevant questions\nin court.(396)\n\n*222.* _Privilege, Answer._\u2014When a question concerning a matter privileged\nis put, the priest should say: \u201cI claim my privilege as a clergyman and\nask the court not to require me to answer\u201d; \u201cWhatever he said concerning\nthe matter, was said to me in the confessional as a priest\u201d; \u201cI talked\nwith him about the matter only in my professional capacity as a priest and\nconfessor\u201d; \u201cI did not speak to him about the matter except in my\nconfidential capacity as priest;\u201d or a similar statement that sets up the\nclergyman\u2019s privilege without giving facts. A clergyman should not say:\n\u201cHe confessed it to me,\u201d or \u201cHe told it to me in confession,\u201d or give any\nother answer that implies what was said in confession, as jurors are\nalways watching for a hint of what was said. Neither should the priest\nsay, \u201cI refuse to answer,\u201d without stating that he refuses because of his\nprivilege as a clergyman. The trial judge or the attorneys trying the case\nmay put proper questions to determine whether the information was given\nthe witness in the confessional or in his capacity as confessor.(397)\n\n*223.* _Admissions, False Statements._\u2014Admissions or statements made to a\nclergyman not in his capacity of confidential adviser or in the course of\ndiscipline, are not privileged.(398) Neither are false statements made to\na committee investigating charges; but all statements made to such a\ncommittee or an officer of the church, unless false and made with malice,\nare privileged.(399)\n\n*224.* _Anonymous Letter, Clergyman._\u2014Where a priest received an anonymous\nletter alleged to have been written by a defendant, which he read to her,\nhe was not disqualified from testifying that she was excited and that she\nstated she had no idea how the fire started, and that the letter was\nunknown to her, etc.(400) The mere fact that a communication is made to a\nclergyman does not make it privileged. It is privileged only when made in\nconfidence of the relation and under such circumstances as to imply that\nit should forever remain a secret in the breast of the confidential\nadviser.(401) When a matter is privileged, it is not left to the witness\nwhether or not he shall testify concerning it; but he can not testify\nwithout the consent of the other party.(402)\n\n*225.* _Voire Dire._\u2014Where a priest made a preliminary examination of a\nwoman to ascertain her mental capacity to make a confession, her answers\nin such preliminary examination were admissible in a contest on a will;\nbut her confession was not admissible.(403)\n\n*226.* _England, Confession._\u2014The rule is now accorded priests in England,\nbut was not formerly. Where a priest turned a watch over to its owner, the\ncourt ordered him, under pain of contempt, to tell where he got the\nwatch.(404) But in another case it was held that a priest need not divulge\nthe confession of a defendant who was held for crime.(405)\n\n*227.* _United States, Rules._\u2014In the United States courts, the rule\nprevails that such confidential communications to a priest shall not be\ndivulged.(406)\n\n*228.* _Presumptions, Usage._\u2014The usage of a church or the laws of its\norganization as a religious society, if they are to be considered in\ndeciding legal controversies, must be proved as facts.(407) In the absence\nof proof, it will be presumed that subordinate bodies, as congregations,\ncan not dissolve their connection with the principal organization without\npermission.(408)\n\n*229.* _Funeral Expenses._\u2014Witnesses\u2019 opinions as to the reasonable amount\nfor burial or as to the cost of a funeral being reasonable, are not\nbinding on a court or jury. The station of a man, the property that he\nleaves, the life that he has followed, all should be considered by the\ncourt. The whims and notions of societies and others are of minor\nconsideration. Those who make funeral expenses that are not allowed by the\ncourt must pay them.(409)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX. CONTRACTS\n\n\n*230.* _Business, Religious Service._\u2014A church organization has the legal\nright to make any contract concerning its own affairs that is not\nprohibited by its by-laws or its charter, subject to all laws of legal\ncontracts in the business world. When the consideration is a religious\nservice duly performed, there seems to be no objection to it. Therefore, a\nminister may collect for preaching a sermon, attending the sick, or saying\nprayers, or performing any other religious service. But an incorporated\nchurch has no authority to enter into a contract for an ulterior purpose,\nsuch as the employment of a vessel for the purpose of an excursion.(410)\n\n*231.* _Incorporated Body._\u2014The only way a religious society that is\nincorporated can make a contract is by a vote of the aggregate body or of\nthe board of trustees, or through an agent authorized by a vote of one\nbody or the other.(411)\n\n*232.* _Mortgage, Deficiency Judgment._\u2014Where a mortgage had been\nforeclosed against church property before the congregation was\nincorporated, a deficiency judgment can not be rendered against such\nchurch corporation.(412) But where a congregation was incorporated after a\ndebt had been incurred and took charge of the property, it assumed the\ndebt.(413)\n\n*233.* _Building Contracts._\u2014The taking part in a meeting by voting and\nappointing committees to make contracts will bind those taking part in all\ncontracts made in accordance with the directions of such meeting. In some\nStates the individuals are held only to the amount that each subscribes,\nbut in other States each individual is liable for the entire debt.(414)\n\n*234.* _Individual Promise, Subscriptions, Signature._\u2014An individual\npromise to give a donation to charity, can not be enforced.(415) But\nsubscriptions to build a church or other charitable institution or to pay\nthe salary of a clergyman when signed by more than one person, have been\nheld binding in some cases on the disputed rule of a-promise-for-a-promise\nconsideration.(416) In the foregoing cases the donor might revoke his\nsubscription or in case of his death his estate would not be liable.(417)\nHowever, when expenses have been made or steps taken in the carrying out\nof the object of the subscriptions, the general rule is that the\nsubscriptions become binding contracts.(418) If the object of the\nsubscriptions be abandoned or changed without the consent of the\nsubscriber, he is thereby released. A promissory note given for the\nsubscription, unless negotiated for value in due course of trade, does not\nchange the foregoing rules.(419) Where many persons subscribed to build a\nchurch and some of them failed to pay, one who paid brought an action on\nbehalf of himself and others and collected the unpaid subscriptions.(420)\nThe defendant Nalty signed \u201cNalty Family, $1,000,\u201d but he was held\npersonally liable.(421)\n\n*235.* _Special Purpose, Suit._\u2014When money is subscribed for a special\npurpose, as for rebuilding a church, it belongs to the church\norganization; and in a suit to recover the money the action should be\nbrought in the name of the corporation, if incorporated, and if not\nincorporated it should be brought in the name of the interested\nparty.(422)\n\n*236.* _Promise, Consideration._\u2014A promise made by the owner of land to a\ntrustee for the benefit of a religious society, that he would convey the\nland to such society if it would build a church thereon, is a good and\nlawful consideration; and after work was begun on the church, the contract\nwas enforceable in a court of equity.(423)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX. PEWS\n\n\n*237.* _Sold, Rented._\u2014Prior to the Reformation pews were not sold nor\nrented and every member had the right to sit wherever he pleased in the\nbody of the church. After the Reformation, the ordinary or bishop was\ngranted the right of \u201cfaculty\u201d to rent or sell pews.(424)\n\n*238.* _Incorporeal Hereditament._\u2014The English title in a pew is in the\nnature of a right of way through another\u2019s land; it is an incorporeal\nhereditament. In the absence of express law, the title to pews in this\ncountry is said to be in the nature of real estate, and in fact not very\ndifferent from the English title.(425) In some States the title is made\npersonal property by statute.(426) And in others the courts have inquired\ninto the law of the church and adjudged the title accordingly.(427) The\ngeneral rule is that the owner of a pew simply has an easement.(428)\n\n*239.* _Catholic Church, Pew Rights._\u2014In the Catholic Church, by the canon\nlaw, the ownership in or control over a pew is forbidden to laymen.\nNotwithstanding that, if the party holding the title violates the rule of\nthe church by giving a deed to the pew-holder, the courts would probably\nsustain his title.(429) However, as the clergy can neither rent nor sell\npews without becoming subject to the law of the land and the jurisdiction\nof our courts, it is important to know what the law of the State is.\n\n*240.* _Land, Use, Rent Pews._\u2014Where land was conveyed in trust to the\nbishop of a diocese and his successors for the erection of a church for\nthe use of a congregation, the right to rent pews vested under the deed\nand laws of the Catholic Church in the parish priest and not in the\ntrustees afterward elected, as the parish priest was the agent of the\nbishop.(430)\n\n*241.* _Trustees, Sale in Perpetuity._\u2014Without authority of law the\ntrustees of a church can not make an absolute sale in perpetuity of a pew\nwithout any reservation of rent.(431) The sale of a pew in a church will\nbe determined in a case according to the particular facts.(432)\n\n*242.* _Pew, Right to Occupy, Conditions._\u2014A grant of a church pew in\nperpetuity does not give the owner an absolute right of property as a\ngrant of land in fee; but gives only a right to sit therein, although he\nmay maintain an action in court for protection of his rights.(433) In\nVermont a pewholder has only the right to occupy his seat during religious\nservices and holds it subject to the superior right of the society owning\nthe pew.(434) A condition in the deed to a pew that a holder about to\nleave the congregation shall offer it to the society for a certain price,\nis not invalid.(435) Where a pewholder held his pew by a certain agreement\nand after the church had been remodeled he bought a different pew, the\nconditions attached to the first pew did not apply to the last.(436) Pews\nowned by the occupant pass to the heirs as real estate instead of going to\nthe executors as personal property in States where the title is in the\nnature of the title to real estate.(437)\n\n*243.* _Tax, Assessment._\u2014A tax assessed upon the pew of a religious\ncorporation in part for purposes not specifically named in a deed of the\npew, which alone gives the power to make such an assessment and which\nstrictly defines and limits such power, is invalid _in toto_.(438) The\nright to make an assessment on pews must be founded upon law, else it can\nnot be enforced.(439) When a congregation sells pews at auction rent free\nfor the purpose of building a church, it has no power thereafter to assess\nthe pews for the salary of the minister.(440)\n\n*244.* _Pewholders\u2019 Rights._\u2014A pewholder has the exclusive right to occupy\nhis pew when the house is used for the purpose for which it was erected;\nbut he can not convert his pew to other purposes not contemplated.(441) If\nhe has paid his pew-rent according to agreement, he is entitled to use his\npew on all occasions when the house is occupied, even when it is open for\npurposes different from those mentioned in the conveyance thereof; and he\nhas the right to exclude all others from his pew by fastening the door or\notherwise, and any one who enters his pew knowing the facts, is a\ntrespasser and liable to an action for damages.(442) The owner of a pew\nhas no right to put an offensive covering thereon nor use his pew in any\nway to the annoyance of the congregation or not in keeping with the place\nand conditions. By placing anything offensive about his pew, he may be\nliable for maintaining a nuisance, and such offensive thing may be\nremoved; but, as far as possible, it must be removed without damaging the\npewholder\u2019s property.(443)\n\n*245.* _Rebuilding, Remodeling._\u2014An injunction was granted on the bill of\npewholders, restraining the authorities of the church from pulling it\ndown, as they were going to use the materials in the erection of a new\nchurch on a different site. On the answer, the injunction was dissolved on\nthe ground that if the complainants had rights which would be violated,\nthere was a remedy at law and that the nature and extent of the injury\nwere not such as called for the interposition of a court of equity by\ninjunction.(444) Where a parish abandons an old church and builds a new\none it does not become liable to any pewholder for damages by reason\nthereof unless it has acted wantonly or intentionally to injure the\npewholder.(445) But when it becomes necessary for the purpose of repairing\nor remodeling a church, to destroy old pews, a pew built by a member under\ncontract with the church can not be removed or destroyed without\ncompensation.(446) Pew rights are subject to the right of the parish to\npull down and rebuild a church either as a matter of necessity or\nexpediency, but in the latter case the owner of a pew is entitled to\npayment.(447) A pewholder has only the right to occupy his pew during\npublic worship, and when the church has become so out of repair that it\ncan not be used for public worship, the owner of a pew can recover only\nnominal damages for injuries to his pew.(448)\n\n*246.* _Selling Pew on Execution._\u2014In an action to recover the value of a\npew sold at auction, the merits of the case will be tried according to the\nlaw of the land.(449) It is doubtful whether a pew in a church can be sold\nfor private debts of the pewholder.(450) It depends somewhat upon the\ntitle and State law of exemptions.(451) To render an attachment of a pew\nvalid, it is not necessary for the officer to come in sight of the pew or\neven to enter the church.(452)\n\n*247.* _Members, Pew._\u2014Members of the congregation may be required to pay\nfor a pew or sitting in the church, and where a priest ejected a member\nfrom the church because he would not rent a pew, he was sustained by the\ncourt.(453)\n\n*248.* _Free Church, Seats, Lease._\u2014The trustees of a free church may\nassign seats and forcibly remove one from a seat without authority.(454)\nWhere a pew is real estate, a pewholder may acquire the right to it by\nprescription in the usual way.(455) Where pews are not rented and the\nmembers support the church by voluntary subscriptions, they have equal\nright to the occupancy of the pews. But where the church builds the pews\nand rents them, a man paying rent for a pew holds it under lease in the\nnature of a lease to real estate. However, he does not obtain all the\nrights of a lessee of land, and in many cases a rule of the church governs\nthe holding of pews, which will be observed by the State courts.(456)\n\n*249.* _Executors, Pew-Rent._\u2014The executors of a pew owner are not bound\nto pay pew-rent accrued after the owner\u2019s death.\n\n*250.* _Voting, Pew-Rent, Arrears._\u2014Where a church is incorporated and by\nits charter or the laws of the State it has authority to make reasonable\nby-laws, a by-law which prohibits any person from voting whose pew-rent is\nin arrears for more than two years, is valid.(457)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI. PROPERTY\n\n\n*251.* _Unincorporated, Trustee._\u2014The question whether an unincorporated\nreligious society may take a gift or devise, is determined by the law of\ndomicile.(458) Generally an unincorporated religious association can not\nhold property in its assumed name, but it must be held by conveyance in\ntrust to a trustee named.(459)\n\n*252.* _Charter, By-Laws._\u2014When the charter or by-laws of a church\ncorporation provide that they may be altered, such changes may, after the\nexecution and delivery of a deed, immediately adhere to the title.(460)\n\n*253.* _Suits, Corporation, Members._\u2014Cases may occur in which the\ncorporation in its corporate capacity, or the society in its collective\ncapacity, may be a plaintiff or a defendant in a suit between it and one\nor more members of the religious society in their individual capacity or\nin their collective capacity, in a quasi-conspiracy or concerning other\ntorturous acts, or a collective contract.(461)\n\n*254.* _Deed, Court, Title._\u2014A deed made in pursuance of an order of a\ncourt having jurisdiction passes good title.(462)\n\n*255.* _Subscription, Lots._\u2014Any one may convey title to a church as his\npart of the subscription by merely marking it on a plat made by him, as\nlots donated to such church.(463)\n\n*256.* _Misnomer, Identity._\u2014The misnomer of a religious society or\ncorporation will not invalidate a mortgage where the identity of the\nsociety can be clearly shown.(464)\n\n*257.* _Adverse Possession, Color of Title._\u2014A religious corporation may\nobtain title to land by adverse possession. The length of such possession\nis determined by the laws of the State, the usual period being twenty\nyears.(465) Unless the laws of the State require it, color of title at the\ntime of asserting adverse possession need not be shown.(466)\n\n*258.* _Sale, Restrictions._\u2014In some States when not restricted by the\nlaws of the organization the parish corporation may sell the premises in\norder to pay the church debts. However, it is not a common law right.(467)\n\n*259.* _Deed._\u2014A deed to \u201cThe Evangelical Order of Christians\u201d was\nsufficiently definite for a valid conveyance.(468)\n\n*260.* _Error._\u2014A clerical error in the name of the grantee will not make\na deed void. However, when such error has been discovered, it should be\ncorrected.(469)\n\n*261.* _Mortgage, Bishop, Debts._\u2014The archbishop of a church to which\nproperty is bequeathed, can not mortgage it without authority from the\nchurch or under the law.(470) Also, the bishop of a diocese to whom land\nhad been conveyed in trust for a particular congregation, could not\nexecute a valid mortgage thereon to secure his own indebtedness.(471) But\na religious society in the absence of prohibitionary legislation, has\npower to mortgage its property to secure its debts.(472)\n\n*262.* _Deed, Trust, Fee._\u2014A deed of land to a Catholic bishop and his\nheirs and assigns forever in trust for a Catholic parish for the purpose\nof a free burial ground, gave the bishop an estate in fee.(473)\n\n*263.* _Debts, Creditors._\u2014A committee of a religious society authorized\nto sell lands to raise money to pay its general debts, is not authorized\nto execute a mortgage for the purpose of securing various creditors\nholding claims; and the defect in such mortgage is not cured by a vote at\na subsequent meeting to which the committee made a report of its\naction.(474)\n\n*264.* _Mortgage or Sale, Notice, Consent._\u2014Whenever there is to be a\nmortgage or sale of the church property, if it is to be done by the\ncorporation, it must be done strictly in accordance with the charter and\nlaws of the corporation, and if those do not provide therefor, every\nmember should receive a reasonable notice to attend a meeting of the\ncongregation and the question should be submitted to such meeting and a\nvote taken thereon. If all the proceedings are regular and the proper\nofficers (president and secretary) of the corporation be authorized to\nmake a conveyance, it is good in law.(475) However, if the irregular acts\nof officers or members of a congregation are subsequently ratified in a\nlawful manner, they become binding.(476) When consent of the court is\nrequired, it must be obtained.(477)\n\n*265.* _Title, Taxes, Judicial Notice._\u2014If the title is in the bishop in\nfee in accordance with church law it is not \u201cowned by any religious\nassociation\u201d and is liable for taxes. The laws of the Catholic Church are\nnot the subject of judicial notice, but must be alleged and proved as any\nother fact.(478)\n\n*266.* _Title, Diocese, Rule._\u2014Where the title to the property of the\ndiocese was in the bishop for the use of the church and subsequently the\ndiocese was incorporated, the bishop was not divested of title and it was\nstill necessary to have the property conveyed by deed.(479) In some other\nStates, however, the contrary rule prevails.(480)\n\n*267.* _Priest, Deed, Funds._\u2014Where it was claimed that a priest purchased\nlands and took the deed in his own name and paid therefor with funds\nbelonging to the congregation, the conveyance will not be decreed by the\ncourt only upon the clearest and most satisfactory evidence.(481)\n\n*268.* _Monks, Missions, Title._\u2014The fact that the monks or priests were\nat the head of the missions in California when it was acquired by the\nUnited States, does not prove that the Catholic Church had universal\nownership of the property.(482) The acts of Congress giving the city of\nSan Antonio authority to sell public lands, was intended, no doubt, to\ndispose of mission property, but it was held not to affect the Catholic\nChurch, the title to which had been confirmed by another act of\nCongress.(483)\n\n*269.* _Texan Revolution, Land._\u2014At the time of the Texan Revolution, a\nCatholic church held no real estate of perfect title, but enjoyed only the\nuse of the land that it possessed and continued so to occupy after the\nadmission of Texas into the Union.(484)\n\n*270.* _Priest, Agent, Deed._\u2014The priest in charge of a congregation is\nthe agent of the archbishop, and where the title to the real estate is\nconveyed by absolute deed to the bishop, the congregation, against the\nprotest of the priest and without obtaining leave from the bishop, has no\nright to tear down a church for the purpose of rebuilding or repairing\nit.(485) And a priest in charge of mission property may maintain in his\nname an action to recover its possession.(486)\n\n*271.* _Devise, Uncertainty._\u2014A devise of property \u201cto the Roman Catholic\nOrphans\u201d of a certain diocese, making the bishop of the diocese executor\nof the will and giving him power to sell the property and use the proceeds\nfor the benefit of the Roman Catholic orphans, is void for\nuncertainty.(487)\n\n*272.* _Donor, Ambiguous Provision._\u2014The religious convictions of the\ndonor may be shown for the purpose of construing an ambiguous provision of\na deed or will.(488)\n\n*273.* _Trust, Evidence._\u2014Without any trust being declared in writing,\nparol evidence can not be allowed to prove that the Catholic Church and\nparsonage is held in trust for the congregation by the bishop of the\ndiocese, notwithstanding that the moneys for purchasing the lands and\nputting up such buildings were collected by subscriptions and\ncontributions made to the priest in charge under the law, usage, and\npolity of the Roman Catholic Church.(489) At common law land may be\ngranted to pious uses before there is a grantee to take it. In the\nmeantime, the title is in abeyance.(490) Where the title to parsonage\nlands is in the minister as a sole corporation, on his death the title\nremains in abeyance until a successor is appointed.(491)\n\n*274.* _Money, Control._\u2014Money raised by a Catholic congregation for the\npurpose of building a church does not come under the absolute control of\nthe bishop or priest, although put into the hands of the latter for safe\nkeeping. It is subject to the control of the congregation, although the\nmembers of the congregation refused to obey the command of the bishop of\nthe diocese to consolidate with another church to which the priest was\nremoved.(492)\n\n*275.* _Church, Building, Removing._\u2014Where subscriptions were secured to\nbuild a church at a particular place as a memorial to a certain person, a\ncongregation may be enjoined from tearing down the building and removing\nit to another place.(493) But a court of equity will not prevent the\nremoval of a church where a majority of the congregation favors it,\nalthough a legal meeting had not been held to determine the matter.(494)\n\n*276.* _Church, Use, Division._\u2014A church guild that erected a building\nadjoining a church for parish purposes, with the assent of the\ncongregation, can not deny the authority of the church and use the\nbuilding for other purposes.(495) But if members are improperly excluded\nfrom the use of the church property they must appeal to the courts for\nredress and can not resort to acts of trespass to gain entrance into a\nchurch.(496) A court of equity will compel persons having charge of the\ntemporalities of a church, whether incorporated or not, to faithfully\nperform their trust and to prevent the diversion of the property from its\noriginal purposes. The court will not interfere in strictly religious\nmatters.(497)\n\n*277.* _Spanish Territory._\u2014When Alabama was a part of Spanish territory,\na deed of land \u201cto His Catholic Majesty for the purpose of building\nthereon a parochial church and dwelling-house for the officiating priest,\u201d\nthe money being paid out of the royal treasury, did not constitute the\nKing of Spain a trustee for the church or transfer to the church in equity\na title to the lots.(498)\n\n*278.* _Trust, Purposes, Doctrines._\u2014When a conveyance of a lot is made to\ncertain persons of a religious society and their successors in trust for\nreligious purposes, all the members become beneficiaries in equal degree\nnotwithstanding some of them may have contributed larger sums than\nothers.(499) Land conveyed to a church for valuable consideration belongs\nto the church, whatever change may take place in its religious doctrines;\nand if a minority secedes on the ground that they are the ones who retain\nthe original tenets of the church, they can not take with them either the\nwhole or pro rata share of the church property.(500)\n\n*279.* _Control, Revenues._\u2014The trustees of a corporation of a church or\nof a religious society have entire control over the revenues of such\nbody.(501)\n\n*280.* _Leave to Purchase, Title, Canons of the Church._\u2014A congregation\nwanted to buy a church and priest\u2019s house, but the archbishop refused\nleave to purchase, but granted permission to keep the premises for\nreligious purposes for a time. The members formed a society and bought and\ntook title in the name of the \u201cLithuanian Benefit Society of St. Anthony.\u201d\nThen the archbishop wrote them a letter requiring the deed of the premises\nto be put in his name, which the congregation refused to do. A part of the\ncongregation brought a suit in equity to enforce the transfer from the\nsociety to the archbishop. The court held that if the congregation was\nunder the church and acknowledged its authority, the title must be settled\nby the canons of the church; otherwise, the majority of the congregation,\nin a duly called meeting, should determine where the title should be\nvested.(502)\n\n*281.* _Cemetery, Authority._\u2014When a congregation that had title to a\ncemetery for many years entrusted the management and sale of the lots to\nthe priest, he had thereby authority to create servitudes, such as alleys\nto lots, which become binding on the congregation and all third\npersons.(503)\n\n*282.* _Real Estate, Purpose._\u2014A church has no power to acquire and hold\nreal estate for any purpose other than that of promoting the object of its\ncreation, and any contract entered into for a purchase of real estate as a\nmatter of speculation is _ultra vires_ and void.(504)\n\n*283.* _Limitation, Lands._\u2014A statute of the State prohibiting a religious\nsociety from holding more than twenty acres, applies to a single parish or\ncongregation and not to the entire denomination when it consists of more\nthan one congregation.(505)\n\n*284.* _Conditions, Bequest, Deed, Time._\u2014Where property has been devised\nfor a particular purpose or on certain conditions attached thereto, the\nlaw may be invoked to protect the fund according to the bequest.(506) And\nwhere a deed contained a clause that the lots should never be sold nor\nused in any other way except for the benefit of a specified Protestant\nChurch, although the deed contained no clause of forfeiture, when the\ncongregation sold the property the grantor was entitled to have the deed\nset aside and the title re-vested in himself.(507) And a grant made upon\ncondition that a church be erected thereon, prevents the grantee from\nconveying it for other purposes without the consent of the grantor or his\nheirs.(508) But where a devise was made on condition that a church be\nbuilt on the property within three years, the provision being a condition\nsubsequent, a court has the right to extend the time.(509)\n\n*285.* _Will, Forfeiture._\u2014The provision in a will or deed that land shall\nbe used for purposes of a certain church, may create a trust for the\nbenefit of the church only and not a condition the breach of which would\nwork a forfeiture.(510) When a condition is put in a deed that it shall be\nforever used as a burial ground for the interment of bodies, it is\ndoubtful whether the grantor and grantee together may change the uses of\nthe property. Therefore, it is important in taking deeds to cemeteries to\nhave no condition whatever, unless such conditions are desired.(511)\n\n*286.* _Condition, Quit-Claim._\u2014After conveying land upon a specified\ncondition, the grantor then gave a quit-claim deed, and the court held\nthat that relieved the grant from the condition.(512)\n\n*287.* _Bishop, Trust, Successors._\u2014A deed of land to the bishop of a\nchurch for a Protestant Episcopal church in fee simple, created a trust\nand on the death of such bishop the title passed to his successors.(513)\nWhere a grantee in a deed absolute on its face, is in fact archbishop of\nthe Roman Catholic Church for his diocese, its canons and decrees\nregulating the mode of acquiring and holding church property are competent\nevidence to show that the property is so held in trust for purposes for\npublic worship and other charitable uses. And property so held by a\nCatholic bishop in trust for the diocese, or in trust for a congregation,\nschool, cemetery, or asylum, for the separate use of each, is not\nchargeable with any part of the expenses of another one or for improving\nthe church property generally in the diocese.(514)\n\n*288.* _Trustees, Vacancy._\u2014When land is conveyed to certain persons as\ntrustees of a church and their successors lawfully appointed, a court of\nequity will not step in to fill a vacancy but will leave that to be filled\nby the church in accordance with its discipline.(515) But an attempt to\nsell real estate of a religious society against the provisions of its\ncharter, will be prevented by a court of equity.(516)\n\n*289.* _Church, Majority, Change._\u2014When property is conveyed to a church\nhaving a well-known doctrine, faith, and practice, a majority of the\nmembers has not the authority or power by reason of a change of religious\nviews to carry the property thus dedicated to a new and different\ndoctrine.(517)\n\n*290.* _Title, Harmony, Division._\u2014The title to church property in a\ndivided congregation is in that part of the congregation which acts in\nharmony with the law of the denomination; and the ecclesiastical laws and\nprinciples which were accepted among them before the dispute began, are\nthe standard for determining which party is right.(518) In other cases the\ndivision of church property, where there is a division of the\ncongregation, depends upon its particular facts.(519) Where $400 was\nbequeathed to a Lutheran congregation in S\u2014\u2014, there being at the time of\nthe making of the will but one Lutheran congregation in the place, but\nsubsequently a majority of the trustees and members with the pastor left\nthe church and built a new one, the old church continued vested with the\ntitle to the property and all its funds.(520)\n\n*291.* _Perversion, Misuse, Suit._\u2014Unless there is substantial departure\nfrom the purpose of the trust which amounts to a perversion of it, a court\nof equity will not interfere to prevent the misuse or abuse of a trust of\na religious nature. In actions in the State court, if the church is not\nincorporated, an action should be brought in the names of the members\ncollectively, and if they are too numerous to be all named, the suit may\nbe brought in the name of one or more of them for the whole. The same\nrules apply to religious societies when sued. However, in some dioceses,\nparticularly in the Catholic Church, the title to the church property is\nin the bishop and he thereby becomes an interested party who must be made\neither a plaintiff or a defendant.(521)\n\n*292.* _Rights, Contracts, Torts, Crimes._\u2014Vested property rights,\ncontracts, torts, and crimes, are usually subject to the laws of the State\nand the control and judgment of a church tribunal is seldom final. While\nthe State courts have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction and can not revise or\nquestion ordinary acts of church discipline, they have the power to\nadjudicate conflicting claims of parties to the church property or the use\nof it.(522)\n\n*293.* _Cemetery, Assessments._\u2014Where a lot was bought for the purpose of\nbuilding a church but was used for a cemetery, and a church was built at\nanother place and the deed to the lot was taken in the name of the\ntrustees, the pastor and a member of the church corporation were not the\nproper parties to bring an action to restrain the State from selling the\nlot to pay the assessments for pavement, as they had no legal or equitable\ninterest for the protection of which they could claim the interposition of\na court of equity.(523)\n\n*294.* _Burned, Revert, Vested._\u2014The fact that a church on lands donated\nto the parish, on condition of sustaining the church, burned down, the\ntitle did not revert to the grantor\u2019s heirs.(524) Also land granted a\nbishop for church uses, vested immediately in him and was not forfeited\nbecause it was not used for church purposes.(525)\n\n*295.* _Abandoned, Revert._\u2014Land granted to trustees and their successors\nforever in trust to erect a Methodist church, according to its rules and\ndiscipline, which was used for such church for a long time and then\nabandoned and sold to parties who converted it into a blacksmith shop, did\nnot thereupon revert in the absence of a provision to that effect.(526)\n\n*296.* _Uses and Trusts._\u2014The chapter of the Wisconsin statutes on\nreligious societies, although not included in the same title as the\nchapter abolishing all uses and trusts excepting as therein created, was\nnot intended to prohibit the trusts expressly authorized by the\nformer.(527)\n\n*297.* _Trust Funds, Account._\u2014Where a member of the church received funds\nto invest in his own name for the benefit of the church, he will be\nobliged in a court of equity to give full account for the money and its\nprofits.(528)\n\n*298.* _Fund, Diverted, Split._\u2014A fund created for a particular purpose,\nas the education of children in the faith and doctrines of a denomination\nat the time the fund is created, can not be diverted from its original\nobject.(529) Neither can such a fund be split up when a congregation is\ndivided, but must be retained as created.(530)\n\n*299.* _Church, Personalty._\u2014A church removed from its foundation and put\non rollers was severed from the realty and became personal property.(531)\n\n*300.* _Lease, Purposes._\u2014A religious literary society and scientific\ncorporation has power to lease part of a building owned by it for\ntheatrical and operatic purposes.(532)\n\n*301.* _Salary, Lien, Equity._\u2014The church building and the land on which\nit stands have been held subject to the payment of a debt due for the\nsalary of a pastor of the congregation owning such property.(533) A\ncontractor is entitled to a lien on the church property for work done on\nthe building.(534) A person who became liable for the debts of the\ncongregation incurred in the purchase of church property, obtained relief\nin equity by subjecting the church property to a sale.(535)\n\n*302.* _Bankruptcy, Creditors._\u2014There is no provision of law for a church\ncorporation to make an assignment in bankruptcy. However, the church\ncorporation may be sued and a receiver appointed to take possession of the\nproperty and sequester the assets.(536) But where assignments in\nbankruptcy and a sale and conveyance of church property are lawful, the\nchurch property may be assigned for the benefit of the creditors.(537)\n\n*303.* _Jurisdiction, Process._\u2014In order to obtain jurisdiction where\nthere are contentions between various persons claiming to be officers, the\nonly safe rule is to serve the process on all those who are in the offices\nor claim the offices upon the occupants of which the papers must be\nserved.(538)\n\n*304.* _States, Property, Restrictions._\u2014Some States restrict the quantity\nand use of property that a religious society or church may hold. Other\nStates have no restrictions; but nearly all the States have some statutory\nlaw on the subject, which is changed so frequently that it would be\nuseless to give the provisions of such law in this work.(539)\n\n*305.* _Land, Limitation._\u2014A statute of Illinois relating to Catholic\nsocieties contains no limitations on property rights, but it was held that\nthe general law applied, and that an organization having ten acres could\nnot acquire additional land by devise. A conveyance of land to a\ncorporation after it has taken all the land allowed by law, is void.(540)\nIn Kentucky where a church is limited to fifty acres and a devise was made\nto a church for the benefit of foreign missions, it was held valid under a\nstatute providing that all devises for relief of aged, impotent, poor\npeople, churches, or for any other charitable or humane purposes, shall be\nvalid.(541) Maryland\u2019s peculiar law by which leave must be obtained from\nthe Legislature for a conveyance of more than two acres of land, has been\nconstrued to give the Legislature authority to ratify a conveyance that\notherwise would be void under the statute.(542) Also, it was held in the\nsame case that a church might acquire more land, but that it would be\nrestricted with regard to its use. A statute prohibiting a religious\nsociety from holding more than twenty acres of land applied to a single\nreligious society and not to the denomination.(543) Where the territorial\nlaw provided that no religious corporation should hold real estate of\ngreater value than $50,000, a receiver was appointed for the Mormon\ncorporation.(544)\n\n*306.* _Corporations, Bequests._\u2014Foreign religious corporations may be\nentitled to recover bequests made to them in some States; but the general\nrule is that a foreign religious society has no better right to take\nproperty by devise than a domestic corporation.(545) When the statute\nrequires a conveyance to specify the purpose for which a religious society\ntakes land, the failure to so specify renders the deed void.(546) But the\nYoung Men\u2019s Christian Association was declared not within the limitation\nbecause it was not formed for pecuniary benefit and profit and was not\nunder the control of any one denomination nor formed for religious\nworship.(547)\n\n*307.* _Collateral Attack._\u2014A devise of land to a religious society which\nwill increase the title beyond the amount that is allowed by statute, can\nnot be attacked collaterally by a private individual.(548) It is for the\nState and not for the individual to make inquiry into excess on the part\nof a religious society in its accumulation.(549)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII. RELIGIOUS SERVICES\n\n\n*308.* _Worship, Discipline, Innovations._\u2014The denomination itself,\naccording to its rules and regulations, determines what services shall\nform a part of its public worship. The inferior authority in the church\nhas no right to violate the discipline by innovations. Whether or not\ndevotional singing may be accompanied with instrumental music, must be\ndetermined by those who administer the discipline of the church.(550)\n\n*309.* _Doctrines, Temporal Affairs._\u2014The fact that the congregation sells\nthe pews does not give the owners the right to determine what doctrines\nshall be preached in the church, nor who shall preach them.(551) A\nmajority of a local church can not change the faith of the church against\nthe protest of the minority.(552) The corporation of the congregation is\ngoverned by the majority only in temporal affairs.(553) However, some of\nthe Protestant churches are so independent that a vote of the congregation\nmay transfer them from one denomination to another.(554)\n\n*310.* _Contributions, Presbyterians, Methodists._\u2014Where certain persons\nby contributions built a church and the title was taken and held by the\nPresbyterians who permitted all other denominations to hold services\ntherein, all of which was a condition of the subscriptions for\nestablishing the church, when the Presbyterians sold out to the Methodists\nand they held it for their own exclusive use, those who contributed the\nmoney had the right to resort to the court to enforce their rights to\nworship in such church.(555)\n\n*311.* _True Religion, Courts._\u2014Ordinarily the civil courts do not\ninterfere where there is a question as to which of two or more parties is\nadhering to the true religious teaching of the denomination. If no\nquestion of property or civil rights arises, the court will not\ninterfere.(556)\n\n*312.* _Heresy, Injunction._\u2014Where a minister did not preach the doctrine\nand the entire system of Calvinistic theology received and taught by that\ndenomination, he had no right to the pulpit of the church, and the court\ngranted an injunction against his officiating therein.(557)\n\n*313.* _Bequest, Sects, Condition._\u2014Where a bequest was made to erect a\nplace of worship with the privilege for other sects to worship therein and\nforever to be used as such, the trustees in whom the title vested had no\nauthority to sell without the consent of the grantor or his heirs; and the\ncongregation having sold the church property and it having been thereafter\nused for a store, the grantor\u2019s heirs had a right of entry for condition\nbroken.(558)\n\n*314.* _Sexton, Undertaker, Authorities._\u2014The sexton who has charge of the\nchurch property may lawfully remove from the church an undertaker who,\nafter being warned to desist and leave, persists in conducting the funeral\nin violation of rules prescribed by the authorities of the church.(559)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII. BEQUESTS, DEVISES, AND GIFTS\n\n\n*315.* _Statutes, Wills._\u2014In some States a religious society can not take\nunder a will, and a bequest of money to a church is void.(560) In\nConnecticut any devise to a religious corporation not expressly authorized\nby statute, is void.(561) In Maryland leave to devise land to a religious\nsociety must be obtained from the Legislature.(562) In all the States it\nis safest to consult and carefully follow the statute in drawing a will.\n\n*316.* _Masses, Alabama._\u2014Formerly as a rule of the English common law, it\nwas held that bequests and devises for the purpose of having Masses said\nfor the soul of the deceased, were void as superstitious uses; but under\nArticle 1 of the Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under\nsimilar provisions in the constitutions of the several States, the English\nrule does not prevail in the United States. However, Alabama adopted the\nEnglish rule.(563) By reading the foot-note to the Alabama case, it will\nbe found that a majority of the States hold that such bequests are\nlawful.(564) Even in Alabama if the bequest had been to a clergyman or a\ncertain person and accompanied by a request to say Masses, the court might\nhave allowed it.(565)\n\n*317.* _Name, Bequest, Corporation._\u2014A mistake in a name does not render a\nbequest or a gift void if the person intended can be identified.(566)\nAlso, a devise may be made to a corporation not yet organized and when it\nis organized the gift or devise will vest. During the interim, it will\nremain in abeyance.(567)\n\n*318.* _Clergyman, Undue Influence._\u2014A clergyman who is a grantee in a\ndeed from a parishioner, although deriving no benefit therefrom, has the\nburden of showing good faith in the transaction as the law presumes that\nhe is guilty of undue influence. This presumption is further strengthened\nby proof of the enfeebled condition of the grantor by age and illness and\nhis susceptibleness to influence. Where the property conveyed in trust for\nthe parish was greatly in excess of its needs, the deed was set\naside.(568)\n\n*319.* _Contest, Secession._\u2014In case of a devise to a church which is\nclaimed by two societies, it is the duty of the court to decide in favor\nof those who adhere to the ecclesiastical government of the church which\nwas in operation at the time the trust was declared.(569) However, to\nmaintain such action it must be brought by the proper parties.(570)\n\n*320.* _Bequests, Membership._\u2014Bequests left to individuals on condition\nthat they shall remain members of a certain church, can be obtained only\nby complying with such condition.(571)\n\n*321.* _Conditions, Religious Tenets._\u2014In order to determine the\nconditions of a trust the religious tenets of the donor may be shown to\naid in construction of ambiguous provisions.(572)\n\n*322.* _Name, Uncertainty._\u2014A bequest to Georgetown University, in the\nDistrict of Columbia, which was incorporated under the name of \u201cThe\nPresident and Directors of Georgetown College,\u201d is not void for\nuncertainty, as the only institution of learning in the District of\nColumbia is Georgetown College.(573)\n\n*323.* _Future Uses, Uncertainty._\u2014A devise to a foundling or eleemosynary\ninstitution, whenever the Christians should create one which the trustees\napproved, is valid.(574) And a devise to the \u201cFirst Christian church\nerected or to be erected in the village of Telfairville, in Burke county,\nor to such persons as may become trustees of the same,\u201d is good as a\ncharitable bequest.(575) A bequest to a priest to hold in trust and pay\nover to the Sisters for the Poor, is valid.(576) A bequest for the care of\na tombstone is valid in some States and not in others without a statutory\nprovision.(577) A bequest to the bishop \u201cto be by him used for Roman\nCatholic charitable institutions in his diocese,\u201d sufficiently describes\nthe beneficiaries and is good.(578) Also, a bequest to Bishop England \u201cin\ntrust for the Ladies of the Ursuline Order residing in Charleston in the\nState of South Carolina,\u201d was held for \u201cThe Ladies of the Ursuline\nCommunity of the city of Charleston.\u201d(579) A bequest for Masses \u201cto a\nRoman Catholic priest that shall succeed me in this place,\u201d was held void\nfor uncertainty.(580) A bequest in trust to a bishop by name to sell and\ngive the proceeds to a society named, is not a devise to the society, but\nto the bishop in trust.(581)\n\n*324.* _Education, Priesthood._\u2014A devise or bequest to a clergyman of\nproperty to be used for the education of poor Catholic boys for the\npriesthood, was sustained in court as sufficiently definite for\nperformance.(582)\n\n*325.* _Charitable Trust, Cy-Pres._\u2014Equity will not allow a charitable\ntrust to fail for want of a trustee, but will appoint one.(583) The\ndoctrine of _cy-pres_ as applied to charitable gifts and trusts, is not in\nforce in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Iowa, New\nYork, North Carolina, nor Wisconsin; but seems to prevail in California,\nIllinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.\n\n*326.* _Error, Ambiguity._\u2014Great latitude is allowed in charitable\nbequests, devises, and gifts, in proving _aliunde_ the beneficiary\nintended where there is error in the name or a latent ambiguity.(584) The\nreligion of the testator will be considered in proving intention.\n\n*327.* _Dissolution, Resulting Trust._\u2014On dissolution of a religious\nsociety, the money collected or derived from the sale of property goes\nback as a resulting trust to the contributors.(585)\n\n*328.* _Charity, Institutions._\u2014To determine what is a charitable trust,\ndevise, or gift, it is necessary to particularly bear in mind the most\ncomprehensive definition of charity. Legacies for schools, churches,\nlibraries, cemeteries, the poor, hospitals, and numerous other\neleemosynary institutions, have been sustained under charitable bequests\nwhen they otherwise would have failed.(586)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV. TAXATION\n\n\n*329.* _Purposes, Exempt._\u2014Only church property that is actually used for\nchurch or charitable purposes, is exempt from taxation. Property held for\nits increase or profit is not exempt.(587) Land bought for a church on\nwhich no work on the church is yet begun, is not exempt from\ntaxation.(588)\n\n*330.* _Lot Isolated, Not Exempt._\u2014A lot isolated from the other property\nof the church of a congregation, is not exempt because the congregation\nintends to build a church thereon in the future, and actually did build a\nchurch thereon two years later.(589)\n\n*331.* _Bishop\u2019s Residence, Hospital._\u2014Real property the title to which is\nin the archbishop in fee in accordance with the discipline of the Catholic\nChurch, is not owned by a religious association so as to exempt it from\ntaxation. The records do not show a trust for the diocese nor any other\nbeneficiary. A court will not take judicial notice of the laws of the\nCatholic Church.(590) But property used as a hospital to care for the sick\nand wounded of all races and religions indiscriminately, with or without\npay according to the ability of the patient, is a benevolent institution\nengaged in a work of charity, and comes under the law of tax\nexemption.(591)\n\n*332.* _Parsonage, Rented._\u2014A parsonage owned by a congregation and used\nonly as a residence for the clergyman is not exempt because of some part\nof it being also used for alleged religious services, to-wit: morning\nprayers of the children before school, a sewing society, and a meeting\nplace for Sunday-school teachers.(592) However, a house and lot rented and\nkept by the minister was exempt from taxation.(593)\n\n*333.* _Masonic Order, Charity, Elks._\u2014A charity which is confined\nexclusively to the members of the Masonic Order and their families or to\nthe widows and children of deceased members or those who are directly or\nindirectly connected with the society, is not purely a public charity\nwithin the provisions of the constitution relating to the exemption of\ninstitutions of purely public charity from taxation.(594) And property\nheld by the Elks for entertainment and to promote social intercourse was\nheld not exempt.(595)\n\n*334.* _Supporting Church, Mississippi._\u2014In the early ages of the States\nseveral of them had laws for taxing all the property in parishes laid out\nby the State for the support of Protestant churches. Gradually these laws\nwere eliminated and at the present time there is probably no State\nexcepting Mississippi that uses money for the support of a church. Maine\nchanged her laws in 1821, and other States followed from time to\ntime.(596) While those taxes were collected, no land within the parish was\nexempt in some States and in others the property of a non-resident was\nexempt.(597) In New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, a person could not be\ncompelled to pay the taxes to a denomination of which he was not a\nmember.(598)\n\n*335.* _Appropriations, Contracts, Rent._\u2014Under the constitution of the\nUnited States, Congress can not make appropriations nor give aid to any\ndenomination. Also, similar provisions are in many of the constitutions of\nthe States. However, many cases arise out of contracts, which border upon\nthese various rules, and in some States the constitutional provision of\nthe State is such that the State Legislature may legislate concerning\nreligions and give certain aid and support thereto. Paying rent to a\ncongregation for a school-room is not an appropriation or aid to a church\ncontrary to the constitution.(599)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV. ELEEMOSYNARY INSTITUTIONS\n\n\n*336.* _Poor, Institutions, Negligence._\u2014As hospitals, homes for the poor,\nand other eleemosynary institutions are supported by money given to\ncharity, it would be a diversion of the trust funds if such institutions\ncould be compelled to pay damages for negligence causing personal injury\nor death. The general rule is that the person causing the injury may be\nliable, but not the institution.(600) However, a charitable institution\nhas been held liable for negligence of its manager to notify a nurse of\nthe contagious nature of a case assigned to her.(601)\n\n*337.* _Surgeon, Gratuitous Services._\u2014A charitable medical institution is\nnot liable for the negligence of its surgeon in operating upon a patient\ngratuitously where such institution exercises due care in employing a\nsurgeon deemed competent. The fact that besides such gratuitous services,\nmedicine is taught therein for tuition fees and patients who are able to\npay are charged a small fee for room, board, nursing, etc., but no fee\nfrom the patient to the doctor, does not change it from a charitable\ninstitution.(602) However, a hospital that is an adjunct to a medical\nschool is liable.(603)\n\n*338.* _Charitable Institution._\u2014An institution that limits its\nbenefactions to the members of a particular denomination is, in the\nabsence of a statute to the contrary, a charitable institution.(604) This\nrule has exceptions.(605)\n\n*339.* _Charter, Real Estate._\u2014The trustees of a religious, literary, or\nother benevolent society, can not, irrespective of the powers granted by\nits charter, purchase and hold real estate under trusts of their own\ncreation which will protect their property from creditors.(606)\n\n*340.* _Mortmain, Title, Trust._\u2014The statute of mortmain was never in\nforce in Pennsylvania, so a religious corporation can hold the legal title\nto land in trust for the heir-at-law of a testator who has devised it to\nthe corporation in trust for uses that were void under the English\nlaw.(607) The only States that have statutes of mortmain are Mississippi\nand North Carolina. Yet in those States the statutes are somewhat\ndifferent from the law of England.\n\n*341.* _Public Institutions, Support._\u2014Benevolent and charitable\ninstitutions under a church are not public institutions, and moneys can\nnot be appropriated for their support.(608)\n\n*342.* _Nuns, Vows, Property._\u2014When joining a society of nuns, one of the\nvows taken was that all property should be held in common and whatever\nproperty was received after taking the vows should belong to the society.\nA person who left the order was not concluded from making claim for her\nproperty.(609)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI. SCHOOLS\n\n\n*343.* _Parent, Education, State, Parochial Schools._\u2014The right of the\nparent to use judgment as to the proper necessaries of his child,\nincluding board, lodging, and education, is generally conceded. However,\nthere must be no abuse of these parental rights, as the child also has\nrights that even a parent can not infringe. Therefore, the State may\nrequire a reasonable opportunity for the education of every child; and if\nthe parent can not give it on account of his poverty, it is in the power\nof the State to take his child in charge and furnish him an education. The\nright of the State to make laws requiring a parent to send his child to\nschool between certain ages, as from four to twenty-one years, is well\nsettled. The question of the parent\u2019s being obliged to send his child to\nthe public schools or being forbidden to send his child to a private or\nparochial school, is not settled in some States; but it is being settled\nin favor of the parent. The Kentucky constitution contains this provision:\n\u201c... nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to\nwhich he may be conscientiously opposed.\u201d(610) The right of the State to\nsupervise or inspect private and parochial schools under the police power\nof the State can not be questioned.(611)\n\n*344.* _Orphan Asylums, School Moneys._\u2014In 1850 the New York Legislature\nenacted a law as follows: \u201cThe schools of the several incorporated orphan\nasylums within the State other than those in the city of New York, shall\nparticipate in the distribution of the school moneys in the same manner\nand to the same extent in proportion to the number of children educated\ntherein, as the common schools in their respective cities and districts.\u201d\nThe court ruled that moneys devoted by the constitution to the State for\nthe support of common schools could not be distributed under the act, for\nthe reason that such asylums are not public schools; but moneys from other\nsources might be paid for the education of such orphan children in\nproportion to their number to those educated in the common schools of\ntheir respective cities and districts.(612) The schools kept by the Roman\nCatholic Orphan Asylum Society of the city of Brooklyn, are not common\nschools within the meaning of the constitution, and a provision of law\nthat such schools should share in the distribution of school moneys raised\nby the State was void.(613)\n\n*345.* _Contract, Direct Payment, Lease._\u2014No school of any denomination or\nsect is entitled to public moneys for its support, either by contract for\nthe education of students therein or by direct payment from the\ngovernment.(614) A school conducted by the Catholic Church in which\nreligious instruction is given to Catholic children is a sectarian\ninstitution within the constitutional provision against using public funds\nfor sectarian purposes; but public school money expended for such a school\nconducted by this school district could not be recovered by suit against\nthe school officers.(615) Also, a school maintained as a charity under\ndirection of trustees elected by the town where they must be of a certain\nreligion, is not entitled to public moneys.(616) But the lease of a part\nof a parochial school building or the basement of a church for public\nschool purposed does not violate the law.(617) In the States of Maine,\nIowa, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Kansas, and Texas, the reading of the\nKing James Bible and the singing of hymns and saying prayers have been\nheld not sectarian.(618) But in Wisconsin, the court ruled the other\nway.(619)\n\n*346.* _Teacher, Lord\u2019s Prayer, Exercise._\u2014\u201cA public school teacher, who,\nfor the purpose of quieting the pupils and preparing them for their\nregular studies, repeats the Lord\u2019s Prayer and the Twenty-second Psalm as\na morning exercise, without comment or remark, in which none of the pupils\nare required to participate, is not conducting a form of religious worship\nor giving sectarian or religious instruction.\u201d(620) Substantially the same\nrule applies in Pennsylvania.(621) However, similar religious exercises\nconducted by Catholic teachers have generally been held sectarian and not\npermissible in public schools.(622)\n\n*347.* _Ohio, Directors, Bible._\u2014The constitution of the State of Ohio\ndoes not enjoin nor require religious instruction or the reading of\nreligious books in the public schools. The board of directors of a\ndistrict has charge of the instruction and books to be used therein, and\ntheir official discretion will not be interfered with. Therefore, they\nwere authorized to have the Bible read at the opening of the school.(623)\n\n*348.* _Public School, Bible, Prayer._\u2014The committee having control of a\npublic school may make a rule requiring the school to be opened by reading\nfrom the Bible and prayer every morning, and that each child shall bow the\nhead during such prayers; that any scholar shall be excused from bowing\nthe head whose parents request it; and when any scholar refuses to obey\nsuch rule and his parents refuse to request that he shall be excused, the\ncommittee may exclude such scholar from the school.(624)\n\n*349.* _Text-Books, State._\u2014The State has the power to grant authority to\nthe State Board of Education to select and prescribe text-books to be used\nin the public schools of the State.(625)\n\n*350.* _Bible, Conscience, Constitution._\u2014The parent of a child expelled\nfrom the public school can not maintain an action against the school\ncommittee by whose orders it was done. In the same case it was held that a\nrule requiring every scholar to read a particular version of the Bible,\nthough it may be against the conscience of some to do so, does not violate\nthe letter or spirit of the constitution.(626)\n\n*351.* _Schoolhouse, Sunday-School Purposes._\u2014The inhabitants of a school\ndistrict have no right to use the schoolhouse for religious meeting on\nSunday against the objection of any taxpayer in the district,\nnotwithstanding that the officers of the district granted such right. A\ntaxpayer may obtain an injunction against such use, although the injury to\nhim be very slight, as he has no other remedy.(627) A district school\nboard can not authorize the use of the schoolhouse for any other than\nschool purposes.(628)\n\n*352.* _Child, Immoral Character._\u2014The school committee in order to\nmaintain purity and discipline, may exclude therefrom a child whom they\ndeem to be of licentious or immoral character, although such character is\nnot manifested in acts of licentiousness or immorality within the\nschool.(629)\n\n*353.* _Parents, Studies, Teacher._\u2014The requirement of a teacher that a\nscholar in grammar shall write English composition is a reasonable one,\nand refusal to comply therewith in the absence of a request from his\nparents that he be excused therefrom, will justify the expulsion of a\nscholar from school.(630) But when a parent selects certain studies that\nthe law provides to be taught for his child to study, the teacher has no\nright to insist that the child shall take some other study and inflict\npunishment to enforce obedience.(631)\n\n*354.* _Chastisement, Cruel._\u2014The chastisement of a scholar by the\nschoolmaster must not be excessive or cruel, but it should be reasonably\nproportioned to the offense and within the bounds of moderation.(632)\n\n*355.* _Schoolmaster, Authority._\u2014Although a schoolmaster has in general\nno right to punish a pupil for misconduct after the dismissal of the\nschool for the day and the return of the pupil to his home, yet he may on\nthe pupil\u2019s return to school punish him for any misbehavior, though\ncommitted out of school, which has a direct and immediate tendency to\ninjure the school and to subvert the master\u2019s authority. The fact that the\nmaster acted in good faith will not excuse him from damages for the\npunishment of a scholar where the punishment is clearly excessive and\nunnecessary. However, where there is a reasonable doubt the master should\nhave the benefit of it.(633)\n\n*356.* _Force, Assistance._\u2014And where a scholar in school hours places\nhimself in the desk of the instructor and refuses to leave it on the\nrequest of the master, the master may immediately use such force and call\nto his assistance such aid from another person as may be necessary to\nremove the scholar. The same rule would apply to any one who is not a\nscholar and intrudes upon the school.(634)\n\n*357.* _White, Unmarried._\u2014Before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment\nit was necessary in most States that in addition to the child being under\ntwenty-one years of age, he must be of white blood and unmarried.(635) In\nOhio, negroes, Indians, and children of less than half white blood, were\nnot entitled to the benefit of the school fund; and even where this would\nentirely exclude from school children not sufficient to form a district,\nstill it was held that such children could not attend the white\nschool.(636)\n\n*358.* _Facilities, the Constitution._\u2014So long as abundant facilities are\ngiven for the education of all the children of a district, it is not a\nviolation of the constitution of the United States to keep negro and white\npeople separated. The same rule applies to courts.(637)\n\n*359.* _Residents, Public Schools._\u2014Children in a German Protestant orphan\nasylum are not \u201cchildren, wards, or apprentices of actual residents\u201d in\nthe district of the asylum, and therefore are not entitled to enter the\npublic schools of the district.(638)\n\n*360.* _Board, Majority._\u2014Two of the three members of a school board have\nno authority to act by themselves, and their individual agreement to\ndismiss a teacher is void. A school board can only act at a duly called\nmeeting of the board, and then the majority vote duly taken decides.(639)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII. PARENT AND CHILD\n\n\n*361.* _Custody, Maternal Relatives, Father._\u2014A parent is entitled to the\ncare and custody of his child if he is competent to transact his own\nbusiness and not otherwise unsuitable. And the mere fact that the maternal\nrelatives who have had the care of the child from its birth have become\nattached to it and desire to continue to care for it and are able to\nsecure it better advantages than its parent, does not render the parent\nunsuitable to have its care and custody within the meaning of the statute.\nAlso, the want of a sympathetic nature or cold reserve in a parent or the\nfact that he is away on business a great deal of the time, is not\nsufficient to render him unsuitable. But the right of the father may be\nlost or forfeited by his ill-conduct, gross ill-treatment, cruelty, or\nabandonment, or when his conduct and life are such as are injurious to the\nmorals and interest of his child. When the father dies or forfeits his\nright for reasons already given, the mother, if alive, succeeds to all\nthose rights, subject, however, to the same conditions as the father. And\nin the case of a child of tender years, the good of the child has to be\nregarded as the predominant consideration.(640)\n\n*362.* _Mother, Illegitimate, Father._\u2014The mother has a right to the care\nand custody of her illegitimate child to the same extent that a parent has\nto his legitimate child.(641) The putative father on the mother\u2019s death\nsucceeds to the mother\u2019s rights as against the maternal relatives and may\nsecure the custody of the child by _habeas corpus_. This rule is different\nfrom the one that prevailed in the Roman law.(642) However, when the\nfather has given bond for the care, support, and education of an\nillegitimate child, his right to the custody of the child may be\nsuperior.(643)\n\n*363.* _Legitimatized._\u2014And when under a statute a child is legitimatized\nby acknowledgment or subsequent marriage, the father has the better right\nto its custody.(644) Usually there are many provisions in the statutes of\nthe various States which substantially provide for the rights, relative\nand otherwise, of the parents and child in such cases.\n\n*364.* _Punishment, Instrument, Murder._\u2014A parent or a person _in foro\ndomestico_ or _in loco parentis_ may give reasonable corrective punishment\nwith a fit instrument to a child. But if a parent or master whips a child\nso that it dies, he is guilty of manslaughter. And if he uses lethal\ninstruments of punishment, he is guilty of murder.(645) Where a mother in\nanger threw a poker at one child and hit and killed another child, she was\nguilty of manslaughter.(646) The punishment always becomes unlawful when\nit is excessive, and drunkenness is no excuse.(647)\n\n*365.* _Guardian, Religion, Courts._\u2014In England where a child was taken\nfrom the testamentary guardian, who after the death of the testator\nchanged her religion from a Protestant to a Catholic, it was held thereby\nto be incompetent to continue as guardian.(648) And in New York it was\nheld that where the father and mother were Catholics, the guardian must\nendeavor to bring the children up in that faith, as a guardian will not be\npermitted to proselyte wards.(649) But where a father who was a Catholic\nallowed his child to be brought up by a maternal aunt who was a\nProtestant, until the child was fourteen years of age, the father was not\nthen entitled to the child\u2019s custody for the purpose of having it\ninstructed in his own faith.(650) Courts will not interfere with the\nreligion of a child, but will allow it to be brought up in the religion of\nits parents; however, the best interests of the child will be considered\nby the court without conceding everything else to its religion.(651)\n\n*366.* _Convent, Consent._\u2014A daughter under age who entered a convent to\nbecome a nun without the consent of her mother, may, on a writ of _habeas\ncorpus_ on the petition of her mother, be required to leave the convent\nand return to her home.(652)\n\n*367.* _Adoption, Rights, Duties._\u2014Persons of suitable age and\ncircumstances to enter the marital relations, may adopt a child. When a\nmarried couple do not unite in adopting a child, the consent of the\nnon-adopting spouse must be obtained. Also, if the child\u2019s parents are\nliving, their consent is necessary unless they have lost their paternal\nrights by abandonment or divorce. The decree of adoption may be set aside\nfor good cause. The adopted parent has all the rights over and duties\ntoward the person of the adopted child that a natural parent has,\nincluding necessaries and religious training. Usually the child inherits\nfrom the adopted parents, but the adopted parents do not inherit from the\nchild. The statutes on adoption are not the same in the several States,\nbut they cover the subject and must be strictly followed.(653)\n\n*368.* _Infancy, Manumission, Marriage._\u2014At common law a person is an\ninfant until he is twenty-one years of age. Statutes have modified that\nrule so that girls in some States, and both girls and boys in others, may\ncontract marriage at an earlier age without the parental consent.\nGenerally, an infant can not contract marriage without the consent of the\nliving parent or guardian unless the child has been manumitted. Where the\nboy was under the age of consent, but he falsely told the priest that he\nwas of full age, his father had the marriage annulled.(654)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII. HUSBAND AND WIFE\n\n\n*369.* _Custody, Father._\u2014A husband is entitled to the custody of his wife\nagainst her father, and where a son-in-law killed his father-in-law in\nresisting the latter from taking his daughter out of his (the\nson-in-law\u2019s) house, the court held that it could not be more than\nmanslaughter; and if it were necessary to kill to protect and maintain his\nwife, the defendant was not guilty.(655) But for good cause and without\nmalice a parent may advise his child to leave spouse.(656)\n\n*370.* _Corrective Authority, Services, Domicile._\u2014In America a husband\ngains no right to corrective authority over his wife. He can neither whip\nher nor use abusive language to her. The same rule applies to the wife, as\nthey stand equal before the law.(657) However, a husband is entitled to\nall the services of his wife and a promise to pay her extra for housework\ncan not be enforced.(658) Also, the husband has the right to determine\ntheir place of domicile, and if the wife unreasonably refuses to accompany\nher husband, it is desertion, for which he may obtain a divorce.(659)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX. INDIANS\n\n\n*371.* _Indians, Citizens, Wards._\u2014There are a great number of statutory\nprovisions concerning Indians, both in the United States statutes and in\nthe statutes of the several States, most of which are not of great\nimportance at the present time, as the Indians are confined to a few\nStates. When they become citizens of the State in which they reside, their\nstatus is the same as other citizens; but so long as they remain in their\ntribal relations they are taken care of as wards of the Union.\n\n*372.* _Schools, Cemeteries, Churches._\u2014In Oklahoma there are schools\nprovided for them. When a tribe cedes 160 acres to the United States, it\nwill give it a school for ten years, and as much longer as it deems\nnecessary. Also, the Indians may have their own cemeteries, schools, and\nchurches, where the Indians belong to the tribes, and they are allowed\nlands therefor.(660) In other States, under the general law, the money of\nIndian minors may be held in the treasury by the Secretary of the Interior\nand paid to parents and guardians in such sums and at such times as the\nSecretary in his discretion may determine.(661) There is no doubt that out\nof those moneys, parents might pay for their children at private\nschools.(662)\n\n*373.* _Inspectors, Duties._\u2014Under the United States laws, inspectors are\nappointed to visit Indian agencies and investigate all matters concerning\nthem and to examine all contracts and accounts with the Indians and make\nreport thereon to the Secretary of the Interior. The contracts for support\nof religion, schools, and charitable institutions, come under their\nduties.(663)\n\n*374.* _President, Trades._\u2014The President may cause Indians to be\ninstructed in trades and agriculture and have them taught the elementary\nbranches.(664)\n\n*375.* _Commissioner, School, Rations, Bible, Sectarian._\u2014Another officer\nof great importance is the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, who has most to\ndo with the education and schools of the Indians.(665) He may require\nparents and guardians to send children to school and withhold rations from\nthem for failure so to do. Also, there is a fund under the control of the\nUnited States as trustee, with which he may make contracts for the\neducation of Indian children at private schools.(666) However, the\njurisdiction of the commissioner over Indian children does not extend to\nthose off the reservation.(667) Among other provisions of the United\nStates statutes is the following: \u201cThe Christian Bible may be taught in\nthe native language of the Indians if in the judgment of the persons in\ncharge of the school it may be deemed conducive to the moral welfare and\ninstruction of the pupils in such schools.\u201d(668) The Bible continues its\nposition among the Indians, but appropriations for the Church are cut off\nby the following provision: \u201cIt is hereby declared to be the settled\npolicy of the government to hereafter make no appropriations whatever for\neducation in any sectarian school.\u201d(669)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX. JUVENILE COURTS\n\n\n*376.* _Reformatories, Object, Liberty._\u2014During the past few years\njuvenile courts have been created for the purpose of committing children\nto reformatories. The proceedings are not criminal actions, but of an\nequitable nature.(670) However, as the object is to deprive the child of\nits liberty, the statute must be strictly construed and followed.(671) An\ninfant can not waive a right.(672) If a child has been wrongfully\ncommitted or is wrongfully detained, the proper remedy for his discharge\nis a writ of _habeas corpus_.(673)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI. LIBEL AND SLANDER\n\n\n*377.* _Confidential, Tribunal, Malice._\u2014The rule is that all confidential\nstatements made to an officer or a tribunal of the church concerning a\nmember in the course of church discipline and for the good of the church,\nif not made with malice, are privileged, and no action for libel or\nslander can be maintained therefor.(674)\n\n*378.* _Member, Officer, Councils._\u2014But slanderous or libelous statements\nmade concerning a person not a member of the church or made concerning a\nmember of the church to another member who is not either an officer or in\nthe councils of the church, are actionable and the person making or\npublishing such statements is liable for damages. Also, a person who\nrepeats a libel or slander may be liable as though he were the\noriginator.(675)\n\n*379.* _Official Communication, Privileged._\u2014An official communication\nbetween authorities of the church or an authority and a member of the\nchurch concerning a church matter or church members and not made in\nmalice, is privileged.(676)\n\n*380.* _Priest, Pastoral Duties._\u2014Where a priest published from the altar\nthat \u201cPeter Servatius is excommunicated, because he laid hands on the\npriest to put him out of the church, and he has no more benefit of the\nprayers of the church. I will not pray for him, and consider him a lost\nsheep and withdraw all my pastoral blessings from him. If he die, the\nburial rights of the church will be denied him,\u201d such remarks were held\ndefamatory, unless they were spoken in the proper discharge of the\npriest\u2019s clerical and pastoral duties and without malice; and the case\nshould have been submitted on the evidence to a jury.(677)\n\n*381.* _Church Record, Excommunication._\u2014An entry of a church record that\n\u201cA report raised and circulated by A. B. against Brother C., stating that\nhe made him pay a note twice, and proved by A. B. as false,\u201d is\nlibelous.(678) But an entry of excommunication of a member made in the\nrecord and shown to other members, is not libelous, the latter being\nproperly a part of the record and the former extraneous.(679)\n\n*382.* _Will, Libel, Action._\u2014The will of a priest contained a statement\nthat a relative had received $300 from him for clothing, maintenance,\neducation, etc., and promised to repay it, but paid no part of it. Then\ntestator bequeathed said $300 to two legatees to collect for their own\nuse. The relative filed a petition asking the estate of the priest to be\nheld liable for a libel in the sum of $50,000 and the court held that as\nthe right of action did not accrue until after the death of the testator,\nthere was a right of action against the estate. As the case never got\nbeyond the probate court, its authority is doubtful.(680)\n\n*383.* _Language, Insane, Good Faith._\u2014Unless the language is used by the\nbishop in the line of his duty, a statement that a priest is irresponsible\nand insane, that he was removed from his position of priest for good\nreason, and that he has been guilty of ecclesiastical disobedience, is\nslanderous _per se_. To make a communication between a bishop and priest\nprivileged it must have been spoken in good faith and in belief that the\nspeaking of it came within the discharge of the bishop\u2019s duty.(681)\n\n*384.* _Rector, Bigamy, Tobacco, Liquor._\u2014In a case where the rector of an\nEpiscopal church called upon a man charged with bigamy and after a private\nconversation the minister wrote a letter to the district attorney on\nbehalf of the prisoner, it was held not privileged because it was not made\nin confidence of the relation and was not kept as a secret.(682) A letter\nfrom a church member of one congregation to the elders of another\ncongregation advising them of the unfitness of a clergyman appointed to\nthe latter parish, and stating that he used tobacco and liquor, that he\nwas an untruthful man, and that his family was no credit to the community,\nwas quasi-privileged; and in the absence of proof that the charges were\nfalse and malicious was not actionable.(683)\n\n*385.* _Newspapers, Criticisms, Priest._\u2014A newspaper has a right to\npublish criticisms of the conduct of a priest in certain services held in\nhis church if no false statement of facts is given, since such conduct is\na proper subject of discussion; and if such article contains a statement\nthat if certain published accounts of the conduct of the priest are true\nhe acted in an improper manner, etc., it is not libelous because such\nfacts are not true, as it is not an affirmation of the truth thereof.\nWhere the alleged libel was published in a foreign language and the\ncorrectness of the translation was disputed, it was an error for the judge\nto instruct the jury that if the translation introduced in evidence was\ncorrect, the defendant was liable, since plaintiff\u2019s right to recover\nshould not be made to depend on the absolute accuracy of the\ntranslation.(684)\n\n*386.* _Clergyman, Discipline, Tribunals, Testimony, Argument._\u2014What a\nclergyman says in the administration of the discipline of the church or\nwhat is said in tribunals to enforce discipline of the church, including\ntestimony and legitimate argument within the scope of the case, if said in\ngood faith and without malice, is not actionable in the civil courts.(685)\n\n*387.* _Physical Discipline, Imprisonment, Courts._\u2014A clergyman who claims\nto have been slandered by a parishioner can not administer physical\ndiscipline nor put the offender under restraint without leaving himself\nliable for damages for assault and battery or false imprisonment. If the\nclergyman desires to treat the charge as a church matter, he must go into\nthe church tribunal; otherwise, his proper course is to bring an action\nfor slander in the State court.(686)\n\n*388.* _Sermon, False Statement, Crime._\u2014A clergyman may, by words used in\na sermon, slander a member of his congregation. However, if he makes no\nfalse statement and does not falsely or maliciously charge a crime, what\nhe says in the way of discipline is privileged.(687) The meaning of the\nwords \u201cshe is a dirty, vile woman,\u201d can not be extended by innuendo.(688)\n\n*389.* _Charges, Robbed, Hypocrite._\u2014Charges that a person has robbed a\nchurch or has stolen from a church, are actionable.(689) Also, charging a\nperson with being a hypocrite and using the cloak of religion for unworthy\npurposes, is slanderous.(690)\n\n*390.* _Investigation, Probable Cause._\u2014When a member of a church consents\nto an investigation on complaint before a person who is not a member, if\nthe complaint was made on probable cause and not under the pretence of\nexposing the defendant to scorn or obloquy, he could not subsequently\nbring an action for libel.(691)\n\n*391.* _Sacraments._\u2014To publish of a person that he has been deprived of\nthe sacraments of the church to which he belongs, is libelous.(692)\n\n*392.* _Obituary, Tolling Bell._\u2014To falsely and maliciously publish an\nobituary notice of a person living, is good ground for an action for\nlibel.(693) However, a complaint that a church tolled its bell to announce\nthe death of a member, and did report him dead when he was actually\nliving, and that it was all done for the purpose of annoying, harassing,\nand vexing the person and his family, was held not sufficient to support\nan action for libel. The latter case is doubtful law.(694)\n\n*393.* _Newspaper, Profane Swearer._\u2014A newspaper in a notice of the death\nof a church member has the right to state that he was a profane swearer,\nif such was the case.(695)\n\n*394.* _Business or Property, Special Damages._\u2014A company incorporated for\nthe purpose of transacting business which would include hospitals,\nschools, and industrial institutions, may maintain an action for libel the\nsame as an individual for any words affecting its business or property, if\nspecial damages are alleged and proved.(696)\n\n*395.* _Justification, Repeating._\u2014It is no justification that libelous\nmatter had been previously published by a third person, that the name of\nsuch person was disclosed at the time of repeating the libel, and that the\nperson who was repeating it believed all the statements in the libel to be\ntrue.(697)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII. CRIMES\n\n\n*396.* _Sins, Crimes, Discipline._\u2014Crimes are offenses against the civil\nlaw. The fact that the church organization may try and punish a member for\nsinning, or acquit him, has nothing whatever to do with the administration\nof the criminal law of the State. Therefore, a member may be arrested and\ntried for any offense before or after the ecclesiastical tribunal has\ntaken action in the matter. But there are certain crimes of a religious\nnature of which the civil law assumes jurisdiction and punishes, such as\nblasphemy,(698) disturbing religious meetings,(699) etc. Most of those\nlaws are statutory and depend wholly upon the statute of the State where\nthe crime is committed.\n\n*397.* _Profane Language, Smoking, Disturbance._\u2014Rude behavior or profane\nlanguage if audible,(700) smoking in the church or during services,(701)\ncracking and eating nuts in church,(702) and fighting near the church so\nas to disturb the services, are violations of the law.(703) A father\u2019s\ntaking his child out of the church with violence is a disturbance of the\nmeeting.(704) The disturbance of any member of the congregation assembled\nfor religious worship is a violation of law.(705) A sentence of $100 fine\nor one year\u2019s imprisonment in the penitentiary, is not excessive or cruel\nor unusual punishment on conviction for disturbing a meeting.(706)\n\n*398.* _Sunday-School, Church._\u2014An ordinary Sunday-school where the Bible\nand religious precepts are taught, is a church within the law.(707)\n\n*399.* _Private School._\u2014A person may be punished under the statute for\nwilfully disturbing a private school kept in a district schoolhouse for\ninstruction in the art of writing.(708)\n\n*400.* _Disturbing a Religious Meeting._\u2014Under a statute against\ndisturbing a religious meeting, it has been held that it should define\nwhat disturbance is punishable.(709) Also, mere want of attention or\nobservance of ceremonies, as standing or kneeling at times, is not a\nviolation of the law.(710) Neither is singing out of time, unless done\npurposely,(711) nor performing a proper duty, such as objecting to a\nsilenced clergyman\u2019s conducting the services.(712)\n\n*401.* _Common Law, Offense, Statutory Law._\u2014If there is no statutory\nprovision, in those States where the common law prevailed before the\nadmission of the State to the Union the offense is punishable under the\ncommon law.(713) And even in States where there is a statutory law on the\nsubject, a person may be convicted at common law.(714)\n\n*402.* _Services, Violation, Time._\u2014The nature of the services and the\ndiscipline of the denomination may determine whether there is a violation\nof the law. Usually the disturbance may occur at any place the\ncongregation is assembled, and at any time when any part of the\ncongregation is assembled for religious services or business.(715)\n\n*403.* _Force, Priest, Preserve Order._\u2014A congregation may use sufficient\nforce to remove a disturber.(716) A Catholic priest who is the conductor\nof religious services and master of ceremonies within his church has the\nright to preserve order and to remove by force, if necessary, any person\nwho disturbs his services.(717)\n\n*404.* _Interrupt, Liquors, Traffic._\u2014There are statutes in most of the\nStates making it a penal offense to interrupt or molest any assembly or\nmeeting of the people for religious worship, or to sell intoxicating\nliquors or other articles of traffic within a certain distance of any\ncamp-meeting or other religious assembly, except at a place of business\nregularly established prior to such meeting or assembly and not with\nintent of evading the provisions of the law.(718)\n\n*405.* _Theory, Blasphemy, Crime._\u2014On the theory that the United States is\na Christian nation, blasphemy is held to be a crime.(719) Infidels\nnaturally claim that it interferes with their rights. However, there is no\nmore interference with the private rights of the infidel than there is\nwith the private right of the Mormon who is forbidden to violate the laws\nof the country by having a plurality of wives; and it has been held that\nany words importing imprecation for divine vengeance may constitute\nprofane cursing or blasphemy.(720)\n\n*406.* _Religion, God, Ridicule, Virgin._\u2014Words vilifying the Christian\nreligion,(721) denying God or the final judgment,(722) and profane\nridicule of the Holy Scriptures or of Christ,(723) are usually punishable.\nAlso, the use of vile words applied to the Virgin Mary is blasphemy.(724)\n\n*407.* _Profanity, Proof, Excuse._\u2014The profanity must be in the hearing of\nsome person.(725) Every time a person profanely swears by taking the name\nof God in vain is a separate offense.(726) The prisoner\u2019s confession is\nsufficient proof; otherwise the prosecution must show that the offense was\ncommitted and some one heard the words.\n\nDrunkenness is no excuse.(727) Punishment by fine or imprisonment is not\nin violation of the constitution of the State or of the United\nStates.(728)\n\n*408.* _Sunday, Business, Fishing._\u2014The offenses against the Sunday law\nare so numerous that it would be almost impossible to review them within\nthe limits of this work. Of course, the carrying on of a man\u2019s ordinary\nbusiness is a violation of the Sabbath laws. But in some States selling\ncigars,(729) a butcher selling meat,(730) and even selling soda\nwater,(731) and ice cream,(732) as well as fishing, traveling, driving,\nusing a slot machine,(733) and almost every other imaginable act excepting\ngoing to church, has at some time and in some State been declared a\nviolation of the law, and a penalty imposed therefor.\n\nIn California,(734) Tennessee,(735) and Washington,(736) men may be shaved\non Sunday. In some other States it has been held that running a barber\nshop on Sunday is a violation of the law.(737)\n\n*409.* _Charity, Necessity, Benefit, Pleasure._\u2014However, doing works of\ncharity and works of necessity usually are exempt. What is a work of\nnecessity is a question of law. Charity includes whatever proceeds from\nthe sense of moral duty or a feeling of kindness and humanity, and is\nintended wholly for the purpose of the relief or comfort of another, and\nnot for one\u2019s benefit or pleasure.(738)\n\n*410.* _Contracts, Marriage, Notice._\u2014The common law made no distinction\nbetween Sunday and any other day as to making contracts, but it prohibited\nholding court. In this country the statutory law invariably prohibits any\nbut works of necessity or charity to be done on Sunday. But marriage\nsettlements,(739) publication of statutory notices on Sunday,(740) and\npromises to marry, have been held legal.(741)\n\n*411.* _Funeral, Physician, Subscriptions._\u2014To attend a funeral, to employ\nan undertaker, or a physician, on Sunday, has been tested in the courts,\nand finally decided to be works of necessity or charity and not a\nviolation of the Sunday law. Also, subscriptions made for church purposes\nand in works of charity on Sunday have been held legal and binding.(742)\n\n*412.* _Jews, Seventh-Day Observers._\u2014In several of the States it has been\nheld that Jews and Seventh-Day observers of the Sabbath must obey the\nSunday law.(743) However, in many States there is a statute expressly\nexempting people who keep the seventh day of the week; but still they\nsometimes have a provision, unless \u201che shall wilfully disturb thereby some\nother person or some religious assembly on said day.\u201d\n\n*413.* _Societies, Secular Work._\u2014Business meetings of benevolent and\nchurch societies for benevolent or church work may be held on Sunday. Even\nthe constitution of such societies may be amended on Sunday. However,\nsecular work that does not come strictly under the functions of such\nsocieties would be unlawful.(744)\n\n*414.* _Sunday, Begins, Ends._\u2014Usually people believe they know what the\nword Sunday means, when it begins, and when it ends. Christianity usually\nrecognizes the time from midnight to midnight as Sunday, and that is the\nusual time recognized by law.(745) But the solar day only,(746) or from\nmidnight to sunset,(747) give us a variety which may not be complete.\nAlso, we have the further anomaly of a note made at 2 o\u2019clock on Saturday\nnight, being held valid.(748)\n\n*415.* _Religious Liberty, Law._\u2014The constitutional guarantee of religious\nliberty is not violated by enforcing the Sunday law.(749)\n\n*416.* _Necessaries, Doctor._\u2014As a parent or husband is obliged to furnish\nnecessaries for his children and wife, when medical treatment becomes\nnecessary, he is liable for manslaughter for failure to do his duty, even\nin case of religious disbelief in the efficacy of medicine. Courts are not\ninclined to make any distinction as to religious belief, and the\nprevailing rule in this country is that the parent is liable if he\nnegligently allows his child to die when it might have been saved by the\nservices of a doctor.(750)\n\n*417.* _Christian Healer, Consent._\u2014A Christian healer can not be held\nliable except under a State law. One who consents to treatment has no\naction for damages unless there is a failure to exercise the care and\nskill of a Christian Scientist. This rule might not apply to one\nincompetent to consent to a contract.(751)\n\n*418.* _Politics._\u2014A minister who had been expelled by his congregation\nfor voting the Democratic ticket, had some of the members of the church\narrested under the election laws for intimidating a voter. The court held\nthat as he \u201csuffered no pecuniary loss, personal injury, or physical\nrestraint,\u201d no crime was committed.(752)\n\n*419.* _Mail, Obscene Language._\u2014Under the United States postal laws\nagainst sending \u201cobscene, lewd or lascivious\u201d books or papers through the\nmail, a person can not be convicted without proof that the matter is\nobscene, lewd, and lascivious, as the word \u201cor\u201d should be construed to\nmean \u201cand.\u201d Also, the court held that a newspaper article on the doctrine\nof the Immaculate Conception written in coarse and obscene language that\noffended the religious sentiments of the people, but had no tendency to\ninduce sexual immorality, did not render the newspaper unmailable nor the\npublisher guilty under the United States statutes. The court says: \u201cThose\nparts of the article most relied upon to sustain the charge, though\nostensibly a discussion of a religious subject, are couched in language\nnot quite suitable for insertion in a judicial opinion, however well\nadjusted to such applause as might be expected from taste of a certain\ndegree of degradation.\u201d(753)\n\n*420.* _\u201c__Fair,__\u201d__ Chances, Gambling._\u2014A church \u201cfair\u201d at which chances\nare sold, drawings had, or any game of chance permitted, is illegal and\nmay be punished as gambling.(754)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII. CEMETERIES\n\n\n*421.* _Statutes, Land._\u2014There are sufficient statutory provisions on\ncemeteries to make a large book, and the frequent changes made in such\nlaws render a full statement of the law impossible. The statutes against\nlocating cemeteries near cities, dwellings, etc., should be carefully\nexamined before buying land therefor.(755)\n\n*422.* _United States, Jurisdiction._\u2014The jurisdiction over the United\nStates cemeteries is in the State where the cemeteries are located unless\nsuch jurisdiction has been ceded to the United States.(756)\n\n*423.*. _Tombstones, Soldiers_.\u2014The United States will erect tombstones at\nthe graves of soldiers who served in the Civil War, in all cemeteries\nwhere their graves are unmarked. Wherever the United States has\njurisdiction over cemeteries, it has made it a criminal offense punishable\nby fine or imprisonment to deface a tombstone.(757)\n\n*424.* _Indigent Soldiers, Tombstones._\u2014Most of the States have statutes\nproviding for the burial of indigent soldiers and for putting tombstones\nat their graves. The attention of relatives of deceased soldiers should be\ncalled to it.\n\n*425.* _State Authority._\u2014The State Legislature has authority to control\ncemeteries or delegate that authority to some one else, and afterward to\ntransfer it to a different person.(758)\n\n*426.* _Maryland, Two Acres._\u2014Although the declaration of rights of the\nState of Maryland restricted the sale of lands for a cemetery for a church\nto two acres, the Legislature has power to grant leave to a cemetery\nassociation to take title to more land. And where the trustees bought\ntwelve acres of land for a burial ground and a subsequent act of the\nLegislature authorized the enlargement of the cemetery not to exceed\ntwenty-five acres, the title to the excess of the valid purchase was\nratified and the title vested in the trustees.(759)\n\n*427.* _Consent, Application._\u2014Where a statute provides that no cemetery\nshall be laid out without first obtaining the consent of the municipal\nauthorities thereto, a written communication signed by the officers of an\nincorporated society is sufficient application; and a motion granting\nconsent adopted by the city council is sufficient action on its part to\ncomply with the statute.(760)\n\n*428.* _Charter, Ground, Members._\u2014An application for a charter to\nincorporate a cemetery need not specifically locate the ground.(761) The\ncharter or the articles of incorporation, or by-laws made under them,\ngenerally determines who shall be members of the corporation. And where\nevery owner of a lot signing the constitution and by-laws becomes a\nmember, the trustees can not vote on the unsold lots.(762)\n\n*429.* _Police Power, Trespass, Burial._\u2014Under our laws the State, by\nreason of its police power, has control over the cemeteries within it.\nHowever, that power has generally been very favorably exercised. Laws both\ncivil and criminal have been enacted to protect cemeteries from invasion\nand trespass and to protect tombstones from injury.(763) When authorized\nby the Legislature a city may make a by-law prohibiting burial within its\nlimits, notwithstanding that the cemetery has been constantly used for\nover one hundred years.(764) Also, the city has authority to protect and\nregulate the use of a cemetery.(765)\n\n*430.* _Dwelling, Limits._\u2014Most of the States provide that no cemetery\nshall be laid out within a certain limit of a dwelling. But after the\ncemetery is established a man can not have it moved when he puts up a\ndwelling within the limits or where he consented to the cemetery at the\ntime it was established.(766)\n\n*431.* _Well, Pollution._\u2014And where a man had built a dwelling near a\ncemetery, it was not good ground for him to prevent the enlargement of the\ncemetery by showing that it might destroy his well. The court questions\nwhether there is any legal ground for complaint for the pollution of\nsubterranean waters when caused by the proper use without negligence of\nthe adjacent premises.(767) Additional lands may be obtained under the law\nof eminent domain by condemnation.(768)\n\n*432.* _Exempt, Execution, Mortgage._\u2014The statutes in most of the States\nexempt the tombstones and lots in a cemetery from sale on execution.(769)\nAlso, a cemetery lot can not be sold under mortgage after bodies have been\nburied therein, as any one may be arrested for desecration of graves.(770)\n\n*433.* _Public, Regulation._\u2014The right to bury in a public cemetery is a\nprivilege or license that is subject to municipal regulation, and\nrevocable whenever the public necessity requires it.(771)\n\n*434.* _Nuisance, Public Health, Disease._\u2014A cemetery is not a nuisance\n_per se_, but if it is proved that the burial of dead bodies in a certain\ncemetery does injure the public health and is a fruitful source of\ntransmission of disease, the State may prohibit such burial at certain\nplaces within cities or adjacent to dwellings. But unless authorized by\nthe Legislature a council has no right by ordinance to provide that no one\nshall be buried within half a mile of any habitation or public\nthoroughfare.(772) And where the Legislature authorized a city to remove\nthe bodies interred and allow streets through the land, it had authority\nto do so.(773)\n\n*435.* _Devise, Easement, Rules._\u2014The general rule of law is that a man\ncan not devise away a cemetery lot in which members of his family are\nburied. He owns only a license or at the most an easement which is subject\nto the rules of the cemetery association and the police power of the\nState. However, there are some exceptions.(774)\n\n*436.* _Conditions._\u2014A condition in a deed that the lot can not be sold,\nassigned, or transferred without consent of the cemetery corporation, is\nas good and binding as in any other conveyance of real estate.(775)\n\n*437.* _Inherits, Right._\u2014Where a son inherits from his father the right\nto burial in a cemetery lot, he has the right to remove and inter therein\nthe bodies of his grandmother and sister who had been buried\nelsewhere.(776)\n\n*438.* _Certificate._\u2014A certificate was issued for the burial of Dennis\nCoppers in the following form:\n\n\n    \u201cOffice of Calvary Cemetery,\n    New York, December 1, 1873.\n\n    RECEIVED from Mr. Dennis Coppers, seventy-five dollars, being the\n    amount of purchase money of a plot of ground 8 feet by 8 feet, in\n    Calvary Cemetery.\n\n    D. BRENNAN,\n    Superintendent of Calvary Cemetery.\n\n    4 Graves, 5, 6, 7, 8, Plot D, Section 7, Range 35.\u201d\n\n\n*439.* _Freemason, Title, Right._\u2014Prior to 1879, the mother, wife, and\nother relatives of Coppers, who were Roman Catholics, were buried in the\nlot covered by the deed given in the last paragraph. Coppers, who was a\nFreemason, died in August, 1879, and his funeral services were held under\nthe auspices of the Masons from an Episcopal church, as directed in his\nwill. The rules and doctrines of the Church forbid the burial in\nconsecrated ground of the body of one who was not a Roman Catholic or who\nwas a member of the Masonic fraternity. The Church authorities refused to\nallow Coppers to be buried in the cemetery, and application was made by\nhis relatives for a writ of mandamus to compel his interment therein, they\nhaving deposited the necessary money to pay all the expenses. The court\nheld that the certificate delivered to Coppers was not a conveyance nor a\ngrant and did not vest title to the land in him, and that the cemetery\ncould not be compelled to execute and deliver to him an absolute\nconveyance of the lot. His only right under the certificate was the use of\nthe lot for burial purposes subject to and in conformity with the\nestablished rules and by-laws of the corporation in so far as they were\nnot in violation of any law. It is the tacit understanding, when a person\napplies for a burial lot in a cemetery of the Catholic Church, that he is\neither a Catholic and as such is eligible to be buried therein, or that he\napplies in behalf of those who are in communion with the Church.(777)\n\n*440.* _Lots, Fee._\u2014If the cemetery association sells 400 lots to one man\nand makes a conveyance in fee thereof, it is bound thereby.(778)\n\n*441.* _Deed, Privilege, Heirs and Assigns._\u2014No formal deed is necessary\nto confer exclusive right to the use of a cemetery lot for burial\npurposes.(779) And certificates of lots issued by a corporation convey no\ntitle to the land, as they are not in the form necessary to constitute a\nconveyance of land. Their only effect is to grant the privilege of\ninterment so long as the ground continues to be used for the purposes of\nburial.(780) A deed of a cemetery lot \u201cto him, his heirs, and assigns\nforever,\u201d gives only an easement in the freehold, and does not give title\nto the soil, and is subject to changes made necessary by altered\ncircumstances.(781)\n\n*442.* _Access, Purposes._\u2014Title to a cemetery lot gives the right of\naccess to it for the usual purposes, including putting up monuments.(782)\n\n*443.* _Monuments, Inscriptions, Drunkenness, Non-Baptized,\nStrangers._\u2014The plaintiff obtained from the defendant a deed, which, among\nother things, contained the following conditions: \u201cthat such lot shall not\nbe transferred without the consent of the trustees; shall be subject to\nthe regulations made, or to be made, in the care and management of such\ncemetery by the trustees, who shall also have the right to prevent the\nerection of offensive and improper monuments or inscriptions thereon, and\nshall retain the right to enter any lot for the removal of anything\nobjectionable; that no remains shall be deposited therein for hire; and\nthat persons dying in drunkenness, duel, or by self-destruction,\nnon-baptized, non-Catholic, or otherwise opposed to the Catholic Church,\nshall not be therein interred.\u201d The plaintiff had buried his father and\none of his children in the lot, and brought his wife\u2019s remains there for\nburial. Upon the arrival of the funeral, two small coffins of strangers,\none of which bore the name \u201cJohn McDonald,\u201d which the grave-digger had\ntaken up, were at the side of the grave. There was nothing to show how\nthose bodies came to be buried there. The plaintiff brought suit for\ndamages against the cemetery association. The court held that the cemetery\nassociation was liable and that the defense that it was a public\ncharitable organization could not be sustained.(783)\n\n*444.* _Use, Forfeited._\u2014When a deed is made of land for the use of a\ncemetery only, it will be forfeited by using it for a school.(784)\n\n*445.* _By-Laws, Member, Burial._\u2014Where a by-law of a church association\nprovides that any member who pays one dollar to have his name entered in\nthe record shall be entitled to a burial lot, a member who had paid one\ndollar to the committee of the church before the adoption of such by-law\nbut had ceased to be a member of the congregation, has no right to a\nburial lot.(785)\n\n*446.* _Adverse Possession._\u2014If the original title to a cemetery is\ndefective, the title may become good by adverse possession.(786)\n\n*447.* _Improvements._\u2014The owner of a lot, unless some rule of the\ncemetery association or law of the State is to the contrary, may improve\nit as he sees fit so long as he does not injure the property rights of\nanother.(787)\n\n*448.* _Trespass, Injunction._\u2014An action for damages _quara clausum\nfregit_, can be maintained by a relative against any one who trespasses\nupon a grave of a person lawfully interred.(788) Also, a relative may\nenjoin by suit in equity, on behalf of himself and others equally\ninterested, interference with graves in his cemetery lot.(789)\n\n*449.* _Roads, Alleys._\u2014Most of the laws relating to highways apply to\ncemetery roads and alleys, excepting that when a road or alley in a\ncemetery is vacated the land reverts to the cemetery instead of becoming\nparts of the adjoining lots.(790) In most of the States a road can not be\nlaid out through or take a part of a cemetery.(791) But a public highway\nmay be established through a cemetery by user, the same as over other\nlands.(792)\n\n*450.* _Abandoned, Bodies._\u2014When a cemetery has been abandoned, those who\nhave relatives buried there may incorporate it for preservation.(793)\nAlso, a corporation may change its cemetery and remove the bodies interred\ntherein.(794)\n\n*451.* _Two-Family Lot, Control._\u2014Where a lot is owned jointly by two\nfamilies, one burying in the north half and the other in the south half,\nthe family burying in the north half can not prevent the burial of a\nmember of the other family in the south half, if entitled to be buried in\nthat cemetery.(795)\n\n*452.* _Burying Dogs, Removal._\u2014A person who has a lot in a cemetery has\nno right to bury any but human bodies therein, and one who has buried a\npet dog in her lot may be compelled to remove it.(796)\n\n*453.* _Stranger, Protest, Kin._\u2014One member of a family can not authorize\nthe burial of a stranger in a family lot where his parents are buried and\nagainst the protest of any other relative of equal or nearer degree of\nkin.(797) When an owner of a lot has consented to the burial of a body\ntherein, he can not afterward remove the body or deface the tombstone, and\nto do so would be a criminal offense.(798) When a lot is sold to one\nperson, the cemetery association has the right to limit interments to\nmembers of the family owning the lot. However, where there is nothing\nconcerning it in the laws or rules of the association, it might be\ndifferent.(799)\n\n*454.* _Association, Bishop, Stipulation, Certificate, License,\nRevocable._\u2014The Germans of Cincinnati formed an association and purchased\nten acres of land for a cemetery \u201cfor German immigrants, their families,\nand relatives, of Cincinnati and its vicinity, who might be members of the\nCatholic Church and in accordance with the doctrine, discipline, usage,\nand ceremonies of the same.\u201d They incorporated with fifteen trustees to be\nelected annually. Before he would bless the cemetery, the bishop required\nand the committee stipulated with him in writing the following: That the\nrules of the Catholic Church should always be faithfully observed in this\nchiefly: First, that no one should be buried in the ground who had not\nbeen baptized or who died out of communion of the Catholic Church, to\nwhich the bishop or in his absence the clergy of the German Catholic\nChurch or churches, should be the judge; second, that no poor person\nshould be denied a place therein because his parents were unwilling to\npay; third, that any money accrued from the ground should be expended for\npious uses and specifically for the relief of the German Catholic poor;\nfourth, that the remains of persons interred in Catharine Street\nburial-ground might be removed to the new ground. The bishop subsequently\nclosed the cemetery as a place for burial of Catholics because the\ncongregation had violated the stipulation: \u201cFirst, by admitting those to\nburial who died out of the communion of the Catholic Church; second, by\nrefusing to poor persons the right of burial; third, by expending the\nfunds of the association in other than pious uses and relief of the poor.\u201d\nThe court held that the corporation had authority to determine that the\ncemetery should continue to be used as such, but the conditions might be\nenforced by any one interested.(800) Also the question was brought before\nthe court in a case where a man had fallen away from the Church, and the\ncourt held that the certificate was a mere license giving no property\nrights, and revocable; and that the question as to whether the party to be\nburied therein was in communion with the Church, was one over which the\nChurch itself had exclusive jurisdiction.(801)\n\n*455.* _Rules, Diocese._\u2014One who buys the privilege of burying his dead in\na cemetery acquires no general right of property, but only a right to use\nthe grounds as a place of interment, and the rules governing a cemetery in\nforce at the time the privilege is acquired measure the extent of the use.\nWhere a rule of the church having charge of the cemetery forbids the\nburial of non-Catholics therein, the bishop of the diocese and the local\npriest, who according to the usage of the church were vested with control,\nhad authority and power to restrain a holder of a lot from interring the\nbody of his son who was not in communion with the church at the time of\nhis death, and who committed suicide.(802)\n\n*456.* _Negroes, Indians._\u2014The fact that a man is a negro, Indian, or\nother racial human being, is not good ground to prevent his burial in a\ncemetery.(803)\n\n*457.* _Will, Body, Custody._\u2014Where no disposition of a body has been made\nby will, the surviving husband, or wife, or next of kin, has the right to\nthe body for the purpose of burial. But the right of the surviving wife or\nhusband, if they were living together at the time of the death of\ndeceased, is paramount to that of the next of kin.(804) A right to the\ncustody of the body of a deceased relative and to decide upon the final\nplace of burial where the deceased is unmarried, is in his next of kin,\nand this right will be protected by the courts.(805)\n\n*458.* _Non-Residence, Burial._\u2014Non-residence does not divest a person of\nthe right to burial with his relatives.(806)\n\n*459.* _State, Vacate, Equity, Rule._\u2014The State may require the removal of\nthe bodies and vacate a cemetery without compensation to lot owners in\nsome extraordinary cases of eminent domain or as a health measure.(807)\nCourts of equity exercise some discretion in cases that do not fall within\nthis rule.(808) But the superintendent of a cemetery has no right to\nremove a child without the consent of the father who owns the lot.(809)\n\n*460.* _Consent, Bishop, Removal._\u2014With the consent of deceased\u2019s husband\nbefore the funeral, the father of deceased paid for the lot in which his\ndaughter wished to be buried with her parents. Her mother being\ndissatisfied with the location, the lot was subsequently exchanged for\nanother in the same cemetery; but after preliminary arrangements had been\nmade, the son-in-law applied to a court of equity for a writ restraining\nthe father and the bishop from removing the body. The bishop answered that\nhe was willing to conform to any order of the court. The court held that\nby acceding to his wife\u2019s request and allowing her father to bury her in\nthe first instance, and by standing mute while the arrangements for the\nremoval of the body were being made, the husband had no right thereafter\nto prevent the removal of his wife\u2019s body.(810)\n\n*461.* _Court, Remove, Consent._\u2014In a proper case a court may grant a\ndecree to remove the body of a relative from one cemetery to another.(811)\nOtherwise no one has the right to exhume or remove a body without the\nconsent of those having charge of the cemetery and of those having the\nright of burial, as consort or the next of kin. In some States the offense\nis a felony.(812) In Nebraska, at least, those who have the legal right to\nbury a relative may remove his body from one Catholic cemetery to another\nwithout the consent of the bishop.(813)\n\n*462.* _Crime, Fraud, Exhume, Autopsy._\u2014In an action on an insurance\npolicy where there is evidence of fraud, as death by poison, a court may\norder a body exhumed for examination, although the person having the right\nto control the burial of the body is not a party to the suit.(814) Public\nofficials have the right to disinter a body to ascertain whether a crime\nhas been committed.(815) But without a coroner\u2019s inquest or consent of the\nsurviving consort or next of kin, a doctor has no right to perform an\nautopsy.(816)\n\n*463.* _Tort, Corpse._\u2014The general rule is that an action of tort may be\nmaintained by the widow or next of kin for the mutilation of a corpse or\neven for negligently exposing it to the elements.(817) In a few cases the\nright has been denied.(818)\n\n*464.* _Custodian, Burial, Mutilation._\u2014In the absence of a widow, a son\nis the lawful custodian of the body of his deceased father for\npreservation, representation, and burial, and may maintain an action for\nunlawful mutilation thereof. The sense of outrage and mental suffering\nresulting directly from the wilful mutilation of the body of a parent, is\na proper independent element of compensatory damages.(819)\n\n*465.* _Property in a Corpse, Mummy, Executors._\u2014The question of property\nin a corpse has been generally denied. However, in case of a mummy which\nhas become an object of curiosity, the case may be different. Where a\ntestator ordered his body burned and the executor presented a bill for\n\u00a3321 for doing so, the court disallowed it on the ground that when a man\nis dead his next of kin or executors have the right to dispose of his\nbody; but that as it is not property, a man has no right to bequeath it\nfor a particular purpose.(820) Also, where a man was in jail and died\nduring his imprisonment and the jailer refused to give up the body until\nthe debt was paid, the court held that there was no property in the\ncorpse, and therefore there could be no lien upon it and he must surrender\nit.(821)\n\n*466.* _Rights, Duties, Body, Will._\u2014While there is no property in a dead\nbody so that it may be sold, there are rights and duties out of which may\narise tort and criminal actions. The question of the right of a man to\ndispose of his body by will is not well settled in this country.(822)\nThere are many cases that hold that a person has the right to make a\nbinding testamentary disposition of his own body after death.(823) But on\nthe contrary it has been held that one can not by his will confer any\nright as to the disposition of his body.(824)\n\n*467.* _Monument, Fence._\u2014Giving the right to bury in one\u2019s cemetery lot\ncarries with it the right to erect a monument; but it does not carry with\nit the right to fence the cemetery lot or interfere with other graves\ntherein. Therefore, the monument must be of such size and so located and\nerected as not to interfere with the rights of others.(825)\n\n*468.* _Tombstone, Mother-in-Law._\u2014A husband has the right to remove a\ntombstone that his mother-in-law put over his wife\u2019s grave, and put up one\nof his own choice instead.(826) The general rule is that vaults and\ntombstones are personal property and may be removed \u201cin good faith and\nwith care and decency\u201d by the next of kin.(827)\n\n*469.* _Trees, Authority._\u2014It is a criminal offense to cut trees in a\ncemetery without right or authority.(828)\n\n*470.* _Charitable, Institution, Negligence._\u2014A Catholic cemetery without\ncapital stock or shares and paying no profits nor dividends, does not come\nunder the head of a charitable institution so as to relieve it from\nliability for negligence.(829)\n\n*471.* _Equity, Repair, Injuries._\u2014A cemetery association may by bill in\nequity be forced to keep walks and drives in good repair and consequently\nis liable for injuries resulting from its negligence.(830)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV. MISCELLANEOUS\n\n\n*472.* _Societies, Law._\u2014Religious societies organized in connection with\na church or congregation are in law civil societies and not ecclesiastical\ncorporations, and are governed by the law of the land. Therefore, the law\nof fraternities fully covers all questions that arise in such societies.\nThe subject is too comprehensive to be treated at any length here.(831)\n\n*473.* _Society, Bishop._\u2014A society may expel a member on due notice and a\nfair trial. The refusal of the bishop to recognize a fraternity organized\nas a Roman Catholic society, does not prevent the society and its officers\nfrom exercising the powers of a religious corporation conferred by law nor\nprohibit its members from maintaining their religious worship.(832)\n\n*474.* _Priest, Doorkeeper, Policemen, Arrest._\u2014A priest who was in charge\nof a parish and had control of the temporalities consisting of pew-rents,\nSunday and other collections, graveyard, church, school, fees, and\ndonations, on account of disorderly behavior of members issued tickets to\nthose to be admitted and ordered a doorkeeper to prevent others from\nentering the church. A woman without a ticket and talking loudly,\nendeavored to force her way into the church, although there were several\npolicemen on duty who attempted to stop her. She was arrested and her\nhusband brought suit for false imprisonment. The court held that a\nclergyman has a right to keep disturbers out of the church and that the\ndoorkeepers have a right to use sufficient force to carry out the orders\nof the priest; but when a doorkeeper went beyond those orders by causing\nthe arrest of the woman, he was not acting within the apparent scope of\nhis employment and the priest was not liable.(833)\n\n*475.* _Saloon, Church, License._\u2014A man owned premises that had been\noccupied as a saloon from 1894. In 1896 the New York law prohibiting\nsaloons to be licensed within 200 feet of a church, except places where\nliquor traffic had been carried on prior to that time, was passed. In 1898\na church was built within 200 feet of the saloon in question. After the\nbuilding of the church, the saloon was vacated for about ten days during a\nchange of saloonkeepers, and an action was brought to revoke the license\nof the new saloonkeeper. The court held that the incidental interruption\nof the business did not bring the place within the prohibition of the law,\nand that the license could not be revoked.(834)\n\n*476.* _Y. M. C. A._\u2014The Y. M. C. A. on account of giving lunches,\nlectures, and having a gymnasium, for which charges are made, is not a\ncharitable institution so as to be exempt from liability in case of\nnegligence. Property is exempt only when used for exempt purposes\nexclusively.(835)\n\n*477.* _Students, Vote, Residence._\u2014Students at a seminary studying for\nthe priesthood do not thereby lose their residence at their homes and are\nnot entitled to vote where a college is located. The fact that they intend\nto remain for four years, become clergymen, and then go to wherever they\nmay be called, does not give them the right of residence, and there is no\ndistinction between them and any other students away from home at\nschool.(836) However, a student of full age might become a voter in the\ncollege precinct if he has no other fixed domicile.(837)\n\n*478.* _\u201c__My Wife, Anna Jones,__\u201d__ Divorce, Insurance._\u2014A bequest or\ndevise to \u201cmy wife, Anna Jones,\u201d is not changed by a divorce without some\nevidence to prove that the testator did not intend his divorced wife to\nshare in his estate, unless the judgment of divorce made a division of the\nproperty. The same is true of a policy of insurance or benefit\ncertificate. However, there are exceptions that weaken the rule and make\nits application in some States uncertain.(838)\n\n*479.* _Bells, Sick, Injunction._\u2014On the complaint of an injured person, a\ncourt will issue an injunction restraining the ringing of church, convent,\nor other bells, at unusual hours or when their noise is injurious to the\nsick, or when their vibration affects other premises. As the law of\nnuisances applies in such cases, an exact statement of when the court\nshould issue the injunction or whether the injunction should be temporary\nor perpetual, can not be given; but when the personal or property rights\nof others are affected, an injunction may be granted. The fact that the\nbells are chimes or part of a clock does not change the rule.(839)\n\n*480.* _Marriage, Impediments, Recording._\u2014Legal marriage may be\ncontracted only between unmarried persons not related within the\nprohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity, of lawful age and\nsufficient mental and physical capacity. Statutes vary greatly. In some\nStates affinity is not considered a legal objection and first cousins may\nmarry; in others, both are prohibited and other limitations of\nrelationship, race, and color are fixed, and registration of the clergymen\nand licenses to wed are required. Also, the clergyman must report the\nmarriage promptly to the proper office. Fines, penalties, and imprisonment\nare usually provided for violating the law. Informal marriages may or may\nnot be voidable or void.(840)\n\n*481.* _Charivari, Wedding Pranks._\u2014Charivari, assaults, and disorderly\nconduct are unlawful at all times, and can not be justified by\ncustom.(841) A newly wedded man who was serenaded (charivaried) by his\nneighbors by firing guns, blowing horns, beating pans, rattling\nhorse-fiddles, etc., after ordering the rioters off fired into the crowd\nand wounded one of them. On trial for assault with intent to kill, the\ngroom was acquitted. Shooting might not be justifiable in cases where less\npotent agencies, such as a horsewhip or dogs, are sufficient, or where the\nimmediate protection of person or property does not call for it. The law\nshould be invoked when no exigency for force exists.(842)\n\n*482.* _Infallibility of Courts._\u2014When a question of law at issue in a\ncase is duly presented to a supreme court which is the court of last\nresort, its decision thereon becomes \u201cthe law of the case\u201d and is\nthereafter binding upon the court itself and all the courts inferior to\nit; and no matter how often that identical case may come before the court\non subsequent appeals, the questions already decided therein will not be\nreconsidered. It is interesting to compare this principle of our courts\nwith Papal infallibility.(843) Courts do not always adhere to the\nrule.(844)\n\n*483.* _Money Stolen, Bailed or Loaned, Insolvency, Gifts._\u2014Property\nstolen by A. or left with him as bailee to be returned in specie, can not\nbe given away by him for charity. Also, when a man is insolvent he has no\nright to give away any of his property.(845) That has been the rule of law\nsince Coke laid down the maxim: \u201cA man must be just before he is\ngenerous.\u201d One is insolvent when his debts exceed the value of his\nunexempt property.(846) When an insolvent debtor makes a gift, a creditor\nmay sue and recover from the donee; or in a proper case the creditor may\nforce the debtor into bankruptcy to recover the gift.(847) The want of\nknowledge or good faith of the donee is immaterial and no defense to an\naction to recover the property.(848)\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nThe References Are To The Sections.\n\nA\n\nAbandoned cemetery, 449;\n  property reverts, 295.\n\nAccepting a draft, officer, 162.\n\nAccess to cemetery, right of, 442.\n\nAccount, officers must, 297.\n\nAction in church tribunal, 86;\n  for expulsion, 137;\n  unincorporated party, 217;\n  slander by deceased, 382.\n\nActs of majority, when void, 177.\n\nAdjournment, 181.\n\nAdoption of children, 367.\n\nAdoration, 29.\n\nAdverse possession, cemetery, 446;\n  church property, 257.\n\nAid from Government, 46.\n\nAgent, priest of bishop, 270.\n\nAlabama, bequest for Masses, 316.\n\nAmbiguity, proof clearing, 326.\n\nAmbiguous provision, proof, 272.\n\nAmerica, civil and common law, 17.\n\nAnonymous letter not privileged, 224.\n\nAnswer of priest as witness, 222.\n\nAppeal, church tribunal, 86;\n  right of, 206.\n\nApplication, for cemetery, 427.\n\nAppointed officers, 121.\n\nAppropriation for hospital, 44;\n  can not be from taxes, 335;\n  indirect, 335, 46, 28, 375.\n\nArgument when privileged, 387, 386.\n\nArrears, pew rent, membership, 250.\n\nArrest, authority, damages, 474.\n\nAssault and battery, 387.\n\nAssessment, of pews, 243;\n  of cemetery void, 293.\n\nAssistance to enforce order, 356.\n\nAssociation, discipline, bishop, 454.\n\nAttainder, not lawful, 36.\n\nAttendance, test of membership, 144.\n\nAuthority in ancient nations, 3;\n  inferior must obey, 85, 93;\n  use of force by priest, 100;\n  court may decide contested, 112;\n  of priest as to cemetery, 281;\n  of sexton in church, 314;\n  of teacher outside of school, 355;\n  to cut trees in cemetery, 469.\n\nAutopsy, authority to make, 462.\n\nB\n\nBankruptcy, church, 302.\n\nBailee, gift of, 483;\n  donor, 483.\n\nBallot, when required, 149.\n\nBaptism, how to record, 191.\n\nBells, ringing a nuisance, 479.\n\nBenefit, work for, on Sunday, 409.\n\n\u201cBenefit of the Clergy,\u201d 10.\n\nBequest, legatees, religion, 136, 320;\n  purpose of enforceable, 284;\n  laws of state control, 306;\n  consent of heirs to change, 313;\n  mistake may not defeat, 317.\n\nBirth, how record kept, 191.\n\nBible in schools, 29, 49, 218, 347, 348;\n  constitution of sect, 127;\n  constitutional rights, 350;\n  Indian schools, 375.\n\nBigamy, unconstitutional, 38;\n  charge of, slander, 384.\n\nBishop, superior authority, 81, 83;\n  subject to Pope, 82;\n  discipline of priest, 99;\n  church debts, 169, 261;\n  removal of priest, 199;\n  deed of church land, 287;\n  control over cemetery, 454;\n  removal of bodies, 460;\n  societies, control of, 473.\n\nBishop\u2019s residence, taxes, 331.\n\nBlasphemy, a crime, 405, 218.\n\nBlessed Virgin, 406.\n\nBoard acts as body only, 360;\n  authority outside of school, 355.\n\nBodies, change of cemeteries, 450;\n  custody of deed, 457;\n  disposing by will, 466;\n  property in, 465.\n\nBologna, law school of, 14.\n\nBurned church, land title, 294.\n\nBuilding, liability of members, 56;\n  subscriptions for, 275;\n  committee, liability, 170;\n  contracts, liability, 233.\n\nBurial, right of, 113;\n  regulations, 429, 445;\n  non-resident, 458;\n  right to control, 464.\n\nBurying dogs in cemetery, 452.\n\nBusiness, religion, 110;\n  notice of meeting, 176;\n  law will enforce, 230;\n  Sunday, 408;\n  or property, libel of, 394.\n\nBy-laws of sects and church, 22;\n  govern elections, 148, 152;\n  subject to state law, 153;\n  control officers, 153, 159;\n  amending, 252;\n  of cemetery association, 445.\n\nC\n\nCalifornia missions, 268.\n\nCanon Law, analysis, 6.\n\nCanons of the church, title, 280.\n\nCasting vote, chairman, 186.\n\nCatholic Church, corporation, 58;\n  control of pews in, 239;\n  free pews, reformation, 237;\n  discipline, suits, 208.\n\nCemetery, authority over, 281;\n  assessment for taxes, 293;\n  Indian, 372.\n\nCertificate, cemetery lot, 438;\n  conditions of, 454;\n  of election, effect of, 157.\n\nCertified copies as evidence, 192.\n\nChallenge of voter, 147;\n  waiver of, 186.\n\n\u201cChances,\u201d \u201cfairs,\u201d unlawful, 420.\n\nChange of use of land, 53;\n  of church government, 67;\n  name of church, 69;\n  doctrine, membership, 289;\n  burial place, 450.\n\nCharge for services, 166.\n\nCharges against member, 202, 389.\n\nCharitable institutions, 333, 338;\n  liability, 470;\n  trust, trustee, 325.\n\nCharity, definition of, 328, 409;\n  Elks, Masons, 333;\n  of debtor, 483.\n\nCharivari, unlawful, 481.\n\nCharter limits corporation, 153;\n  by-laws under, 252;\n  real estate, 339;\n  of cemetery, 428.\n\nChastisement, by teacher, 354.\n\nChild, rights, duties, 361, 370;\n  expelling from school, 352;\n  religion of, 365;\n  out of school, 352, 355.\n\n\u201cChristian Healer,\u201d consent to 417.\n\n\u201cChristian Scientist,\u201d manslaughter, 42.\n\nChristians, who, are, 24.\n\nChurch, definition, 20, 23, 24, 398;\n  secession, heresy, 70, 126;\n  debts of, bishop, 169;\n  removal of, authority, 275;\n  buildings, use of, 276;\n  majority control, 289;\n  Indian churches, 372;\n  personal property, when, 299;\n  and state, 15;\n  records, evidence, 191;\n  births, baptisms, 191;\n  when libelous, 381;\n  tribunals, authority, 216.\n\n\u201cChurch of Latter Day Saints,\u201d 39.\n\nCitizens, clergy as, 92;\n  Indians, states, 371.\n\nCivil rights, procedure, 207;\n  state protects, 210;\n  law, Florida, Louisiana, 17.\n\nClerk of church board, authority, 177.\n\nClergy, bishop may change, 83;\n  exemptions of, 103;\n  salaries, 106.\n\nClergyman, definition, 31;\n  duties and rights, 92;\n  privileged evidence, 224;\n  undue influence, 318;\n  disciplinary rights, 386.\n\nClosing church, 213.\n\nColor of title, possession, 257.\n\nCollateral attack, 307.\n\nCommissioner of Indian schools, 375.\n\nCommon law and the church, 12;\n  crimes under, 401.\n\nCommunicants, membership, 144.\n\nCompetent witness, 220.\n\nComplaint, allegations, 215.\n\nConditions, 436.\n\nConfessions, privacy, 100;\n  not evidence, 221, 226;\n  non-sacramental, 223, 224, 225;\n  witness, privilege, 222.\n\nConfidential communications, libel, 377.\n\nCongregation, authority in, 65;\n  insubordinate, 90.\n\nConscience, Bible, law, 350.\n\nConsent, to hold meeting, 179;\n  to sell or mortgage, 264;\n  daughter becoming nun, 366;\n  to \u201cChristian Healer,\u201d 417;\n  to location of cemetery, 427;\n  bishop\u2019s to remove body, 460;\n  court may, 461.\n\nConsideration, good, 234, 236.\n\nConstantine, Christians, 9.\n\nConstitution of a church, 21, 81, 88;\n  of U. S. and Church, 45, 68, 127;\n  members, Bible, 127, 350, 358.\n\nConsolidation of churches, 73.\n\nContests, how settled, 158;\n  suit for bequest, 319;\n  to hold meeting, 179.\n\nContracts, with churches, 46, 335, 345;\n  binding members, 59;\n  State courts enforce, 292;\n  Sunday, 410.\n\nContributions to deposed priest, 104;\n  right to enjoy, 310.\n\nControl of business of church, 72;\n  vests in corporation, 73;\n  doctrine and discipline, 122;\n  under state law, 155;\n  board of trustees, 161, 279;\n  societies\u2019 collections, 274;\n  cemetery, joint lot, 451.\n\nControversy, submission of, 97.\n\nConvent, consent of parents, 366.\n\nConditions, what are binding, 75;\n  pews, lease, sale, 242;\n  bequests, deeds, 284, 313, 321;\n  quit claim of heirs, 286.\n\nCorporation, members, 253;\n  bequests to religious, 306;\n  name, error, 317.\n\nCorpse, burial, mutilation, 463, 466.\n\nCorrective authority over wife, 370.\n\nCouncils of Church, 378.\n\nCounsel in church tribunal, 200.\n\nCourts, state, 60;\n  church and state, 216;\n  do not decide doctrine, 311;\n  religion of child, 365.\n\nCourt of equity, church title, 212.\n\nCreditors, securing, 263;\n  gifts of debtor, 483;\n  bankruptcy, 302.\n\nCreed, state courts, 211.\n\nCrime, polygamy, 40;\n  church tribunal, 292;\n  charging, slander, 388;\n  sins distinguished, 396;\n  blasphemy is a, 405;\n  autopsy to detect, 462.\n\nCriticisms of clergy, 385.\n\nCruel chastisement unlawful, 354.\n\nCurate, appointment of, 53, 96;\n  salary of, 108.\n\nCustody of children, 361;\n  of wife, 369;\n  of corpse, 457, 464.\n\nCustom of church, meetings, 180.\n\nCy-pres doctrine abrogated, 325.\n\nD\n\nDamages, property destroyed in riot, 52;\n  expulsion from society, 188.\n\nDeath, record, proof, 191.\n\nDebts, unincorporated body, 54;\n  may be limited by law, 74;\n  permission to incur, 101;\n  individual liability, 117;\n  seceders liable for, 126;\n  bishop\u2019s liability, 169;\n  mortgage, 261, 263;\n  power to settle, 263.\n\nDecisions of church court, 88;\n  in submitted case, 97;\n  appeal from church, 206;\n  final in doctrine, 209.\n\nDeed by order of court, 254;\n  description of grantee, 259;\n  to bishop, effect, 262;\n  in priest\u2019s name, 267, 270;\n  conditions in, 284;\n  cemetery lot, 41;\n  form cemetery deed, 438.\n\n_De facto_ officers, acts, 165.\n\nDefenses, law, canon law, 8.\n\nDeficiency judgment, 232.\n\nDefinitions, 20, 34;\n  excommunication, 131.\n\nDelegated authority, 82.\n\nDeposed clergymen, donations to, 104.\n\nDevise on condition of faith, 135;\n  uncertainty of, 271;\n  of cemetery lot, 435.\n\nDiocese, state law in, 51;\n  title of church, 266;\n  rules for cemeteries, 455.\n\nDirectors and Bible, 347.\n\nDirect payment of tax to church, 345.\n\nDisability of members, 57.\n\nDiscretion of officers, 167.\n\nDisease from cemetery, 434.\n\nDiscipline and officers, 63;\n  bishop may enforce, 83, 89;\n  members subject to, 90, 381;\n  inferior authority, 308, 381;\n  tribunals of church, 386, 396;\n  physical, unlawful, 387.\n\nDismissal of clergyman, 109.\n\nDisqualified to hold office, 134.\n\nDissolution of congregation, 73;\n  funds of church, 78;\n  resulting trust, 327.\n\nDisturbances at church, 213;\n  crime, punishment, 397.\n\nDisturbing a religious meeting, 400.\n\nDiverted trust fund, 298.\n\nDivision of church, 129, 276;\n  title to property, 290.\n\nDivorce, legacy, insurance, 478.\n\nDoctor, necessary, 416.\n\nDoctrine of church, 21, 25;\n  change of effect, 53;\n  condition in deed, 278;\n  pewholders must not dictate, 309;\n  discipline, 93.\n\nDog, burying in cemetery, 452.\n\nDomicile of family, 370.\n\nDonation conditioned, 41.\n\nDonor, religion, proof, 272.\n\nDoorkeeper, exceeding order, 474.\n\nDrunkenness, dying in, 443.\n\nDuties of adopted parents, 367;\n  Indian inspectors, 373;\n  to bury dead, 466.\n\nDwelling, priest as servant, 98;\n  of family husband\u2019s, 370;\n  cemetery near, 430.\n\nE\n\nEarly Christians, law, 7.\n\nEasement, title, cemetery lot, 435.\n\nEcclesiastical corporations, 26;\n  court, 10;\n  matters, courts, 209.\n\nEducation for priesthood, 324;\n  of children, control, 343.\n\nElks, 333.\n\nEngland and Roman law, 16;\n  confession privileged, 226.\n\nEnglish law, 17.\n\nEntries in church records, 189.\n\nEquity, priest\u2019s salary, 301;\n  cemetery, corpses, 459;\n  cemetery repairs, 471.\n\nError in deed, 260;\n  latent in devise, 326.\n\nEstablished church, 18.\n\nEstablishment of religion, 37.\n\nEstates, ecclesiastical courts, 11.\n\nEvidence of incorporation, 64;\n  parish books, 189, 191;\n  certified copies, 192;\n  parol evidence, 273;\n  privileged questions, 221.\n\nExcommunication, authority, 87;\n  minor is lawful, 87;\n  _non-tolerati_ is unlawful, 87;\n  legal effect, 167, 136;\n  libel and slander, 381.\n\nExcuse, drunkenness, 407.\n\nExecutors, pew rent, 249;\n  custody of corpse, 465.\n\nExemptions to clergy, attachment, execution, 118, 432.\n\nExempt church property, 329;\n  execution, 432.\n\nExhume, crime, fraud, 462.\n\nExpelled, excommunicated, 87, 120, 167.\n\nExpulsion, right of church, 137, 139;\n  minority, 141;\n  from society, 188.\n\nExercise, religion in school, 29, 346; see \u201cBible.\u201d\n\nF\n\nFacilities for negro education, 358.\n\nFactions trying each other, 112;\n  property of, 211.\n\n\u201cFairs\u201d are unlawful, 420.\n\nFair trial is natural right, 202.\n\nFaith, dying in, burial, 113;\n  member must conform, 142.\n\nFalse statements, slander, 223;\n  imprisonment, 387;\n  by clergymen, libel, 388.\n\nFamily domicile, 370.\n\nFather, duties and rights, 361;\n  custody of child, 361, 362;\n  married child, 369.\n\nFee, title in, when, 262, 440.\n\nFees of priest, 105, 106.\n\nFence in cemetery, 467.\n\nFishing on Sunday, 408.\n\nForce to subdue pupil, 356;\n  to expel disturber, 403;\n  remove trespasser, 248.\n\nForeign language, 124.\n\nForfeiture of membership, 61, 138;\n  provision in will as to, 285;\n  by use excepted, 444.\n\nFraternity, members\u2019 faith, 136;\n  excommunication of member, 136.\n\nFraud, false \u201cprophet\u201d, 171;\n  insurance, autopsy, 462.\n\nFree church seats, regulation, 248.\n\nFreedom of worship, 142.\n\nFree exercise of religion, 37.\n\nFreemason, burial of, 439.\n\nFunds, of church, 58;\n  dissolved church, 78;\n  division of unlawful, 129;\n  lien on, for money paid, 267;\n  diverting from use, 298.\n\nFuneral expenses, 229;\n  on Sunday, 411.\n\nFuture uses, devise, 323.\n\nG\n\nGambling, 420.\n\nGeneral laws, corporations, 62.\n\nGifts of a bankrupt, 483.\n\nGod, belief, public office, 48;\n  crimes against, 406.\n\nGood faith, libel, slander, 383.\n\nGratian, jurist, 13.\n\nGratuitous services, 337.\n\nGuardianship, ecclesiastical, 11;\n  religion of ward, 365.\n\nH\n\nHarmony, want of, 290.\n\nHearing, fair trial, 139;\n  evidence, 202, 219.\n\nHearsay evidence, 202, 219.\n\nHeirs and assigns, cemetery, 441.\n\nHeresy, legal status, 312.\n\nHold over officers, 150.\n\nHospitals, public money, 44;\n  not taxable, 331.\n\nHostile to religion, 41.\n\nHypocrite, slander, 389.\n\nI\n\nIdentity of name or party, 256.\n\nIllegal action, void, 141.\n\nIllegitimate, custody, 362.\n\nImmoral character, child, 352.\n\nImpediments, marriage, 480.\n\nImprisonment, false, 387.\n\nImprovements, cemetery lot, 447.\n\nIncome perquisites, 105.\n\nIncorporated, liability, 119;\n  powers, purposes, 125;\n  charter, by-laws, 154.\n\nIncorporation of church, 62, 64;\n  congregation, 65, 77.\n\nIncorporeal hereditament, pew, 238.\n\nIndependent society, status, 124.\n\nIndians, wards, citizens, 371.\n\nIndigent soldiers, tombstones, 424.\n\nInduction, informal, 96.\n\nInfallibility, judges, 482;\n  comparisons, 482.\n\nInfancy, marriage, convent, 366, 368.\n\nInherits, right of burial, 437.\n\nInjunction, 479, 448, 312, 213, 140.\n\nInjuries, liability, 471.\n\nInnovations of doctrine, 308.\n\nInsane, libel, slander, 383.\n\nInscriptions, offensive, 443.\n\nInspectors of election, 186;\n  of Indian schools, 373.\n\nInstitutions, charitable, 328;\n  damage suits, 336, 470;\n  public and private, 341.\n\nInstrument of punishment, 364.\n\nInsubordinate, discipline, 90.\n\nInsubordination, trial, 139.\n\nInsurance, divorce, 478.\n\nInterest, adverse of officer, 160;\n  must have to sue, 217.\n\nInterrupt religious service, 404.\n\nJ\n\nJews, constitution, 12;\n  Sunday, Sabbath, 412.\n\nJudge of church court, 207;\n  may question witness, 222.\n\nJudicial notice, 219;\n  not of church law, 265.\n\nJurisdiction, church court, 196;\n  notice of trial, 303;\n  U. S. cemeteries, 422.\n\nJuror of church court, 207.\n\nJustification, libel, slander, 395.\n\nK\n\nKey, evidence of possession, 169.\n\nKin, cemetery rights, 437, 441, 449, 453;\n  custody of corpse, 457, 463, 464;\n  damages for mutilation, 463.\n\nL\n\nLand, vested titles, 240;\n  Texan church, 269;\n  quantity limitation, 283, 305.\n\nLanguage, libel, slander, 383.\n\nLaw and religion, 1;\n  religious liberty, 415.\n\nLay members, officers, 121.\n\nLease of pews, 248;\n  exempt property, 300;\n  with government, 345.\n\nLeave to purchase, 280.\n\nLegal notice, 71;\n  rights, church courts, 198.\n\nLegatee, uncertain, 271, 322, 323.\n\nLegitimatized child, 363.\n\nLiability of individuals, 54.\n\nLibel and slander, 377, 382;\n  what may be, 377, 395.\n\nLiberty, juvenile, 376.\n\nLicense to do an act, 454;\n  revoking, resisting, 475.\n\nLien for purchase money, 301.\n\nLimits of cemetery, 430.\n\nLimited debt by by-laws, 74;\n  authority of inferior, 88.\n\nLimitation, statutes of, 206;\n  land holding, 283, 305.\n\nLiquor, libel and slander, 384;\n  near religious meeting, 404.\n\nLoan to priest for church, 173.\n\nLocal corporation, power, 84.\n\nLord\u2019s Prayer, schools, 346, 218.\n\nLots given as subscription, 255;\n  cemetery, title, 440.\n\nLots isolated, taxed, 330.\n\nM\n\nMail, prohibited, 419.\n\nMajor excommunication, 132.\n\nMajority, what is, 80, 146, 151, 185;\n  unlawful acts, 128, 151, 289;\n  board, committee, 360.\n\nMalice, libel and slander, 377.\n\nManagement, corporation, 57;\n  temporal affairs, 66;\n  factions, 211.\n\nMandamus, when issued, 140.\n\nManumission of child, 368.\n\nMarriage, record of, 191;\n  infants, consent, 368;\n  Sunday promise, 410;\n  impediments, 480;\n  public school pupil, 357.\n\nMaryland, cemetery law, 426.\n\nMass defined, 29.\n\nMasses, bequests for, 316.\n\nMasonic Order, charity, 333.\n\nMaterials, liability, 56.\n\nMaternal relatives, child, 361.\n\nMeetings of corporation, 80;\n  notice, time, place, 176;\n  consent, 60, 179.\n\nMembers, corporation, 65, 253;\n  slander of, 378;\n  cemetery owners, 428, 445.\n\nMembership in church, 114;\n  society members, 61;\n  officers, 156;\n  condition, bequest, 320.\n\nMethodist division, 130;\n  coalition, 310;\n  Presbyterians, 310.\n\nMiddle Ages, growth of law, 12.\n\nMinister, definition, 32;\n  authority of Protestant, 81;\n  deposed, 104;\n  dismissal of, 109.\n\nMinor, not church voter, 115 (see infant);\n  ex-communication, 87, 131.\n\nMinutes, evidence, how kept, 189.\n\nMisnomer, proof, 256.\n\nMissions, California, 268.\n\nMississippi, bigotry, 50, 334.\n\nMistake, in deed or will, 317.\n\nMisuse of property, 291.\n\nMoney, officers, 164;\n  stolen title, gift, 483;\n  responsibility for, 172;\n  gift to charity, 483;\n  sewing circle, 175;\n  congregation, 274;\n  advanced by priest, 109.\n\nMonks, land, 268.\n\nMonuments, free, 423, 424;\n  offensive, 443, 467;\n  injuring, 421, 423, 429.\n\nMortgage, foreclosure, 232;\n  bishop\u2019s authority, 261;\n  cemetery lot, 432;\n  church property, 264.\n\nMortmain, where in force, 340.\n\nMother, child, 362, 366.\n\nMother Church, heresy, 122.\n\nMother-in-law, tombstone, 468.\n\nMummy, property in, 465.\n\nMurder, correcting child, 364.\n\nMutilation of corpse, 462, 463, 464.\n\n\u201cMy wife, Anna Jones,\u201d will, insurance, 478.\n\nN\n\nName, change of corporate, 69;\n  importance, record, 195;\n  error in bequest or deed, 317.\n\nNatural Justice, influence, 5.\n\nNecessaries, what are, 416.\n\nNecessity, work of, 409.\n\nNegligence, liability, 336, 470.\n\nNegroes, burial of, 456.\n\nNewspaper, criticism of priest, 385;\n  criticism of dead, 393.\n\nNew York church law, 50.\n\nNon-baptized, burial, 443.\n\nNon-members, burial of, 443;\n  officers, 116.\n\nNon-residence, right of burial, 458.\n\nNon-slave-holding, Methodists, 130.\n\nNote, authority to make, 160;\n  when church bound, 163;\n  signers bound, 170.\n\nNotice, legal, 71, 176, 264;\n  due notice necessary, 146, 176;\n  special meeting, 178, 264;\n  service of, 180;\n  waiver of, 205;\n  given on Sunday, 410.\n\nNuns, individual property, 342.\n\nNuisance, cemetery, 434.\n\nO\n\nObituary, libel, 392.\n\nObject of juvenile courts, 376.\n\nObscene language, mail, 419.\n\nOffense at common law, 401;\n  under statutes, 396.\n\nOffice, religious qualifications, 48;\n  membership qualifications, 156.\n\nOfficers, duties, rights, 63;\n  non-members, 156, 116;\n  libel, 392.\n\nOfficial communication, libel, 379.\n\nOhio, Bible, 347.\n\nOverdraft, authority, 160.\n\nOrphan asylums, public money, 344.\n\nP\n\nParent and child, duties, rights, 343;\n  direct studies, 353.\n\nParish, definition, 30;\n  incorporating, 51;\n  pastor\u2019s relation, 91.\n\nParishioner, definition, 30.\n\nParsonage, use, 53;\n  rented, taxes, 332.\n\nParochial schools, 343.\n\nPartners, unincorporated church, 54.\n\nParties to suits, 76, 214.\n\nPastoral duties, slander, 380.\n\nPastor, liability for salary, 55;\n  relations terminated, 91.\n\nPaying money to deposed clergy, 213.\n\nPermission from superior, 101.\n\nPersonalty, church on rollers, 299.\n\nPerversion of property, 291.\n\nPersecutions, promoted law, 8.\n\nPew, right to occupy, 242, 244;\n  removal from, 247.\n\nPew rent of deceased, 249;\n  qualification of voter, 250.\n\nPew rights, 231-250.\n\nPhilosophical foundations of law, 4.\n\nPhysician, Sunday, 411;\n  Christian Scientist, 42, 417;\n  furnishing for family, 416.\n\nPlace, notice of meeting, 143.\n\nPolice power, cemeteries, 429.\n\nPolitics, minister, arrest, 418.\n\nPoll list of church voters, 145.\n\nPolicemen, arrest, 474.\n\nPollution of water, 431.\n\nPope, superior authority, 82.\n\nPossession, key indicates, 168.\n\nPowers of corporation, 164.\n\nPrayer in school, 348;\n  meeting, notice, 187.\n\nPresbyterians and Methodists, 310.\n\nPreserve order, priest, 403.\n\nPreside, who may, 159.\n\nPresident, Indians, trade, 374.\n\nPresumptions, church law, 228.\n\nPresiding officer, 183.\n\nPresumed authority, 101.\n\nPriest, bishop not liable for salary, 98;\n  fellow-servant of bishop, 95;\n  semi-servant, 98;\n  removal, trial, 99, 199;\n  borrowing money for church, 173;\n  possession of, 98, 197;\n  deed in priest\u2019s name, 267;\n  agent of bishop, 270;\n  excommunication, slander, 380;\n  newspaper criticism, 385;\n  using force, order, 403;\n  excluding disorderlies, 474;\n  witness, privilege, 221, 222;\n  answers, 222;\n  suits by and against, 208.\n\nPriesthood, discipline, 89;\n  bequest to educate for, 324.\n\nPrincipal service, notice, 180.\n\nPrivate school, disturbing, 399.\n\nPrivacy, confessor, 100.\n\nPrivileges of church court, 196;\n  witness, 221, 222;\n  cemetery, 441.\n\nPrivileged, confessions, 221;\n  official communications, 379.\n\nProbable cause, slander, arrest, 390.\n\nProcedure in church court, 207.\n\nProcess to obtain jurisdiction, 303.\n\nProfanity, a crime, 407.\n\nProfane language in church, 397;\n  swearer, libel, 393.\n\nPromise, consideration, 234, 236.\n\nProof of the notice, 182;\n  crime, 407.\n\nProper record in parish, 194.\n\nProperty, title in whom, 63;\n  confiscation, 94;\n  execution against, 118;\n  custody of, 197;\n  factions, 211;\n  restrictions on amount, 304;\n  of nuns, 342;\n  in a corpse, 465.\n\nProtest against burial, 453.\n\nProtestant, who is a, 43;\n  New Hampshire, 43;\n  superior authority, 81;\n  services in schools, 29;\n  teacher, taxes for, 47.\n\nPublic institutions, support, 341;\n  cemeteries, 433;\n  school Bible, 348;\n  religious services in, 29;\n  residence of pupils, 359;\n  health, cemetery, 434.\n\nPunishment in school, 354, 355;\n  by parent, 364.\n\nPurposes of a gift or bequest, 278;\n  acquired for church, 282;\n  leased lands, 300;\n  exempt from taxes, 329.\n\nQ\n\nQuarrel, secession, 130.\n\nQuasi-public corporations, 26.\n\nQuit-claim, conditions, 286.\n\nQuorum, number necessary, 80;\n  who counted, 146;\n  majority, 185, 80, 146.\n\nR\n\nRations for Indian schools, 375.\n\nReal estate taxes, 51;\n  purposes, held for, 282;\n  changing purpose, 339.\n\nRebuilding, pewholders, 245.\n\nRector or pastor, 33.\n\nRector, induction, 96;\n  charges against, 384.\n\nRecord, keeping, 195.\n\nRecording marriage, 480.\n\nRedress of priest, dismissal, 199.\n\nReformation and law, 13;\n  pews rented, sold, 237.\n\nReformatories, juvenile courts, 376.\n\nRegular church organization, 70, 111.\n\nRegulation of cemeteries, 433.\n\nRelation of pastor to parish, 91.\n\nRelatives, abandoned cemetery, 449.\n\nReligion, ancient, 2;\n  corporations, 26;\n  definition, 34;\n  Christian, 24;\n  influence on law, 1;\n  crime under, 40;\n  anti-religion, freedom, 41;\n  guardian proselyte, 365;\n  crimes against, 406.\n\nReligious garb, 28, 49;\n  liberty, 18, 28, 49, 415;\n  membership, 110, 111;\n  service, consideration, 230;\n  tests, 35;\n  tolerance, 18, 28;\n  society, 20, 23;\n  worship, 29.\n\nRemedies in church court, 204.\n\nRemodeling, pewholders, 245.\n\nRemoval, of clergy, 201;\n  of animal carcasses, 452;\n  of building, 275;\n  of corpse, 460, 461.\n\nRented pews, 237;\n  parsonage, 332;\n  priest\u2019s rights, 240.\n\nRepair of cemetery, 471.\n\nRepeating slander, 395.\n\nResidence of students, 477.\n\n_Res judicata_, 482.\n\nRestrictions on property, 304;\n  corporation, 249.\n\nResidents of district, 359.\n\nResulting trust, 327.\n\nRevenues of parish, 279.\n\nRevert, lands when, 294, 295.\n\nRevocable license, 454.\n\nReorganization of corporation, 79.\n\nRidicule of holy beings, 406.\n\nRight, natural, law, 3;\n  constitutional, 43;\n  possession, key, 168;\n  vested property, 292, 210;\n  adoption, child, 367;\n  burial, 437, 439;\n  custody of corpse, 466;\n  to occupy a pew, 242.\n\nRiot, county liable, 52.\n\n\u201cRobbed,\u201d libel, slander, 389.\n\nRome, source of law, 5.\n\nRoman Catholic Church, 82.\n\nRoman law in England, 16.\n\nRules of church, 114;\n  voters in church, 184;\n  evidence, 193, 219-229;\n  title in name of bishop, 266;\n  diocesan, cemeteries, 455.\n\nS\n\nSabbath, violation of, 218.\n\nSacraments, slander, 391.\n\nSalary, priest\u2019s, 55, 95;\n  lien for, 301.\n\nSale in perpetuity, of pew, 241;\n  of church property, 258.\n\nSaloon near church, 475.\n\nSchism, secession, 130.\n\nSchool, Indian, 372, 375;\n  public, 343, 344;\n  parochial, 343;\n  house, church, 351;\n  master, authority, 355;\n  moneys, orphanages, 344.\n\nSeats, free, 248.\n\nSecession, result, 72, 130;\n  property, funds, 123, 319;\n  debts of church, 126.\n\nSecret societies, 221.\n\nSect, definitions, 27, 58, 94, 313.\n\nSectarianism, 27, 28, 29.\n\nSectarian, 28;\n  Bible, 375.\n\nSecular courts and church, 204;\n  matters, doctrinal, 84;\n  work, Sunday, 413.\n\nSelling pew on execution, 246.\n\nSentence, publishing libel, 133.\n\nSepulture, right of, 140.\n\nSermon, slander, 388.\n\nServant, priest of bishop, 98.\n\nServices, pay for, 108;\n  wife\u2019s in home, 370;\n  divine, disorder, 402;\n  religious, 29.\n\nSeventh-Day observers, 412.\n\nSewing circle, moneys, 175.\n\nSexton, salary, 174;\n  authority in church, 314.\n\nShakers, property of, 58.\n\nSick, bells disturbing, 479.\n\nSignature, \u201cNalty Family,\u201d 234.\n\nSins and crimes, 396.\n\nSisters, hospital, public money, 44.\n\nSlander at trial, 203.\n\nSlave-holding, Methodists, 130.\n\nSmoking in church, 397.\n\nSocieties, members, 61;\n  distinct from congregation, 124;\n  Sunday meetings, 413;\n  governed by laws, 472;\n  bishop\u2019s control of, 473;\n  secret, 221.\n\nSold pews, 237.\n\nSoldiers\u2019 tombstones, 423.\n\nSovereignty, meaning, 38.\n\nSpanish territory, church, 277.\n\nSpecial damages, slander, 394.\n\nSpecial law, incorporation, 62;\n  meeting, notice, 178;\n  purpose, money given for, 235.\n\nSpiritual authority, 87.\n\nStandard of doctrine, 25, 29.\n\n_Stara decisis_, 482.\n\nState authority, cemeteries, 425.\n\nStates, each sovereign, 38;\n  restrictions in church lands, 304;\n  education, books, 343, 349;\n  cemeteries, 459, 421.\n\nStatutes, wills, bequests, 315;\n  cemeteries, 421, 426.\n\nStipulation, cemetery, 454.\n\nStrangers, voting, 146;\n  burial in cemetery, 443;\n  stranger in lot, 453.\n\nStudents, voters, where, 477.\n\nStudies, control of school, 353.\n\nSubordinate organization, 125.\n\nSubsequent laws to constitution, 68.\n\nSubscriptions, right to solicit, 102;\n  unpaid, liability, 119, 234;\n  consideration, 234, 236;\n  lot given as, 255;\n  Sunday, 411;\n  special purpose of, 235.\n\nSuccessors, officers, 150, 158;\n  bishop\u2019s, 287.\n\nSuits, parties, 76, 217;\n  must have right, 76, 94, 235;\n  in name of one for others, 214;\n  prevent perverted use, 291;\n  priest, 208.\n\nSunday, services in school, 351;\n  violations of, 408;\n  when begins and ends, 414.\n\nSunday school, church, 29, 398.\n\nSuperioress, liability, 172.\n\nSupporting church, state, 334.\n\nSupport, test of membership, 111.\n\nSuspension by bishop, 201.\n\nSurgeon at hospital, 337.\n\nT\n\nTax to support Protestantism, 47;\n  on pews, 243;\n  incorporation, 51.\n\nTaxes, bishop\u2019s residence, 265, 331.\n\nTeacher, religious exercise, 346;\n  studies of pupils, 353.\n\nTemporal affairs, corporation, 66, 309.\n\nTerm of office, 158.\n\nTestimony, church court, 203;\n  on trial privileged, 386.\n\nTest oath, unconstitutional, 36.\n\nTexan Revolution, church, 269.\n\nText-books, board controls, 349.\n\nThanks as pay, 166.\n\nTheory of church crimes, 405.\n\nTime of meeting, 143;\n  condition, deed, gift, 284;\n  disturbance of meeting, 402.\n\nTitle, deed, 254;\n  adverse possession, 257;\n  proof of, 265, 266, 280;\n  monks in California, 268;\n  divided church, 290;\n  mortmain, 340;\n  cemetery lot, 439.\n\nTobacco, use of, slander, 384.\n\nTolling bell, slander, 392;\n  when nuisance, 479.\n\nTombstones, 423, 424;\n  right to put up, 468.\n\nTorts, church courts, 292;\n  corpse, mutilating, 463.\n\nTrades taught Indians, 374.\n\nTraffic, disturbing meeting, 404.\n\nTreasurer, authority of, 162.\n\nTrees, cutting in cemetery, 469.\n\nTrespass in cemetery, 429, 448.\n\nTribunals, church, 19;\n  decision of, 97;\n  procedure privileged, 377, 386.\n\nTrial, injunction against, 99;\n  church, lawful, 197;\n  counsel for parties, 200;\n  judgment, 201;\n  proceedings privileged, 203.\n\nTrue religion, 2, 311.\n\nTrust, enforcing, 60;\n  fraud creating, 171;\n  courts of equity, 212;\n  sale in perpetuity, 241;\n  bishop, land, 262, 287;\n  evidence of, 273;\n  vests in whom, 278;\n  distinguished, 296;\n  holding for others, 340.\n\nTrustees of church, 58;\n  disqualified, 134;\n  duties and powers, 58, 155;\n  note by trustees, 163;\n  compensation of, 166;\n  bequests to, 251;\n  vacancies, how filled, 288.\n\nTrust funds, 297.\n\nTwo-family lot in cemetery, 451.\n\nU\n\nUncertainty, legatees, 271, 322, 323.\n\nUndertaker, duties, rights, 314.\n\nUndue influence of clergy, 318.\n\nUniformity, 190.\n\nUnincorporated church, 85, 117;\n  liability of members, 251;\n  who may manage, 154.\n\nUnincorporated congregation, 217;\n  parish, 117.\n\nUnited States, 422, 227.\n\nUsages, pew rent, perquisites, 105;\n  election, 148;\n  proof of church, 228.\n\nUse, special by deed or devise, 53;\n  for church, pews, 240;\n  of parish buildings, 276;\n  distinguished, 296;\n  forfeited, how, 444.\n\nV\n\nVacancy in office, 288.\n\nVacate cemetery, 459.\n\nVested rights, 294;\n  forfeiture, 72, 294.\n\nViolation of discipline, 402.\n\nVirgin, Blessed, mail, 406.\n\nVoid, devise or gift, 135;\n  elections, 143, 177.\n\nVoire dire examination, 222, 225.\n\nVote of excommunication, 133;\n  students at college, 477. (See \u201cBallot,\u201d \u201cUsage.\u201d)\n\nVoters, qualifications, 144, 184, 250;\n  poll list of, 145;\n  challenge of, 186.\n\nVotes, cast, majority, 151;\n  inspectors, 186;\n  illegal, effect, 186.\n\nVows, property rights, 342.\n\nW\n\nWages of Sisters, 49;\n  of sexton, 174.\n\nWaiver of notice, 205;\n  challenge, 186.\n\nWarden, wages, 174;\n  authority, 174.\n\nWards, Indians are, 371;\n  religion of, 365.\n\nWedding pranks, unlawful, 481.\n\nWell, cemetery polluting, 431.\n\nWhite children, public schools, 357.\n\nWill, conditions, 285;\n  under statutes, 315;\n  slander by will, 382;\n  disposing of corpse, 457, 466.\n\nWisconsin\u2019s statutes, 50.\n\nWisconsin Industrial School for Girls, 28.\n\nWithdrawal from church, 127.\n\nWitness in church trial, 207;\n  civil courts, 222.\n\nWorship, who determines, 308;\n  religious, 29.\n\nWritten notice required, 187.\n\nY\n\nY. M. C. A., taxes, 476.\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOKS OF DOCTRINE, INSTRUCTION, DEVOTION, MEDITATION, BIOGRAPHY, NOVELS,\nJUVENILES, ETC. PUBLISHED BY BENZIGER BROTHERS\n\n\nBooks not marked _net_ will be sent postpaid on receipt of the advertised\nprice. Books marked _net_ are such where ten per cent must be added for\npostage. Thus a book advertised at _net_ $1.00 will be sent postpaid on\nreceipt of $1.10.\n\nDoctrine, Instruction, Etc.\n\nABANDONMENT; or, Absolute Surrender of Self to Divine Providence.\n            CAUSSADE, S.J.                      _net_, 0 50\nADORATION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT, THE. TESNI\u00c8RE.   0 50\nANECDOTES AND  EXAMPLES  ILLUSTRATING  THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM. SPIRAGO.\n            _net_, 1 50\nANGELS OF THE SANCTUARY. MUSSER.                _net_, 0 15\nAPOSTLES\u2019 CREED. M\u00dcLLER, C.SS.R.                 _net_, 1 10\nART OF PROFITING BY OUR FAULTS. ST. FRANCIS DE SALES,\n            _net_, 0 50\nAUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ST. IGNATIUS LOYOLA. O\u2019CONOR.   _net_, 1 25\nBEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. SHAHAN.             _net_, 2 00\nBLESSED SACRAMENT BOOK. LASANCE                      1 50\nBLOSSOMS OF THE CROSS. GIEHRL. 12mo.                 1 25\nBOOK OF THE PROFESSED. 3 volumes, each,         _net_, 0 75\nBOY-SAVERS\u2019 GUIDE. QUIN, S.J.                   _net_, 1 35\nBREAD OF LIFE. WILLAM.                               0 75\nCAMILLUS DE LELLIS. By A SISTER OF MERCY.       _net_, 1 00\nCASES OF CONSCIENCE. SLATER, S.J. 2 vols.       _net_, 3 50\nCATECHISM EXPLAINED, THE. SPIRAGO-CLARKE.       _net_, 2 50\nCATHOLIC BELIEF. FA\u00c0 DI BRUNO. 16mo, paper, _net_, 0.15; cloth,\n            _net_, 0 35\nCATHOLIC CEREMONIES. DURAND. Paper, 0.25; Cloth,     0 50\nCATHOLIC GIRL\u2019S GUIDE. LASANCE.                      1 25\nCATHOLIC HOME ANNUAL.                                0 25\nCATHOLIC PRACTICE AT CHURCH AND AT HOME. KLAUDER. Paper, 0.30; Cloth,\n            0 60\nCATHOLIC\u2019S READY ANSWER. HILL, S.J.             _net_, 2 00\nCEREMONIAL FOR ALTAR BOYS. BRITT, O.S.B.        _net_, 0 35\nCHARACTERISTICS  AND  RELIGION  OF  MODERN SOCIALISM. MING, S.J.\n            _net_, 1 50\nCHARACTERISTICS OF TRUE DEVOTION. GROU, S.J.    _net_, 0 75\nCHARITY THE ORIGIN OF EVERY BLESSING.           _net_, 0 50\nCHILD PREPARED FOR FIRST COMMUNION. ZULUETA, S.J. Paper.\n            0 05\nCHRIST IN TYPE AND PROPHECY. MAAS, S.J. 2 vols. _net_, 4 00\nCHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. DEVIVIER-MESSMER.        _net_, 2 00\nCHRISTIAN EDUCATION. O\u2019CONNELL.                 _net_, 0 60\nCHRISTIAN FATHER. CRAMER-LAMBERT.                    0 50\nCHRISTIAN MOTHER. CRAMER.                            0 50\nCHURCH AND HER ENEMIES. M\u00dcLLER, C.SS.R.         _net_, 1 10\nCOMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS. (Ps. I-L.) BERRY.     _net_, 2 00\nCORRECT THINKING FOR CATHOLICS. BUGG.              0 75\nCOUNSELS OF ST. ANGELA.                                            _net_,\n            0 25\nDEVOTIONS AND PRAYERS BY ST. ALPHONSUS. WARD.                         1 25\nDEVOTIONS AND PRAYERS FOR THE SICK-ROOM. KREBS.                       0 50\nDEVOTIONS TO THE SACRED HEART. HUGUET.                                0 35\nDEVOTION TO THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS. NOLDIN-KENT.       _net_, 1 25\nDIVINE GRACE. WIRTH.                                                  0 50\nDIVINE OFFICE. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.                     _net_, 1 50\nECCLESIASTICAL DICTIONARY. THEIN.                         _net_, 5 00\nEDUCATION OF OUR GIRLS. SHIELDS.                          _net_, 1 00\nEUCHARIST AND PENANCE. M\u00dcLLER, C.SS.R.   _net_, 1 10\nEUCHARISTIC CHRIST. TESNI\u00c8RE.              _net_, 1 25\nEUCHARISTIC LILIES. MAERY.                                _net_, 1 00\nEXPLANATION OF BIBLE HISTORY. NASH.                       _net_, 1 60\nEXPLANATION OF CATHOLIC MORALS. STAPLETON.                            0 50\nEXPLANATION OF BALTIMORE CATECHISM. KINKEAD.              _net_, 1 00\nEXPLANATION OF THE COMMANDMENTS. M\u00dcLLER.                  _net_, 1 10\nEXPLANATION OF THE COMMANDMENTS. ROLFUS.                              0 50\nEXPLANATION OF THE CREED. ROLFUS.                                     0 50\nEXPLANATION OF GOSPELS AND OF CATHOLIC WORSHIP. LAMBERT-BRENNAN. Paper,\n            0.25; Cloth,                              0 50\nEXPLANATION OF THE HOLY SACRAMENTS. ROLFUS.                           0 50\nEXPLANATION OF THE MASS. COCHEM.                                      0 50\nEXPLANATION OF THE PRAYERS AND CEREMONIES OF THE MASS. LANSLOTS, O.S.B.\n            0 50\nEXPLANATION OF THE SALVE REGINA. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.\n            _net_, 0 75\nEXTREME UNCTION. PHILLIP. Paper,               0 07\nFLOWERS OF THE PASSION. 32mo.\n            0 50\nFOLLOWING OF CHRIST. THOMAS \u00c0 KEMPIS. Leather.                        1 00\nFOLLOWING OF CHRIST. THOMAS \u00c0 KEMPIS. Plain Edition.                  0 40\nFOR FREQUENT COMMUNICANTS. ROCHE. Paper,                              0 10\nFOUR LAST THINGS. COCHEM.                                 _net_, 0 75\nFUNDAMENTALS OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE. SCHLEUTER.            _net_, 0 60\nGENERAL CONFESSION MADE EASY. KONINGS. C.SS.R.                        0 15\nGENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. GIGOT.\n            _net_, 3 00\nGENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.  Abridged\n            Edition.  GIGOT.           _net_, 1 75\nGENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RELIGIOUS LIFE. VERHEYEN.           _net_, 0 50\nGENTLEMAN, A. EGAN.                                                   0 75\nGIFT OF THE KING. RELIGIOUS H. C. J.                                  0 35\nGLORIES AND TRIUMPHS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.\n            2 00\nGLORIES OF MARY. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI. 0.50. Edition in two volumes.\n            _net_, 3 00\nGLORIES OF THE SACRED HEART. HAUSHERR, S.J.                     0 50\nGOD, CHRIST, AND THE CHURCH. HAMMER, O.F.M.                           2 00\nGOFFINE\u2019S DEVOUT INSTRUCTIONS.\n            1 00\nGREAT ENCYCLICAL LETTERS OF POPE LEO XIII.                         _net_,\n            2 50\nGREAT MEANS OF SALVATION. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.          _net_, 1 50\nGREETINGS TO THE CHRIST-CHILD.\n            0 60\nGROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CATHOLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES.\n            BURNS.            _net_, 1 75\nGUIDE FOR SACRISTANS.                                              _net_,\n            0 85\nHANDBOOK OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. WILMERS.              _net_, 1 50\nHARMONY OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE. HEUSER.                    _net_, 1 25\nHEAVEN OPEN TO SOULS. SEMPLE, S.J.                        _net_, 2 00\nHELP FOR THE POOR SOULS, ACKERMANN.                                   0 60\nHELPS TO A SPIRITUAL LIFE. SCHNEIDER.                                 0 50\nHIDDEN TREASURE. ST. LEONARD.                                         0 50\nHISTORY OF ECONOMICS. DEWE.                               _net_, 1 50\nHISTORY OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE IN ROME. BRANN.           _net_, 2 00\nHISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. ALZOG. 3 vols.            _net_, 8 00\nHISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. BUSINGER-BRENNAN.                     2 00\nHISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. BRUECK. 2 vols.           _net_, 3 00\nHISTORY OF THE MASS. O\u2019BRIEN.                             _net_, 1 25\nHISTORY OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION. GASQUET.                       0 50\nHOLINESS OF THE CHURCH IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, KEMPF-BREYMANN.\n            _net_, 1 75\nHOLY BIBLE, THE.  Ordinary Edition, Cloth, 1.25, and in finer bindings up\n            to 5.00. India Paper Edition, 3.50 to                6 00\nHOLY EUCHARIST. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.                _net_, 1 50\nHOLY HOUR, THE. KEILEY.                                           0 15\nHOLY HOUR OF ADORATION. STANG.                                    0 60\nHOLY MASS, ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.                     _net_, 1 50\nHOLY VIATICUM OF LIFE AS OF DEATH. DEVER. Paper, 0.25;  Cloth,\n            0 60\nHOW TO COMFORT THE SICK. KREBS, C.SS.R.                           0 50\nHOW TO MAKE THE MISSION. DOMINICAN FATHER. Paper,                 0 10\nIMITATION OF CHRIST. See \u201cFollowing of Christ.\u201d\nIMITATION OF THE SACRED HEART. ARNOUDT.                           1 25\nINCARNATION, BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS CHRIST. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.\n            _net_, 1 50\nIN HEAVEN WE KNOW OUR OWN. BLOT, S.J.                 _net_, 0 60\nINDEX TO WORKS OF ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI. GEIERMANN, C.SS.R. Paper.\n            _net_, 0 10\nINSTRUCTIONS ON THE COMMANDMENTS. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI. Cloth.\n            0 50\nINTERIOR OF JESUS AND MARY. GROU, S.J. 2 vols.        _net_, 2 00\nINTRODUCTION TO A DEVOUT LIFE. ST. FRANCIS DE SALES.              0 50\nLADY, A. BUGG.                                                    0 75\nLAWS OF THE KING. RELIGIOUS H. C. J.                              0 35\nLESSONS OF THE SAVIOUR. RELIGIOUS H. C. J.                        0 35\nLETTERS OF ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI. GRIMM, C.SS.R. 5 vols., each,\n            _net_, 1 50\nLIFE OF MOTHER GUERIN.                                         _net_, 2 00\nLIFE OF BLESSED MARGARET MARY ALACOQUE. BOUGAUD.                  0 50\nLIFE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN. ROHNER-BRENNAN.                       0 50\nLIFE OF CHRIST. BUSINGER-BRENNAN.                    _net_, 10 00\nLIFE OF CHRIST. COCHEM-HAMMER.                                    0 50\nLIFE OF CHRIST. BUSINGER.                                         2 00\nLIFE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PIUS X.\n            2 00\nLIFE OF MADEMOISELLE LE GRAS.\n            0 50\nLIFE OF ST. CATHARINE OF SIENNA. AYM\u00c9.                             1 00\nLIFE OF ST. IGNATIUS LOYOLA. GENELLI, S.J.                        0 50\nLIFE OF SISTER ANNE KATHARINE EMMERICH. WEGENER-MCGOWAN. _net_, 1 75\nLITTLE ALTAR BOY\u2019S MANUAL.\n            0 20\nLITTLE LIVES OF THE SAINTS. BERTHOLD.                             0 60\nLITTLE MANUAL OF ST. ANTHONY.\n            0 15\nLITTLE MANUAL OF ST. JOSEPH. LINGS.                               0 15\nLITTLE MANUAL OF ST. RITA. MCGRATH. Cloth, 0.50; Leather,\n            0 85\nLITTLE MASS BOOK, LYNCH. Paper,                                   0 05\nLITTLE MONTH OF MAY.\n            0 35\nLITTLE MONTH OF THE SOULS IN PURGATORY.\n            0 35\nLITTLE OFFICE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. Edition in Latin and English.\n            Cloth, _net_, 0.75 and in finer bindings up to _net_, 1.50.\n            Edition in Latin only, Cloth, _net_, 0.60 and in finer\n            bindings up to                                _net_, 1 50\nLITTLE OFFICE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. Paper,\n            0 05\nLITTLE PICTORIAL LIVES OF THE SAINTS.\n            1 25\nLIVES OF THE SAINTS. BUTLER.                                      0 50\nLOURDES. CLARKE, S.J.                                             0 50\nMANUAL OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND CHRISTIAN PERFECTION, A. HENRY, C.SS.R.\n            0 50\nMANUAL OF THEOLOGY FOR THE LAITY. GEIERMANN. C.SS.R. Paper, 0.30; Cloth,\n            0 60\nMANUAL OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. LASANCE.                            0 85\nMANUAL OF THE HOLY NAME.\n            0 50\nMANUAL OF THE SACRED HEART.\n            0 35\nMARY HELP OF CHRISTIANS.  HAMMER, O.F.M.                          2 00\nMARY THE QUEEN. RELIGIOUS H. C. J.                                0 35\nMASS AND VESTMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WALSH.\n            _net_, 1 75\nMASS DEVOTIONS AND READINGS ON THE MASS. LASANCE.                 0 85\nMASS-SERVER\u2019S CARD. Per doz.\n            0 35\nMEANS OF GRACE. BRENNAN.                                          3 00\nMEDITATIONS FOR ALL THE DAYS OF THE YEAR. HAMON, S.S. 5 vols.\n            _net_, 5 00\nMEDITATIONS FOR EVERY DAY IN THE YEAR. BAXTER.        _net_, 1 50\nMEDITATIONS FOR EVERY DAY IN THE YEAR. VERCRUYSSE, S.J. 2 vols.\n            _net_, 3 50\nMEDITATIONS FOR EVERY DAY IN THE MONTH. NEPVEU-RYAN.              0 50\nMEDITATIONS ON THE LAST WORDS FROM THE CROSS. PERRAUD.\n            _net_, 0 50\nMEDITATIONS ON THE LIFE, THE TEACHING, AND THE PASSION OF JESUS CHRIST.\n            ILG-CLARKE. 2 vols.  _net_, 3 50\nMEDITATIONS ON THE MYSTERIES OF OUR HOLY FAITH. BARRAUD, S.J. 2 vols.\n            _net_, 3 00\nMEDITATIONS ON THE PASSION OF OUR LORD.\n            0 50\nMEDITATIONS  ON  THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  JESUS CHRIST. PERINALDO.\n            0 50\nMIDDLE AGES. SHAHAN.                                  _net_, 2 00\nMISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS OF ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.               _net_, 1 50\nMISSAL EXPLAINED, THE. FLEURY, S.J.                   _net_, 1 85\nMISSION BOOK FOR THE MARRIED. GIRARDEY. C.SS.R.                   0 50\nMISSION BOOK FOR THE SINGLE. GIRARDEY, C.SS.R.                    0 50\nMOMENTS BEFORE THE TABERNACLE. RUSSELL, S.J.          _net_, 0 50\nMORAL PRINCIPLES AND MEDICAL PRACTICE. COPPENS, S.J. 12mo.\n            _net_, 1 00\nMORALITY OF MODERN SOCIALISM. MING, S.J.              _net_, 1 50\nMORE SHORT SPIRITUAL READINGS FOR MARY\u2019S CHILDREN. MADAME CECILIA.\n            0 50\nMY PRAYER-BOOK. LASANCE. Imitation leather, 1.25; India paper, 2.00. With\n            Epistles and Gospels, India paper,                       2 25\nNAMES THAT LIVE IN CATHOLIC HEARTS. SADLIER.                      0 50\nNARROW WAY. GEIERMANN, C.SS.R.                                    0 60\nNEW MANUAL OF ST. ANTHONY.\n            0 50\nNEW MISSAL FOR EVERY DAY. LASANCE. Imitation leather,             1 50\n            Gold edges, 1.75, and in finer bindings.\nNEW TESTAMENT. Cloth, 0.50; American Seal, _net_, 1.50. Plain Edition,\n            _net_, 0.20; and in finer bindings up to _net_, 0.60. Plain\n            Edition, Illustrated, _net_, 0.60.  Illustrated Edition. India\n            paper, Am. Seal, _net_, 0.75, and in finer bindings up to\n            _net_, 1 60\nOFFICE OF HOLY WEEK.                                           _net_, 0 20\nOUR FAVORITE DEVOTIONS. LINGS.                                    0 75\nOUR FAVORITE NOVENAS. LINGS.                                      0 75\nOUTLINES OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. HUNTER.  3 vols.       _net_, 4 50\nOUTLINES OF JEWISH HISTORY, from Abraham to Our Lord. GIGOT. 8 vo.\n            _net_, 1 75\nOUTLINES OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. GIGOT.             _net_, 1 75\nPARADISE ON EARTH OPENED TO ALL. NATALE, S.J.         _net_, 0 50\nPASSION AND THE DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST.  ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.\n            _net_, 1 50\nPASTORAL LETTERS. MCFAUL.                             _net_, 1 50\nPATRON SAINTS FOR CATHOLIC YOUTH. Mannix. Each vol.\n            0 60\nPEARLS FROM FABER. BRUNOWE.                                       0 35\nPICTORIAL LIVES OF THE SAINTS.\n            3 00\nPOLICEMEN\u2019S AND FIREMEN\u2019S COMPANION.  MCGRATH. Cloth, 0.25; American Seal,\n            0 50\nPOLITICAL AND MORAL ESSAYS. RICKABY, S.J.             _net_, 1 75\nPOPULAR LIFE OF ST. TERESA. PORTER.                               0 50\nPRAYER-BOOK FOR RELIGIOUS. LASANCE. Cloth,  _net_, 1.50; American Seal,\n            _net_, 2 50\nPREACHING. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.                     _net_, 1 50\nPREPARATION FOR DEATH. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.         _net_, 1 50\nPRINCIPLES, ORIGIN, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CATHOLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.\n            BURNS.                    _net_, 1 75\nPRIVATE RETREAT FOR RELIGIOUS. GEIERMANN, C.SS.R.     _net_, 1 50\nQUEEN\u2019S FESTIVALS, THE. RELIGIOUS H. C. J.                        0 35\nRAMBLES IN CATHOLIC LANDS. BARRETT, O.S.B.            _net_, 2 00\nREASONABLENESS OF CATHOLIC CEREMONIES AND PRACTICES. BURKE. Paper, 0.15;\n            Cloth,                         0 35\nRELIGIOUS STATE. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.                     _net_, 0 50\nROMA. Pagan, Subterranean, and Modern Rome in Word and Picture. KUHN.\n            Cloth, _net_, 10.00; Full red morocco, _net_, 16 00\nROMAN CURIA AS IT NOW EXISTS. MARTIN, S.J.                 _net_, 1 50\nROMAN MISSAL. Embossed cloth, and in finer bindings,       _net_, 1 85\nROSARY, THE CROWN OF MARY. DOMINICAN FATHER.              Paper,  0 10\nRULES OF LIFE FOR THE PASTOR OF SOULS. SLATER-RAUCH.       _net_, 1 00\nSACRAMENTALS OF THE CHURCH. LAMBING. Paper, 0.25; Cloth,\n            0 50\nSACRED HEART BOOK. LASANCE. Im. leather, 0.85; Am. Seal,  1 25\nSACRED HEART STUDIED IN THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. SAINTRAIN, C.SS.R.\n            0 50\nSACRIFICE OF THE MASS WORTHILY CELEBRATED. CHAIGNON-GOESBRIAND.\n            _net_, 1 75\nST. ANTHONY. KELLER.                                       _net_, 0 75\nST. ANTHONY. WARD.                                                0 50\nSAINT FRANCIS OF ASSISI. DUBOIS, S.M.                             0 50\nSAINTS AND PLACES. AYSCOUGH.                               _net_, 1 50\nSANCTUARY BOYS\u2019 ILLUSTRATED MANUAL. MCCALLEN.              _net_, 0 50\nSCAPULAR MEDAL. GEIERMANN, C.SS.R. Paper,                         0 05\nSECRET OF SANCTITY. MCMAHON.                                      0 50\nSERAPHIC GUIDE.                                                   0 60\nSHORT CONFERENCES ON THE SACRED HEART. BRINKMEYER.                0 50\nSHORT COURSE IN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. Paper,                         0 10\nSHORT HISTORY OF MORAL THEOLOGY. SLATER.                   _net_, 0 50\nSHORT LIVES OF THE SAINTS. DONNELLY.                              0 60\nSHORT MEDITATIONS FOR EVERY DAY. LASAUSSE.                        0 50\nSHORT STORIES ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. MCMAHON.              _net_, 1 00\nSHORT VISITS TO THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. LASANCE. Cloth,\n            0 15\nSOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY. STANG.                         _net_, 1 00\nSOCIALISM: ITS THEORETICAL BASIS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATION.\n            CATHREIN-GETTELMANN.                      _net_, 1 50\nSODALIST\u2019S VADE MECUM.                                            0 40\nSOLDIERS\u2019 AND SAILORS\u2019 COMPANION. MCGRATH. Cloth, 0.25; American Seal,\n            0 50\nSPECIAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. GIGOT. Part I,\n            _net_, 1.75; Part II,        _net_, 2 25\nSPIRAGO\u2019S METHOD OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. MESSMER.           _net_, 1 50\nSPIRIT OF SACRIFICE, THE, AND THE LIFE OF SACRIFICE IN THE RELIGIOUS\n            STATE. GIRAUD-THURSTON.               _net_, 2 00\nSPIRITUAL CONSIDERATIONS.  BUCKLER, O.P.                          0 50\nSPIRITUAL DESPONDENCY AND TEMPTATIONS. MICHEL-GARESCH\u00c9.    _net_, 1 25\nSPIRITUAL EXERCISES FOR A TEN DAYS\u2019 RETREAT. SMETANA, C.SS.R.\n            _net_, 0 75\nSPIRITUAL PEPPER AND SALT. STANG. Paper, 0.30; Cloth,             0 60\nSPOILING THE DIVINE FEAST. ZULUETA, S.J. Paper,                   0 07\nSTORIES FOR FIRST COMMUNICANTS. KELLER.                    _net_, 0 50\nSTORY OF JESUS SIMPLY TOLD FOR THE YOUNG. MULHOLLAND.             0 60\nSTORY OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. LYNCH, S.J.             _net_, 1 75\nSTORY OF THE DIVINE CHILD. LINGS.                                 0 35\nSTORY OF THE FRIENDS OF JESUS. RELIGIOUS H. C. J.                 0 35\nSTORIES OF THE MIRACLES OF OUR LORD.                              0 35\nSUNDAY MISSAL, THE. LASANCE. Imitation leather, 0.75; American seal.\n            1 25\nSUNDAY-SCHOOL DIRECTOR\u2019S GUIDE. SLOAN.                     _net_, 0 75\nSUNDAY-SCHOOL TEACHER\u2019S GUIDE. SLOAN.                             0 50\nSURE WAY TO A HAPPY MARRIAGE. TAYLOR.                             0 50\nTALKS WITH THE LITTLE ONES ABOUT THE APOSTLES\u2019 CREED. RELIGIOUS H. C. J.\n            0 35\nTHOUGHTS AND AFFECTIONS ON THE PASSION OF JESUS CHRIST FOR EVERY DAY OF\n            THE YEAR. BERGAMO, O.M.Cap.\n            _net_, 2 00\nTHOUGHTS AND COUNSELS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF CATHOLIC YOUNG MEN.\n            DOSS-WIRTH.                     _net_, 1 25\nTHOUGHTS ON THE RELIGIOUS LIFE. LASANCE.                   _net_, 1 50\nTRAINING OF CHILDREN AND OF GIRLS IN THEIR TEENS. MADAME CECILIA. Paper,\n            0.25; Cloth,                    0 60\nTRUE POLITENESS. DEMORE.                                   _net_, 0 75\nTRUE SPOUSE OF CHRIST. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI. 1 vol. edition, 0.50; 2 vol.\n            edition,                         _net_, 3 00\nTWO SPIRITUAL RETREATS FOR SISTERS. ZOLLNER-WIRTH.         _net_, 1 00\nVENERATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN. ROHNER-BRENNAN.                 0 50\nVICTORIES OF THE MARTYRS. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.           _net_, 1 50\nVIGIL HOUR. RYAN, S.J. Paper,                                     0 10\nVISITS TO JESUS IN THE TABERNACLE. LASANCE.                       1 25\nVISITS TO THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.\n            0 35\nVOCATION. VAN TRICHT-CONNIFF. Paper,                              0 07\nVOCATIONS EXPLAINED.  Cloth,                                      0 10\nWAY OF INTERIOR PEACE. DE LEHEN, S.J.                      _net_, 1 50\nWAY OF SALVATION AND OF PERFECTION. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.\n            _net_, 1 50\nWAY OF THE CROSS. Illustrated. Paper,                             0 05\nWAY OF THE CROSS, THE. Large-type edition. Method of ST. ALPHONSUS\n            LIGUORI. Illustrated.                           0 15\nWAY OF THE CROSS. Illustrated. Eucharistic method.                0 15\nWAY OF THE CROSS. By a Jesuit Father. Illustrated.                0 15\nWAY OF THE CROSS. ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI. Illustrated.             0 15\nWAY OF THE CROSS. Illustrated. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI.             0 15\nWHAT CATHOLICS HAVE DONE FOR SCIENCE. BRENNAN.             _net_, 1 25\nWHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES. DRURY. Paper, 0.30; Cloth,               0 60\nWHAT TIMES! WHAT MORALS! SEMPLE, S.J. Paper, 0.20; Cloth,\n            0 50\nWITH CHRIST, MY FRIEND. SLOAN.                             _net_, 0 75\nWITH GOD. LASANCE. Imitation leather, 1.25; American Seal,        2 00\nWOMEN OF CATHOLICITY. SADLIER.                                    0 50\nYOUNG MAN\u2019S GUIDE. LASANCE. Imitation leather.                    0 75\n\nNOVELS.\n\nAGATHA\u2019S HARD SAYING. MULHOLLAND.                                 1 00\nBACK TO THE WORLD. CHAMPOL.                                _net_, 1 35\nBALLADS OF CHILDHOOD.  (Poems.)  EARLS, S.J.               _net_, 1 00\nBLACK BROTHERHOOD, THE. GARROLD, S.J.                      _net_, 1 35\nBOND AND FREE. CONNOR.                                            0 50\n\u201cBUT THY LOVE AND THY GRACE.\u201d FINN, S.J.                          1 00\nBY THE BLUE RIVER. CLARKE.                                 _net_, 1 35\nCARROLL DARE. WAGGAMAN.                                           1 25\nCATTLE TRAIL OF THE PRAIRIES.                                       0 50\nCIRCUS-RIDER\u2019S DAUGHTER.  BRACKEL.                                0 50\nCLIMBING THE ALPS.                                                0 50\nCONNOR D\u2019ARCY\u2019S STRUGGLES. BERTHOLDS.                             0 50\nCORINNE\u2019S VOW. WAGGAMAN.                                          1 25\nDAUGHTER OF KINGS. A. HINKSON.                                    1 25\nDION AND THE SIBYLS. KEON.                                    0 50\nDOUBLE KNOT, A. AND OTHER STORIES.                                  0 50\nELDER MISS AINSBOROUGH. TAGGART.                                  1 25\nESQUIMAUX, THE.                                                   0 50\nFABIOLA. WISEMAN.                                                 0 50\nFABIOLA\u2019S SISTERS. CLARKE.                                        0 50\nFATAL BEACON, THE. BRACKEL.                                       1 25\nFAUSTULA. AYSCOUGH.                                    _net_, 1 35\nFINE CLAY. CLARKE.                                         _net_, 1 35\nFLOWERS OF THE CLOISTER.  (Poems.) LA MOTTE.                      1 25\nFORGIVE AND FORGET. LINGEN.                                       0 50\nFRIENDLY LITTLE HOUSE, THE, AND OTHER STORIES.                    0 50\nFURS AND FUR HUNTERS.                                             0 50\nGRAPES OF THORNS. WAGGAMAN.                                _net_, 1 25\nHANDLING MAIL FOR MILLIONS.                                       0 50\nHEART OF A MAN, THE. MAHER.                                _net_, 1 35\nHEARTS OF GOLD. EDHOR.                                  1 25\nHEIRESS OF CRONENSTEIN. HAHN-HAHN.                                0 50\nHER BLIND FOLLY. HOLT.                                            1 25\nHER FATHER\u2019S DAUGHTER. HINKSON.                                   1 25\nHER FATHER\u2019S SHARE. POWER.                                 _net_, 1 25\nHER JOURNEY\u2019S END. COOKE.                                         0 50\nIDOLS: OR THE SECRET OF THE RUE CHAUSSEE D\u2019ANTIN. NAVERY.\n            0 50\nIN GOD\u2019S GOOD TIME. ROSS.                                         0 50\nIN THE DAYS OF KING HAL. TAGGART.                                 1 25\nIVY HEDGE, THE. EGAN.                                      _net_, 1 35\nKIND HEARTS AND CORONETS. HARRISON.                               1 25\nLADY OF THE TOWER, THE, AND OTHER STORIES.                        0 50\nLIFE UNDERGROUND.                                                 0 50\nLIGHT OF HIS COUNTENANCE. HARTE.                                  0 50\n\u201cLIKE UNTO A MERCHANT.\u201d GRAY.                              _net_, 1 35\nLINKED LIVES. DOUGLAS.                                     _net_, 1 35\nLITTLE CARDINAL, THE. PARR.                                       1 25\nMARCELLA GRACE.  MULHOLLAND.                                      0 50\nMARIAE COROLLA. (Poems.) HILL. C.P.                           1 25\nMARIE OF THE HOUSE D\u2019ANTERS. EARLS. S.J.                   _net_, 1 35\nMELCHIOR OF BOSTON. EARLS. S.J.                                   1 00\nMIGHTY FRIEND, THE. L\u2019ERMITE.                              _net_, 1 35\nMIRROR OF SHALOTT. BENSON.                                 _net_, 1 35\nMISS ERIN, FRANCIS.                                               0 50\nMONK\u2019S PARDON, THE. NAVERY.                                       0 50\nMR. BILLY BUTTONS. LECKY.                                         1 25\nMY LADY BEATRICE. COOKE.                                          0 50\nNOT A JUDGMENT. KEON.                                             1 25\nON PATROL WITH A BOUNDARY RIDER.                                  0 50\nONLY ANNE. CLARKE.                                         _net_, 1 35\nOTHER MISS LISLE, THE. MARTIN.                                    0 50\nOUT OF BONDAGE. HOLT.                                             1 25\nOUTLAW OF CAMARGUE. LAMOTHE.                                      0 50\nPASSING SHADOWS. YORKE.                                           1 25\nPAT. HINKSON.                                              _net_, 1 35\nPERE MONNIER\u2019S WARD. LECKY.                                       1 25\nPILKINGTON HEIR, THE. SADLIER.                                    1 25\nPRISONERS\u2019 YEARS. CLARKE.                                  _net_, 1 35\nPRODIGAL\u2019S DAUGHTER, THE. BUGG.                                   1 00\nPROPHET\u2019S WIFE, THE. BROWNE.                                      1 25\nRED INN OF ST. LYPHAR. SADLIER.                                   1 25\nREST HOUSE, THE. CLARKE.                                   _net_, 1 35\nROAD BEYOND THE TOWN, AND OTHER POEMS. EARLS.                     1 25\nROSE OF THE WORLD. MARTIN.                                        0 50\nROUND TABLE OF AMERICAN CATHOLIC NOVELISTS.                       0 50\nROUND TABLE OF FRENCH CATHOLIC NOVELISTS.                         0 50\nROUND TABLE OF GERMAN CATHOLIC NOVELISTS.                         0 50\nROUND TABLE OF IRISH AND ENGLISH CATHOLIC NOVELISTS.\n            0 50\nRULER OF THE KINGDOM, THE. KEON.                                  1 25\nSECRET CITADEL, THE. CLARKE.                               _net_, 1 35\nSECRET OF THE GREEN VASE, COOKE.     0 50\nSENIOR LIEUTENANT\u2019S WAGER, THE, AND OTHER STORIES.\n            0 50\nSHADOW OF EVERSLEIGH, THE. LANSDOWNE.                             0 50\nSHIELD OF SILENCE, THE. HENRY-RUFFIN.                      _net_, 1 35\nSO AS BY FIRE. CONNOR.                            0 50\nSOGGARTH AROON, THE. GUINAN.                                      1 25\nSON OF SIRO, COPUS. S.J.                                   _net_, 1 35\nSTORY OF CECILIA. HINKSON.                                 _net_, 1 35\nSTREET SCENES IN DIFFERENT LANDS.                                 0 50\nSTUORE. (Stories.) EARLS. S.J.                                    1 00\nTEMPEST OF THE HEART, THE. GRAY.                                  0 50\nTEST OF COURAGE, THE. ROSS.                                       0 50\nTHAT MAN\u2019S DAUGHTER. ROSS.                                        1 25\nTHEIR CHOICE.  SKINNER.                                           0 50\nTHROUGH THE DESERT. SIENKIEWICZ.                           _net_, 1 35\nTRAIL OF THE DRAGON, THE, AND OTHER STORIES.                      0 50\nTRAINING OF SILAS. DEVINE.                                        1\nTRUE STORY OF MASTER GERARD. SADLIER.                             1 25\nTURN OF THE TIDE. GRAY.                                           0 50\nUNBIDDEN GUEST, THE. COOKE.                                       0 50\nUNDER THE CEDARS AND THE STARS. SHEEHAN.                   _net_, 1 50\nUNRAVELLING OF A TANGLE. TAGGART.                                 1 25\nUP IN ARDMUIRLAND. BARRETT. O.S.B.                         _net_, 1 25\nVOCATION OF EDWARD CONWAY. EGAN.                                  1 25\nWARGRAVE TRUST, THE. REID.                                        1 25\nWAY THAT LED BEYOND, THE. HARRISON.                               1 25\nWEDDING BELLS OF GLENDALOUGH. EARLS. S.J.                  _net_, 1 35\nWEST AND THE GREAT PETRIFIED FOREST, THE.                         0 50\nWHEN LOVE IS STRONG. KEON.                                        1 25\nWINNING OF THE NEW WEST, THE.                                 0 50\nWOMAN OF FORTUNE. REID.                                           1 25\n\nJUVENILES\n\nADVENTURE WITH THE APACHES. FERRY.                                0 35\nALTHEA. NIRDLINGER.                                               0 50\nAS GOLD IN THE FURNACE. COPUS.                                    1 00\nAS TRUE AS GOLD. MANNIX.                                          0 35\nBELL FOUNDRY.  SCHACHING.                                         0 35\nBERKLEYS, THE. WIGHT.                                             0 35\nBEST FOOT FORWARD, THE. FINN.                                     1 00\nBETWEEN FRIENDS. AUMERLE.                                         0 50\nBISTOURI. MELANDRI.                                               0 35\nBLISSLYVANIA POST-OFFICE, THE. TAGGART.                           0 35\nBOB O\u2019LINK. WAGGAMAN.                                             0 35\nBROWNIE AND I. AUMERLE.                                           0 50\nBUNT AND BILL. MULHOLLAND.                                        0 35\nBY BRANSCOME RIVER. TAGGART.                                      0 35\nCAMP BY COPPER RIVER. SPALDING.                                   1 00\nCAPTAIN TED. WAGGAMAN.                                            0 50\nCAVE BY THE BEACH FORK. SPALDING.                                 1 00\nCHARLIE CHITTYWICK. BEARNE.                                       1 00\nCHILDREN OF CUPA. MANNIX.                                         0 35\nCHILDREN OF THE LOG CABIN. DELAMARE.                              0 50\nCLARE LORAINE. \u201cLEE.\u201d                                             0 50\nCLAUDE LIGHTFOOT. FINN.                                           1 00\nCOLLEGE BOY, A. YORKE.                                            1 00\nCUPA REVISITED. MANNIX.                                           0 35\nCUPID OF CAMPION. FINN.                                           1 00\nDADDY DAN. WAGGAMAN.                                              0 35\nDEAR FRIENDS. NIRDLINGER.                                         0 50\nDIMPLING\u2019S SUCCESS. MULHOLLAND.                                   0 35\nETHELRED PRESTON. FINN.                                           1 00\nEVERY-DAY GIRL, AN. CROWLEY.                                      0 35\nFAIRY OF THE SNOWS, THE. FINN.                                    1 00\nFIVE BIRDS IN A NEST. DELAMARE.                                   0 50\nFIVE O\u2019CLOCK STORIES.                                             0 75\nFLOWER OF THE FLOCK, THE. EGAN.                                   1 00\nFOR THE WHITE ROSE. HINKSON.                                      0 35\nFRED\u2019S LITTLE DAUGHTER. SMITH.                                    0 35\nFREDDY CARR\u2019S ADVENTURES. GARROLD.                                0 50\nFREDDY CARR AND HIS FRIENDS. GARROLD.                             0 50\nGOLDEN LILY, THE. HINKSON.                                        0 35\nGREAT CAPTAIN, THE. HINKSON.                                      0 35\nGUILD BOYS\u2019 PLAY AT RIDINGDALE. BEARNE.                           1 00\nHALDEMAN CHILDREN, THE. MANNIX.                                   0 35\nHARMONY FLATS. WHITMIRE.                                          0 50\nHARRY DEE. FINN.                                                  1 00\nHARRY RUSSELL. COPUS.                                             1 00\nHEIR OF DREAMS, AN. O\u2019MALLEY.                                     0 35\nHIS FIRST AND LAST APPEARANCE. FINN.                              1 00\nHOSTAGE OF WAR, A. BONESTEEL.                                     0 35\nHOW THEY WORKED THEIR WAY. EGAN.                                  0 50\nIN QUEST OF ADVENTURE. MANNIX.                                    0 35\nIN QUEST OF THE GOLDEN CHEST. BARTON.                             0 50\nJACK. RELIGIOUS.H. C. J.                                          0 35\nJACK HILDRETH ON THE NILE. TAGGART.                               0 50\nJACK-O\u2019-LANTERN. WAGGAMAN.                                        0 35\nJUNIORS OF ST. BEDE\u2019S. BRYSON.                                    0 50\nJUVENILE ROUND TABLE  First Series, Second Series, Third Series. Each\n            1 00\nKLONDIKE PICNIC, A. DONNELLY.                                     0 50\nLEGENDS AND STORIES OF THE HOLY CHILD JESUS. LUTZ.                0 75\nLITTLE APOSTLE ON CRUTCHES. DELAMARE.                             0 35\nLITTLE GIRL FROM BACK EAST. ROBERTS.                              0 35\nLITTLE LADY OF THE HALL. RYEMAN.                                  0 35\nLITTLE MARSHALLS AT THE LAKE. NIXON-ROULET.                       0 50\nLITTLE MISSY. WAGGAMAN.                                           0 35\nLOYAL BLUE AND ROYAL SCARLET. TAGGART.                            1 00\nMAD KNIGHT, THE. SCHACHING.                                       0 35\nMADCAP SET AT ST. ANNE\u2019S. BRUNOWE.                                0 35\nMAKING OF MORTLAKE. COPUS.                                        1 00\nMARKS OF THE BEAR CLAWS. SPALDING.                                1 00\nMARY TRACY\u2019S FORTUNE. SADLIER.                                    0 35\nMELOR OF THE SILVER HAND. BEARNE.                                 1 00\nMILLY AVELING. SMITH.                                             0 50\nMIRALDA. JOHNSTON.                                                0 35\nMORE FIVE O\u2019CLOCK STORIES.                                        0 75\nMOSTLY BOYS. FINN.                                                1 00\nMYSTERIOUS DOORWAY. SADLIER.                                      0 35\nMYSTERY OF CLEVERLY. BARTON.                                      0 50\nMYSTERY OF HORNBY HALL. SADLIER.                                  0 50\nNAN NOBODY. WAGGAMAN.                                             0 35\nNED RIEDER. WEHS.                                                 0 50\nNEW BOYS AT RIDINGDALE. BEARNE.                                   1 00\nNEW SCHOLAR AT ST. ANNE\u2019S. BRUNOWE.                               0 50\nOLD CHARLMONT\u2019S SEED-BED. SMITH.                                  0 35\nOLD MILL ON THE WITHROSE. SPALDING.                               1 00\nON THE OLD CAMPING GROUND. MANNIX.                                1 00\nOUR LADY\u2019S LUTENIST. BEARNE.                                      1 00\nPANCHO AND PANCHITA. MANNIX.                                      0 35\nPAULINE ARCHER. SADLIER.                                          0 35\nPERCY WYNN. FINN.                                                 1 00\nPERIL OF DIONYSIO, THE. MANNIX.                               0 35\nPETRONILLA, AND OTHER STORIES. DONNELLY.                          0 50\nPICKLE AND PEPPER. DORSEY.                                        1 00\nPILGRIM FROM IRELAND. CARNOT.                                     0 35\nPLAYWATER PLOT, THE. WAGGAMAN.                                    0 50\nPOLLY DAY\u2019S ISLAND. ROBERTS.                                      1 00\nPOVERINA. BUCKENHAM.                                          0 50\nQUEEN\u2019S PAGE, THE. HINKSON.                                       0 35\nQUEEN\u2019S PROMISE, THE. WAGGAMAN.                                   0 50\nQUEST OF MARY SELWYN. CLEMENTIA.                                  1 00\nRACE FOR COPPER ISLAND. SPALDING.                                 1 00\nRECRUIT TOMMY COLLINS. BONESTEEL.                                 0 35\nRIDINGDALE FLOWER SHOW. BEARNE.                                   1 00\nROMANCE OF THE SILVER SHOON. BEARNE.                              1 00\nST. CUTHBERT\u2019S. COPUS.                                            1 00\nSANDY JOE. WAGGAMAN.                                              1 00\nSEA-GULL\u2019S ROCK. SANDEAU.                                         0 35\nSEVEN LITTLE MARSHALLS. NIXON-ROULET.                             0 35\nSHADOWS LIFTED. COPUS.                                            1 00\nSHEER PLUCK. BEARNE.                                              1 00\nSHERIFF OF THE BEECH FORK. SPALDING.                              1 00\nSHIPMATES. WAGGAMAN.                                              0 50\nSTRONG-ARM OF AVALON. WAGGAMAN.                                   1 00\nSUGAR CAMP AND AFTER. SPALDING.                                   1 00\nSUMMER AT WOODVILLE, A. SADLIER.                                  0 35\nTALES AND LEGENDS OF THE MIDDLE AGES. CAPELLA.                    0 75\nTALISMAN, THE. SADLIER.                                           0 50\nTAMING OF POLLY, THE. DORSEY.                                     1 00\nTHAT FOOTBALL GAME. FINN.                                         1 00\nTHAT OFFICE BOY. FINN.                                            1 00\nTHREE LITTLE GIRLS, AND ESPECIALLY ONE. TAGGART.                  0 35\nTOLD IN THE TWILIGHT. SALOME.                                     0 50\nTOM LOSELY: BOY. COPUS.                                           1 00\nTOM PLAYFAIR. FINN.                                               1 00\nTOM\u2019S LUCK-POT. WAGGAMAN.                                         0 35\nTOORALLADDY. By JULIA C. WALSH.                                   0 35\nTRANSPLANTING OF TESSIE. WAGGAMAN.                                0 50\nTREASURE OF NUGGET MOUNTAIN.  TAGGART.                            0 50\nTWO LITTLE GIRLS.  MACK.                                          0 35\nUNCLE FRANK\u2019S MARY. CLEMENTIA.                                    1 00\nUPS AND DOWNS OF MARJORIE. WAGGAMAN.                              0 35\nVIOLIN MAKER, THE. Adapted by SARA TRAINER SMITH.                 0 35\nWAYWARD WINIFRED. SADLIER.                                        1 00\nWINNETOU, THE APACHE KNIGHT. TAGGART.                             0 50\nWITCH OF RIDINGDALE. BEARNE.                                      1 00\nYOUNG COLOR GUARD. BONESTEEL.                                     0 35\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 U. S. Constitution, Amendments, art. i, art. xiv, sec. 1.\n\n    2 Lives of the Popes, Montor, vol. i, p. 94; Life of Leo XIII,\n      \u201cPhilippine Question.\u201d\n\n    3 The Science of Jurisprudence, Taylor, p. 506; Historical\n      Jurisprudence, Lee, p. 328.\n\n    4 Ancient Egypt, Rawlinson, vol. i, p. 323.\n\n    5 Historical Jurisprudence, Lee, pp. 98, 164, 274; History of England,\n      Lingard, vol. i, c. vii; The Science of Jurisprudence, Taylor, p.\n      506.\n\n    6 Historical Jurisprudence, Lee, p. 257.\n\n    7 Historical Jurisprudence, Lee, p. 271.\n\n    8 The Beginnings of Christianity, Shahan, 90.\n\n    9 Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Smith.\n\n   10 Historical Jurisprudence, Lee, p. 387; Justinian, Sandar, p. 21.\n\n   11 The Beginnings of Christianity, Shahan.\n\n   12 Universal Church History, Alzog.\n\n   13 Law Dictionary, Bouvier, \u201cBenefit of Clergy,\u201d \u201cCanon Law\u201d;\n      Blackstone, vol. i, p. 460, vol. iii, p. 61.\n\n   14 Blackstone, vol. i, p. 461.\n\n   15 Justinian, Sandar, p. 21; Cyc, vol. viii, p. 366, vol. xiv, p. 1228;\n      Eq. Jurisprudence, Pomeroy, vol. i, p. 1; The Science of\n      Jurisprudence, Taylor, p. 255 et seq; Blackstone, vol. i, pp. 18-20,\n      63; Kent, vol. i, p. 10; English Constitution, Creasy.\n\n   16 Blackstone, vol. i, p. 82, vol. iv, c. 33; The Science of\n      Jurisprudence, Taylor, p. 337; Conflict of Laws, Wharton, sec. 172.\n\n   17 The American Cyclopedia, \u201cBologna.\u201d\n\n   18 The Science of Jurisprudence, Taylor, p. 238.\n\n   19 Blackstone, vol. i, pp. 18-20, 79, vol. iv, c. 33.\n\n   20 Commentaries, Kent, vol. i, c. xi, pp. 342, 473, 515, 525-544, vol.\n      ii, p. 27; Origin and Nature of the Constitution and Government of\n      U. S., U. S. Sup. Ct. Reps., 9 L. Ed., 873.\n\n   21 Commentaries, Kent, vol. i, p. 472; Blackstone, vol. i, p. 107.\n\n   22 Commentaries, Kent, vol. ii, pp. 35-37; Conflict of Laws, Wharton\n      (3rd ed.), vol. ii, pp. 1327-8.\n\n   23 Law of Fraternities, Scanlan, ch. xxiv; Conflict of Laws, Wharton,\n      sec. 109; Baxter v. McDonald, 155 N. Y., 83; 49 N. E., 667; Morris\n      v. Dart, 67 S. C, 338; 45 S. E., 753; 100 Am. St. R., 734; Terrett\n      v. Taylor, 13 U. S., 43; 3 L. Ed., 650.\n\n   24 Weld v. May, 9 Cushing, Mass., 181.\n\n   25 Martin v. State, 65 Tenn., 234.\n\n   26 A Manual of Catholic Theology, Wilhelm and Scannell, p. xvii, et\n      seq.\n\n   27 A Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, \u201cDogma.\u201d\n\n   28 In re St. Louis Inst. of Christian Science, 27 Mo. App., 633.\n\n   29 Hale v. Everett, 53 N. H., 9.\n\n   30 State v. Trustees, 7 Ohio St., 58.\n\n   31 Kniskern v. Lutheran Church, 1 Sandford, N. Y., Ch. 439.\n\n   32 State v. Hallock, 16 Nev., 373.\n\n   33 Stephenson v. Hanyon, 7 Dist. Ct. Rep. Pa., 585.\n\n   34 State v. Board, 134 Mo., 296; 35 S. W., 617.\n\n   35 Synod v. State, 2 S. Dak., 366; 50 N. W., 632; 14 L. R. A., 418.\n\n   36 Stebbins v. Jennings, 10 Pick., Mass., 172.\n\n   37 State v. District Board, 76 Wis., 177; 44 N. W., 967; 20 Am. St.\n      Rep., 41; 7 L. R. A., 330.\n\n   38 Hackett v. Brooksville, 27 Ky. L., 1021; 87 N. W., 792; 69 L. R. A.,\n      592.\n\n   39 State v. Board, 134 Mo., 296; 35 S. W., 617; 56 Am. St. Rep., 503.\n\n   40 County v. Industrial School, 125 Ill., 540; 18 N. E., 183; 1 L. R.\n      A., 437; 8 Am. St. Rep., 386.\n\n   41 \u201cWis. Industrial School for Girls,\u201d Wisconsin Blue Book. Session\n      Laws of Wis., 1907, p. 1416 (index to Acts). Wis. Industrial School\n      for Girls v. Clark Co., 103 Wis., 651; 79 N. W., 422.\n\n   42 O\u2019Connor v. Hendrick, 184 N. Y., 421; 77 N. E., 612.\n\n   43 Hysong v. Gallitzen, 164 Pa., 629; 30 At., 482; 44 Am. St. Rep.,\n      623; 26 L. R. A., 203; Dorner v. School Dist., 118 N. W., 353 (Nov.\n      27, 1908). A good r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of the subject is given in a footnote in\n      105 Am. St. R., 151.\n\n   44 Stafford v. State, 45 So., 673. A Protestant Dictionary, Wright &\n      Neil, and Webster\u2019s Dictionary, \u201cWorship.\u201d A Catholic Dictionary,\n      Addis and Arnold, \u201cLatria.\u201d\n\n   45 Gass\u2019s App., 73 Pa., 46; 13 Am. Rep., 726; State v. Norris, 59 N.\n      H., 536.\n\n   46 St. Joseph\u2019s Church v. Assessors, 12 R. I., 19; 34 Am. R., 597;\n      Gerke v. Purcell, 25 Ohio, 229; Am. & Eng. Ency. of L., \u201cWorship.\u201d\n\n   47 Ante, 28; Post, 346.\n\n   48 Catholic Catechism.\n\n   49 Sherman v. Baker, 20 R. I., 446; 40 At., 11; 40 L. R. A., 717.\n\n   50 Webster v. Surghow, 69 N. H., 380; 45 At., 139; 48 L. R. A., 100.\n\n   51 Coleman v. O\u2019Leary, 114 Ky., 388; 70 S. W., 1068.\n\n   52 McEntee v. Bonacum, 66 Neb., 651; 92 N. W., 633.\n\n   53 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, \u201cParishoner.\u201d\n\n   54 Ibid., \u201cMinister\u201d; 7 Cyc, 189, \u201cClergy.\u201d\n\n   55 Ibid.\n\n   56 Ibid.\n\n   57 Davies v. Beason, 133 U. S., 333; 33 L. Ed., 637.\n\n   58 Simpson v. Welcome, 72 Me., 496.\n\n   59 Board v. Minor, 23 Ohio St., 250.\n\n   60 Baxter v. Langley, 38 L. J., M. C., 1.\n\n   61 Art. vi.\n\n   62 Ex parte Garland, 4 Wallace, 333; 18 L. Ed., 366.\n\n   63 Church of Latter-Day Saints v. U. S., 136 U. S., 1; 34 L. Ed., 478;\n      140 U. S., 665; 35 L. Ed., 592.\n\n   64 Reynolds v. United States, 8 Otto, 145; 25 L. Ed., 244.\n\n   65 Church of Latter-Day Saints v. U. S., 136 U. S., 1; 34 L. Ed., 478;\n      140 U. S., 665; 35 L. Ed., 592.\n\n   66 Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S., 333; 33 L. Ed., 637.\n\n   67 Fenelon v. Girard, 2 Howard, 127; 11 L. Ed., 205.\n\n   68 State v. Marble, 72 Ohio St., 21; 73 N. E., 1063; State v.\n      Chenoweth, 163 Ind., 94; 71 N. E., 197; People v. Reetz, 127 Mich,\n      87; 86 N. W., 396; 59 Cen. L. J., 202; 68 L. R. A., 432.\n\n   69 Thaxter v. Jones, 4 Mass., 570.\n\n   70 Hale v. Everett, 53 N. H., 9.\n\n   71 Federal and State Constitutions, Stimson.\n\n   72 Bradford v. Roberts, 175 U. S., 291; 44 L. Ed., 168; 20 Sup. Ct. R.,\n      121; Municipality of Ponce v. The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church,\n      28 Sup. Ct. R., 737 (1908).\n\n   73 Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43; 3 L. Ed., 650; Municipality, etc.,\n      v. Church, 28 Sup. Ct. R., 737.\n\n   74 Millard v. Board, 19 Ill., 48; Dorner v. Dist., 118 N. W., 353.\n\n   75 Ashby v. Wellington, 25 Mass., 524.\n\n   76 Federal and State Constitutions, Stimson, p. 139; Hale v. Everett,\n      53 N. H., 9.\n\n   77 State v. Trustees, 11 Ohio, 24.\n\n   78 First v. Leach, 35 Vt., 108.\n\n   79 Federal and State Constitutions, Stimson, p. 139.\n\n   80 State v. District, 76 Wis., 177; 44 N. W., 967; 20 Am. St. R., 41; 7\n      L. R. A., 330.\n\n   81 Church v. Bullock, 100 S. W. (Tex.), 1025; Millard v. Board, 121\n      Ill., 297; 10 N. E., 669; Hackett v. Brooksville, 27 Ky. L., 1021;\n      87 S. W., 792; 69 L. R. A., 592; 61 C. L. J., 49.\n\n   82 Church v. Bullock, 100 S. W., 1025.\n\n   83 Moore v. Monroe, 64 Ia., 367; 20 N. W., 475; 66 L. R. A., 166; 52\n      Am. R., 444; Pfeiffer v. Board, 118 Mich., 560; 77 N. W., 250; 42 L.\n      R. A., 536.\n\n   84 Hysong v. Gallitzin Borough School, 164 Pa. St., 629; 30 At., 482;\n      26 L. R. A., 203; Dorner v. School District, 118 N. W., Wis., 353\n      (Nov. 27, 1908).\n\n   85 O\u2019Connor v. Hendricks, 96 N. Y. S., 161.\n\n   86 Ch. 723, L. 1895.\n\n   87 West v. Otteson, 80 Wis., 62; 49 N. W., 24; Ferraria v.\n      Vasconcellos, 23 Ill., 456; 31 Ill., 25.\n\n   88 Gitzhoffen v. Sisters, 88 Pac., 691; 32 Utah, 46; Trustees v. B. P.\n      O. E., 122 Wis., 452; 100 N. W., 837.\n\n   89 Hermits v. County, 7 Pa. L. J., 124.\n\n   90 Trustees v. Manning, 72 Md., 116; 19 At., 599.\n\n   91 In re Van Horn, 18 R. I., 389.\n\n   92 Wardens v. Blanc, 8 Rob, La., 51.\n\n   93 Rutherford v. Hill, 22 Or., 218; 29 Pac., 546; 17 L. R. A., 549; 56\n      Cen. L. J., 221; Wechselberg v. Flour, 64 F., 90.\n\n   94 Jewett v. Thames Bank, 16 Conn., 511.\n\n   95 Jeffts v. York, 10 Cushing, 392.\n\n   96 Allen v. M. E. Church, 127 Ia., 96; 102 N. W., 808; 69 L. R. A.,\n      255; Sawyer v. Methodist, 18 Vt., 405.\n\n   97 Wise v. Perpetual Trustees, House of Lords, 57 C. L. J., 104.\n\n   98 Sheehy v. Blake, 77 Wis., 394; 46 N. W., 537; 69 L. R. A., 255.\n\n   99 Clark v. O\u2019Rourke, 111 Mich., 108; 69 N. W., 147.\n\n  100 Bradford v. Cary, 5 Me., 339; Lynch v. Pfeiffer, 110 N. Y., 33; 17\n      N. E., 402; In re St. Luke\u2019s, 17 Philadelphia, 261.\n\n  101 Addison v. Brock, 3 Me., 243.\n\n  102 Stebbins v. Jennings, 10 Pickering, 172.\n\n  103 Municipality of Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church, 28 Sup. Ct. R., 737;\n      6 Cyc, 915.\n\n  104 Ferraria v. Vasconcellos, 31 Ill., 25; Mason v. Muncaster, 9\n      Wheaton, 468; 6 L. Ed., 131.\n\n  105 Wheaton v. Gates, 18 N. Y., 395.\n\n  106 South v. Yates, 1 Hoff. N. Y., 142; Miller v. Chittendon, 42 Ia.,\n      252; Newmarket v. Smart, 45 N. H., 87; Evangelical Appeal, 35 Pa.\n      St., 316.\n\n  107 Congregational Society v. Swan, 2 Vt., 222.\n\n  108 Horton v. Baptist Church, 34 Vt., 309.\n\n  109 Associated Reform Church v. Theological Seminary, 4 N. J. Eq., 77.\n\n  110 Taylor v. Edison, 4 Cushing, 522.\n\n  111 Laws of 1895, ch. 723; Religious Corporations, Cummings and Gilbert.\n\n  112 Heiss v. Vosburg, 59 Wis., 532; 18 N. W., 463.\n\n  113 Tartar v. Gibbs, 24 Md., 323.\n\n  114 Christian C. v. C., 219 Ill., 503; 76 N. E., 703.\n\n  115 Jackson v. Legate, 9 Wendell, N. Y., 377.\n\n  116 10 Cyc, 235-244.\n\n  117 Atty-Gen. v. Dutch, 36 N. Y., 452.\n\n  118 Methodist v. Pickett, 23 Barber, 436.\n\n  119 Sutton v. Cole, 8 Mass., 96.\n\n  120 Miller v. English, 21 N. J. L., 317.\n\n  121 Enos v. Church, 187 Mass., 40; 72 N. E., 253.\n\n  122 Baptist v. Wetherell, 3 Paige, N. Y., 296; In re Williams, 105 N. Y.\n      S., 1105; Contra: First R. P. Ch. v. Bowden, 10 Abb., N. C., 1.\n\n  123 Bellports v. Tooker, 29 Barber, N. Y., 256.\n\n  124 Sutter v. First, 42 Pa. St., 503.\n\n  125 Atwater v. Woodbridge, 6 Conn., 223.\n\n  126 Wardens v. Hall, 22 Conn., 125.\n\n  127 Beach, Private Corporations, vol. i, p. 608.\n\n  128 Free Ch. of Scotland v. Overton, Appeal Cases, House of Lords, 1904;\n      Winnebrenner v. Colder, 43 Pa. St., 244.\n\n  129 Rules of Order, Scanlan, c. iii.\n\n  130 Christ\u2019s Ev. L. C., 5 Pa. Co. Court, 121.\n\n  131 In re Zion, 8 Kulp. Pa., 239.\n\n  132 In re Hebron, 9 Phil., 609.\n\n  133 U. S. v. Church, 5 Utah, 361, 394, and 538; 15 Pac., 473; 16 Pac.,\n      723; 18 Pac., 35.\n\n  134 Neil v. Vestry, 8 Gill., 116.\n\n  135 Madison v. Baptist, 26 N. Y., 570; Stokes v. Phelps, 47 Hun., 570.\n\n  136 German, etc., 9 Pa. Co. C., 12.\n\n  137 Evenson v. Ellingson, 72 Wis., 242; 39 N. W., 330.\n\n  138 Toby v. Wareham, 54 Mass., 440.\n\n  139 Weber v. Zimmerman, 22 Md., 156; Wyncoop v. Cong., 10 La., 185.\n\n  140 Magie v. German, 13 N. J. Eq., 77.\n\n  141 Esterbrook v. Tillinghast, 71 Mass., 17.\n\n  142 South v. Clapp, 18 Barber, N. Y., 35.\n\n  143 Tilden v. Metcalf, 2 Day, Conn., 259; Heiss v. Vosburg, 59 Wis.,\n      532; 18 N. W., 518.\n\n  144 Keller v. Tracy, 11 Ia., 530.\n\n  145 Verrian v. Methodist, 44 Abbott Pr., 424.\n\n  146 Trustees v. Hoessli, 13 Wis., 348.\n\n  147 Franke v. Mann, 106 Wis., 118; 81 N. W., 1014.\n\n  148 Den. v. Pilling, 24 N. J. L., 653.\n\n  149 Mormon v. United States, 136 U. S., 1; 33 L. Ed., 639.\n\n  150 In re Methodist, 67 Hun., 86.\n\n  151 In re Union, 6 Abb., N. C., 398.\n\n  152 First v. Brownell, 5 Hun., 464.\n\n  153 Evenson v. Ellingson, 72 Wis., 242; 39 N. W., 330.\n\n  154 Rules of Order, Scanlan, 20; Tartar v. Gibbs, 24 Md., 328; Sutter v.\n      First, 42 Pa. St., 503.\n\n  155 Rose v. Vertin, 46 Mich., 457; 9 N. W., 491; Tuigg v. Sheehan, 101\n      Pa. St., 363.\n\n  156 Am. & Eng. Ency. of L., \u201cReligious Societies.\u201d\n\n  157 Den. v. Bolton, 12 N. J. L., 206.\n\n  158 Bonacum v. Murphy, 65 Neb., 831, and 71 Neb., 463; 98 N. W., 1030;\n      102 N. W., 267, and 104 N. W., 180.\n\n  159 Bonacum v. Murphy, 71 Neb., 463; 104 N. W., 180; Bowden v. MacLeod,\n      1 Edw., N. Y., 588.\n\n  160 Congregation v. Martin, 4 Rob., La., 62.\n\n  161 Fitzgerald v. Robinson, 112 Mass., 371; Grosvenor v. United States,\n      118 Mass., 78; Post, 132.\n\n  162 Wardens v. Blanc, 8 Rob., La., 51.\n\n  163 Bowldin v. Alexander, 82 U. S., 131; 21 L. Ed., 69.\n\n  164 Den. v. Pilling, 24 N. J. L., 653.\n\n  165 Appeal of McAuley, 77 Pa., 397.\n\n  166 Smith v. Swormstedt, 57 U. S., 288; 14 L. Ed., 942.\n\n  167 Skilton v. Webster, Bright, Pa., 203; Mt. Helena Bp. Ch., 79 Miss.,\n      488; 30 So. Rep., 714.\n\n  168 Smith v. Swormstedt, 57 U. S., 288; 14 L. Ed., 942.\n\n  169 Tartar v. Gibbs, 24 Md., 323; Papalion v. Manusos, 113 Ill. App.,\n      316.\n\n  170 People v. Steele, 2 Barber, 397.\n\n  171 Stebbins v. Jennings, 10 Pickering, 172.\n\n  172 Elizabeth City v. Kennedy, Bush, 44, N. C. Law, 89.\n\n  173 Diffendorf v. Reformed Church, 20 Johns., N. Y., 12.\n\n  174 Sutton v. Trustees, 42 Pa., 503.\n\n  175 Baxter v. McDonald, 155 N. Y., 83; 49 N. E., 667.\n\n  176 Wardens v. Blanc, 8 Rob., 51.\n\n  177 Young v. Ransom, 31 Barb., 49.\n\n  178 Perry v. Wheeler, 75 Ky., 541.\n\n  179 Sheldon v. Easton, 4 Mass., 281; Congregation v. Peres, 42 Tenn.,\n      620; Thompson v. Catholic, 22 Mass., 469.\n\n  180 Proprietors v. Proprietors, 48 Mass., 496.\n\n  181 Dempsey v. North, 98 Mich., 444; 57 N. W., 267.\n\n  182 Hackett v. Mt. Pleasant, 46 Ark., 291.\n\n  183 Chatard v. O\u2019Donovan, 80 Ind., 20.\n\n  184 Brestor v. Burr, 120 N. Y., 427; 8 L. R. A., 710; 24 N. E., 937.\n\n  185 Walker v. Wainwright, 16 Barb., 486.\n\n  186 O\u2019Hara v. Stack, 90 Pa., 477.\n\n  187 Stack v. O\u2019Hara, 98 Pa. St., 213.\n\n  188 Cooper v. McKenna, 104 Mass., 284.\n\n  189 Leahy v. Williams, 141 Mass., 345.\n\n  190 State v. Winkle, 14 N. H., 480.\n\n  191 Methodist v. Sherman, 36 Wis., 404.\n\n  192 Baldwin v. McKlinch, 1 Me., 102.\n\n  193 Elizabeth City v. Kennedy, 44 N. C., 89.\n\n  194 Calkins v. Cheney, 92 Ill., 463.\n\n  195 St. Patrick\u2019s v. Daly, 116 Ill., 76; 4 N. E., 241.\n\n  196 Congregation v. Martin, 4 Rob., La., 62.\n\n  197 Meyer v. Baptist, 38 Vt., 614.\n\n  198 Congregation v. Martin, 4 Rob., 62.\n\n  199 Whittmore v. Fourth, 68 Mass., 306.\n\n  200 St. Patrick\u2019s v. Daly, 4 N. E., 241; 116 Ill., 76.\n\n  201 Tuigg v. Treacy, 104 Pa., 493.\n\n  202 Tartar v. Gibbs, 24 Md., 323.\n\n  203 Heiss v. Murphy, 40 Wis., 276, 278; Den. v. Pilling, 24 N. J. L.,\n      653.\n\n  204 Weckerly v. Geyer, 11 Ser. R. Pa., 35.\n\n  205 Weinbrenner v. Colder, 43 Pa. St., 244.\n\n  206 People v. Tuthil, 31 N. Y., 550.\n\n  207 Price v. Lyon, 14 Conn., 280.\n\n  208 Suter v. Spangler, 4 Phil., 331.\n\n  209 Smith v. Pedigo, 145 Ind., 36; 32 L. R. A., 836; 33 N. E., 777.\n\n  210 McGuire v. Trustees, 54 Hun., 207.\n\n  211 Church v. Halverson, 42 Minn., 503; 44 N. W., 563; Day v. Bolton, 12\n      N. J. L., 206; Den. v. Pilling, 24 N. J. L., 653.\n\n  212 Osgood v. Bradley, 7 Me., 411.\n\n  213 Baptist v. Witherell, 24 Am. Dec., 223; 3 The Catholic Cyclopedia,\n      755; Contra: First R. P. Ch. v. Bowden, 10 Abb., N. C, 1. See post\n      134, 156.\n\n  214 Jewett v. Thames, 16 Conn., 511.\n\n  215 Chick v. Trevett, 20 Me., 462; Allen v. M. E. Church, 127 Ia., 96;\n      102 N. W., 808; 69 L. R. A., 255.\n\n  216 Sheehy v. Blake, 72 Wis., 411; 39 N. W., 479; 9 L. R. A., 564.\n\n  217 Chase v. Merrimac, 34 Mass., 564; Bigelow v. Congregation, 15 Vt.,\n      370.\n\n  218 Richardson v. Butterfield, 60 Mass., 191.\n\n  219 State v. Hebrew, 31 La. Ann., 205; 33 Am. Rep., 217; Grosvenor v.\n      United States, 118 Mass., 78; Watson v. Garbin, 54 Mo., 358.\n\n  220 State v. Getty, 69 Conn., 286; 37 At., 188.\n\n  221 Free Church of Scotland v. Overton, Appeal Cases, House of Lords,\n      1904; Fuchs v. Meisel, 102 Mich., 357; 32 L. R. A., 92; 60 N. W.,\n      773.\n\n  222 Methodist v. Wood, 5 Ohio, 12.\n\n  223 McGinnis v. Watson, 41 Pa. St., 9.\n\n  224 German v. Seibert, 3 Pa. St., 282.\n\n  225 Sutter v. First, 42 Pa. St., 503.\n\n  226 Miller v. Gable, 2 Den., N. Y., 492; Eis v. Croze, 149 Mich., 62;\n      112 N. W., 943; Dressen v. Brameier, 56 Ia., 756; 9 N. W., 193;\n      Amish v. Gelhaus, 71 Ia., 170; 32 N. W., 318.\n\n  227 Lamm v. Cain, 129 Ind., 486; 14 L. R. A., 518.\n\n  228 Fernald v. Lewis, 6 Me., 264.\n\n  229 Trustees v. Henschell, 48 Minn., 494; 51 N. W., 477.\n\n  230 Perry v. Tupper, 74 N. C., 722.\n\n  231 Wanner v. Emanuel, 174 Pa., 466.\n\n  232 West v. Ottesen, 80 Wis., 62; 49 N. W., 24.\n\n  233 Second v. First, 23 Conn., 255.\n\n  234 Smith v. Swormstedt, 57 U. S., 288; 14 L. Ed., 942.\n\n  235 Nelson v. Benson, 69 Ill., 27; Brown v. Porter, 10 Mass., 93.\n\n  236 Page v. Crosby, 41 Mass., 211.\n\n  237 Harper v. Straws, 53 Ky., 48; Hale v. Everett, 53 N. H., 9; Wiswell\n      v. First, 14 Ohio St., 31; Reorganized v. Church, 60 Fed., 937; 32\n      L. R. A., 838; Fernstler v. Seibert, 114 Pa., 196; 6 At., 165.\n\n  238 Shannon v. First, 42 Ky., 253.\n\n  239 Servatius v. Pichel, 34 Wis., 292; McGrath v. Finn, 16 Alb. L. J.,\n      186; Morasse v. Borchee, 151 Mass., 567; 25 N. E., 74.\n\n  240 Farnsworth v. Storrs, 59 Mass., 412.\n\n  241 Bowldin v. Alexander, 15 Wall., 131; 21 L. Ed., 69; Ante, sec. 116,\n      post 156.\n\n  242 In re Paulson\u2019s will, 127 Wis., 612; 107 N. W., 484.\n\n  243 Barry v. C. K. of W., 119 Wis., 362; 96 N. W., 797.\n\n  244 In re Knox, 25 Ch. Div., 542.\n\n  245 Harden v. Baptist, 51 Mich., 137; 16 N. W., 311.\n\n  246 Taylor v. Edison, 58 Mass., 522; Gray v. Christian, 137 Mass., 329.\n\n  247 Fulbright v. Higgenbotham, 133 Mo., 668; 34 S. W., 875.\n\n  248 Jones v. State, 28 Neb., 495; 44 N. W., 658; 7 L. R. A., 325.\n\n  249 Hamel v. German, 1 Weekly Note Cases, 411.\n\n  250 State v. Hebrew, 31 La. Ann., 205; 33 Am. Rep., 217.\n\n  251 Deadrick v. Lampson, 58 Tenn., 523.\n\n  252 Smith v. Pedigo, 145 Ind., 361; 32 L. R. A., 838.\n\n  253 Lucas v. Case, 9 Bush, Ky., 297.\n\n  254 Grosvenor v. U. S., 118 Mass., 78.\n\n  255 Miller v. English, 21 N. J. L., 317; 10 Cyc, 320-328; Rules of\n      Order, Scanlan, 17.\n\n  256 State v. Crowell, 9 N. J. L., 391; Commonwealth v. Cain, 5 Ser. &\n      R., Pa., 510.\n\n  257 Wegerle v. Geyer, 11 Ser. & R., Pa., 35.\n\n  258 Juker v. Commonwealth, 20 Pa. St., 484; St. Luke\u2019s v. Matthews, 4\n      Desau, S. C., 578; State v. Crowell, 9 N. J. L., 391.\n\n  259 People v. Tuthill, 31 N. Y., 550.\n\n  260 Rules of Order, Scanlan, 18, 20; 10 Cyc, 329.\n\n  261 Madison v. Baptist, 32 Howard\u2019s Pr., 335.\n\n  262 People v. Tuthill, 31 N. Y., 550.\n\n  263 Hart v. Harvey, 32 Barb., N. Y., 55.\n\n  264 Alexander v. Bowers, 79 S. W., 342.\n\n  265 Rules of Order, Scanlan, 18, 20, 23; People v. Peck, 11 Wend., N.\n      Y., 604.\n\n  266 Rules of Order, Scanlan, 9; Gipson v. Morris, 83 S. W., Tex., 226;\n      McCrary\u2019s Am. L. of Elections, secs. 298-300.\n\n  267 Juker v. Commonwealth, 20 Pa., 484.\n\n  268 Rules of Order, Scanlan, 23-27; Wardens v. Pope, 8 Gray, Mass., 140.\n\n  269 Den. v. Pilling, 24 N. J. L., 653.\n\n  270 Vestry v. Matthews, 4 Desau, S. C., 578.\n\n  271 Cooley\u2019s Con. Lim., 619; McCrary\u2019s Am. L. of Elections, sec. 197;\n      Rules of Order, Scanlan, 24-27.\n\n  272 Commonwealth v. Woelper, 3 Ser. & R., Pa., 29.\n\n  273 In re Peters, 112 N. Y. Sup., 339.\n\n  274 Gram v. Prussia, 36 N. Y., 161.\n\n  275 Wall v. Johnson, 140 Ind., 445; 39 N. E., 251; Simmons v. Allison,\n      118 N. C., 763.\n\n  276 People v. St. Anthony, 109 N. Y., 512; 17 N. E., 408.\n\n  277 Congregation v. Martin, 4 Rob., 62; Wardens v. Blanc, 8 Rob., 51;\n      St. Andrew\u2019s Ch. v. Schaugnessy, 63 Neb., 792; 89 N. W., 261.\n\n  278 Enos v. Church, 187 Mass., 40; 72 N. E., 253.\n\n  279 Ross v. Crockett, 14 La. Ann., 811.\n\n  280 Laight v. Noe, 12 Howard\u2019s Pr., 497; Contra: In re Williams, 105 N.\n      Y. S., 1105; Ante, 116, 134.\n\n  281 People v. Lacoste, 37 N. Y., 192; Fadness v. Braunberg, 73 Wis.,\n      257; 41 N. W., 84; McCrary on Am. L. of Elections, secs. 209, 264;\n      10 Cyc, 347; People v. Nappa, 89 Mich., 232; 50 N. W., 846.\n\n  282 Hendrickson v. Shotwell, 1 N. J. Eq., 577.\n\n  283 Congregation v. Sperry, 10 Conn., 200; 10 Cyc, 319.\n\n  284 Den. v. Pilling, 24 N. J. L., 653.\n\n  285 Smith v. Erb, 5 Gill., Md., 437.\n\n  286 People v. Peck, 11 Wend., N. Y., 604.\n\n  287 Catron v. First, 46 Ia., 106; People v. St. Anthony\u2019s, 109 N. Y.,\n      512; 17 N. E., 408.\n\n  288 Columbia v. Gospel, 127 N. Y., 361.\n\n  289 First v. Caughey, 85 Pa., 271.\n\n  290 San Antonia v. Adams, 87 Tex., 125; 26 S. W., 1040; Hill v. Rich,\n      119 Mo., 9; 24 S. W., 223.\n\n  291 Hewitt v. Wheeler, 22 Conn., 577; Devos v. Gray, 22 Ohio, 159; Klopp\n      v. Moore, 6 Kan., 27; Neil v. Spencer, 5 Ill. App., 461; United v.\n      Vandusen, 37 Wis., 54.\n\n  292 Miller v. Church, 4 Phil., 48.\n\n  293 Brunnenmeyer v. Buhre, 32 Ill., 183.\n\n  294 N. Baptist v. Parker, 36 Barb., N. Y., 171.\n\n  295 Dennison v. Austin, 15 Wis., 334.\n\n  296 United v. Vandusen, 37 Wis., 54; MacLaury v. Hart, 121 N. Y., 636;\n      24 N. E., 1013.\n\n  297 Vestry v. Barksdale, 1 Strobb. Eq., S. C., 197.\n\n  298 New v. Gress, 89 Ga., 125.\n\n  299 10 Cyc, 776-9; In re Denny, 156 Ind., 104; 59 N. E., 359; 51 L. R.\n      A., 722.\n\n  300 Rules of Order, Scanlan, 21; U. S. v. Balm, 144 U. S., 1; 12 Sup.\n      Ct. R., 507; 36 L. Ed., 321; The Catholic Cyclopedia, vol. i, 289.\n\n  301 Cicotte v. Anciaux, 53 Mich., 227; 18 N. W., 793.\n\n  302 Trustees v. Halverson, 42 Minn., 503; 44 N. W., 663.\n\n  303 Skinner v. Richardson, 76 Wis., 464; 45 N. W., 318; Dennison v.\n      Auston, 15 Wis., 334.\n\n  304 Vestry v. Barksdale, 1 Strobb. S. C. Eq., 197.\n\n  305 State v. Ahnapee, 99 Wis., 322; 74 N. W., 783.\n\n  306 Bowldin v. Alexander, 82 U. S., 131; 21 L. Ed., 69; The Catholic\n      Cyclopedia, vol. iii, 755, 756.\n\n  307 Leahy v. Williams, 141 Mass., 345; 6 N. E., 78.\n\n  308 People v. Runkel, 8 Johnson, N. Y., 464.\n\n  309 Leahy v. Williams, 141 Mass., 345.\n\n  310 Rose v. Vertin, 46 Mich., 457; 9 N. W., 491; Tuigg v. Sheehan, 101\n      Pa., 363.\n\n  311 Freeport v. Egan, 146 Pa., 106; 23 At., 390.\n\n  312 Scott v. Thompson, 21 Ia., 599.\n\n  313 Emonds v. Termehr, 60 Ia., 92; 14 N. W., 197.\n\n  314 Wojcienchowski v. Johnknowski, 16 Pa. Sup. Ct., 444.\n\n  315 Chiniqui v. Delaire, 37 Ill., 237.\n\n  316 St. Patrick\u2019s v. Abst., 76 Ill., 252.\n\n  317 First v. Prior, 23 Hun., 271.\n\n  318 Den. v. Pilling, 24 N. J. L., 653; Rules of Order, Scanlan, 15-18.\n\n  319 German v. Pressler, 17 La. Ann., 127.\n\n  320 Appeal of McAuley, 77 Pa., 397.\n\n  321 Bethany v. Sperry, 10 Conn., 200.\n\n  322 Weber v. Zimmermann, 22 Md., 156.\n\n  323 Downs v. Bowdoin, 149 Mass., 135; 21 N. E., 294.\n\n  324 Smith v. Erb., 4 Gill., Md., 437.\n\n  325 Helbig v. Rosenberg, 86 Ia., 159; 53 N. W., 111.\n\n  326 Dahl v. Palache, 68 Cal., 248.\n\n  327 People v. Runkel, 9 Johnson, 147.\n\n  328 First v. Hillary, 51 Cal., 155.\n\n  329 Tuttle v. Cary, 7 Me., 426.\n\n  330 State v. Steward, 6 Houst., Del., 9.\n\n  331 Jones v. Cary, 6 Me., 448; Rules of Order, Scanlan, 29-30.\n\n  332 State v. Steward, 6 Houst., Del., 359.\n\n  333 Juker v. Commonwealth, 20 Pa., 484; McIlvain v. Christ\u2019s Church, 8\n      Phil., 507.\n\n  334 Livingston v. Trinity Church, 45 N. J. L., 230.\n\n  335 People v. Tuthill, 31 N. Y., 550.\n\n  336 Madison v. Baptist, 46 N. Y., 131.\n\n  337 Moore v. St. Thomas\u2019 Church, 4 Abb., N. Y., 51.\n\n  338 Commonwealth v. Woelper, 3 Ser. & R., 29.\n\n  339 Wardens v. Pope, 74 Mass., 140.\n\n  340 Oakes v. Hill, 6 Weekly Notes, Cas., 346.\n\n  341 Hartt v. Harvey, 32 Barb., 55.\n\n  342 Weckerly v. Geyer, 11 Ser. & R., 35.\n\n  343 People v. Church, 48 Barb., 603.\n\n  344 Allen v. Gray, 11 Conn., 95.\n\n  345 Arthur v. Norfield, 49 At., 241; 73 Conn., 718.\n\n  346 Pepin v. Societies, 23 R. I., 81; 60 L. R. A., 626.\n\n  347 Lahiff v. St. Joseph\u2019s T. A. B. S., 76 Conn., 648; 65 L. R. A., 92.\n\n  348 10 Cyc, 1067.\n\n  349 17 Cyc, 405; 2 Jones on Ev., secs. 522, 523; Conflict of L.,\n      Wharton, vol. ii, sec. 761, pp. 1496-8; Collins v. German, Am. M. I.\n      Ass., 112 Mo. App., 209; 86 S. W., 891; Layton v. Kraft, 98 N. Y.,\n      996.\n\n  350 Collins v. German, 112 Mo. App., 209; Sandberg v. The State, 113\n      Wis., 578; 89 N. W., 504.\n\n  351 Sawyer v. Baldwin, 11 Pickering, 492.\n\n  352 Finher v. Hanegen, 59 Ark., 151; 24 L. R. A., 543.\n\n  353 Mt. Zion v. Whitmore, 83 Ia., 138; 49 N. W., 846; 13 L. R. A., 198.\n\n  354 Bonacum v. Murphy, 65 Neb., 831; 98 N. W., 1030; 71 Neb., 463; 102\n      N. W., 267; 104 ib., 180; Nance v. Busby, 91 Tenn., 303; 18 S. W.,\n      874; 15 L. R. A., 801.\n\n  355 Bonacum v. Harrington, 65 Neb., 831; 91 N. W., 886.\n\n  356 Tubbs v. Lynch, 4 Harr., Del., 521.\n\n  357 Sterns v. Bedford, 21 Pickering, 114.\n\n  358 O\u2019Donovan v. Chatard, 97 Ind., 421.\n\n  359 Baxter v. McDonald, 155 N. Y., 83; 49 N. E., 667.\n\n  360 Gibbs v. Gilead, 38 Conn., 153.\n\n  361 Stack v. O\u2019Hara, 98 Pa., 213.\n\n  362 29 Cyc, 204, and \u201cReligious Societies\u201d; Am. & Eng. Cyc. of L.,\n      \u201cReligious Societies\u201d and \u201cBeneficial Societies\u201d; 2 Benefit\n      Societies & L. Insurance, Bacon, secs. 400a and 450a.\n\n  363 Farnsworth v. Storrs, 59 Mass., 412.\n\n  364 Hatfield v. Delong, 24 Ind. App., 343; 51 L. R. A., 751; Ryan v.\n      Cudahy, 157 Ill., 108; 41 N. E., 760; 49 L. R. A., 353.\n\n  365 Sampsell v. Esher, 26 Weekly Law Bulletin, Ohio, 156.\n\n  366 Day v. Robinson, 12 N. J. L., 206.\n\n  367 Diffendorf v. Reformed Church, 20 Johnson, N. Y., 12.\n\n  368 Chase v. Cheney, 58 Ill., 509.\n\n  369 Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, \u201cPrescription.\u201d\n\n  370 Legal Formulary, Baart, 462.\n\n  371 Juker v. Commonwealth, 20 Pa. St., 484.\n\n  372 Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How., U. S., 527; 15 L. Ed., 991.\n\n  373 See \u201cBenefit of the Clergy\u201d and \u201cForum Ecclesiasticum,\u201d in The\n      Catholic Cyclopedia and in the Catholic Dictionary.\n\n  374 Kuns v. Robinson, 154 Ill., 394; 40 N. E., 343; Brundage v.\n      Deardorf, 55 Fed., 839; Watson v. Jones, 80 U. S., 679; 20 L. Ed.,\n      666; Bird v. St. Mark\u2019s, 62 Ia., 567; 17 N. W., 747; Perry v.\n      Wheeler, 75 Ky., 541; Powers v. Bundy, 45 Neb., 208; 63 N. W., 476;\n      Connit v. Reformed, 54 N. Y., 551; Harrison v. Hoyle, 24 Ohio St.,\n      254; Krecker v. Shirey, 163 Pa., 534; 30 At., 540.\n\n  375 Watson v. Jones, 80 U. S., 679; 20 L. Ed., 666.\n\n  376 Prickett v. Wells, 117 Mo., 502; 24 S. W., 52; Pounder v. Ash, 36\n      Neb., 564; 54 N. W., 847.\n\n  377 Atty-Gen. v. Fed., 69 Mass., 1.\n\n  378 Mt. Helen v. Jones, 79 Miss., 488; 30 So., 714.\n\n  379 Prickett v. Wells, 117 Mo., 502; 24 S. W., 52.\n\n  380 Ferraria v. Vasconcellos, 31 Ill., 25.\n\n  381 Garten v. Penick, 68 Ky., 110.\n\n  382 Brunnenmeyer v. Buhre, 31 Ill., 183.\n\n  383 Lawson v. Kolbenson, 61 Ill., 405.\n\n  384 Robertson v. Bullions, 11 N. Y., 243.\n\n  385 Papalion v. Manusos, 113 Ill. App., 316.\n\n  386 Avery v. Baker, 27 Neb., 388; 43 N. W., 174.\n\n  387 Trustees v. Trustees, 4 N. J. Eq., 77.\n\n  388 Nash v. Sutton, 117 N. C., 231; 23 S. E., 178; Wiswell v. First, 14\n      Ohio St., 31.\n\n  389 Mannix v. Purcell, 46 Ohio St., 102.\n\n  390 Baker v. Ducker, 79 Cal., 365; 21 Pac., 764.\n\n  391 Morris v. Dart, 67 S. C., 338; 45 S. E., 753; 100 Am. St. Rep., 734.\n\n  392 Phipps v. Jones, 20 Pa., 260.\n\n  393 Dolan v. City, 4 Gill., 394.\n\n  394 Shakers v. Watson, 68 Fed., 730.\n\n  395 61 Cen. L. J., 49 and 55; 57 C. L. J., 201.\n\n  396 Owens v. Frank, 7 Wyoming, 457; 53 Pac., 282; 47 Cen. L. J., 221.\n\n  397 Evidence, Jones, vol. iii, p. 776.\n\n  398 Gillooley v. State, 58 Ind., 182.\n\n  399 Knight v. Lee, 80 Ind., 201.\n\n  400 Colbert v. State, 125 Wis., 423; 104 N. W., 61.\n\n  401 Hills v. State, 61 Neb., 589; 85 N. W., 836.\n\n  402 Bevins v. Kline, 21 Ind., 37.\n\n  403 In re Thomas, 54 Cal., 509.\n\n  404 Rex. v. Hoy, 2 F. & F., 4.\n\n  405 Rex. v. Griffen, 6 Cox, C. C., 219.\n\n  406 Mutual v. Robinson, 19 U. S. App., 266; State v. Morgan, 196 Mo.,\n      177; 95 S. W., 402.\n\n  407 Katzer v. City, 104 Wis., 16; 79 N. W., 745; 80 N. W., 41.\n\n  408 Vasconcellos v. Ferraria, 27 Ill., 237.\n\n  409 Foley v. Brocksmit, 119 Ia., 457; 93 N. W., 344; 97 Am. St. R., 324;\n      60 L. R. A., 571; 18 Cyc, 437-9.\n\n  410 Harriman v. First, 63 Ga., 186.\n\n  411 Methodist v. Sherman, 36 Wis., 404.\n\n  412 St. Patrick\u2019s v. Daly, 116 Ill., 76; 4 N. E., 241.\n\n  413 Eager v. Inhabitants, 10 Mass., 430.\n\n  414 Barnes v. Perrine, 9 Barb., N. Y., 202; Sheehy v. Blake, 77 Wis.,\n      394; 46 N. W., 537; 69 L. R. A., 255; Cutler v. Thomas, 25 Vt., 13;\n      Allen v. M. E. Church, 127 Ia., 96; 102 N. W., 808; 69 L. R. A., 255\n      Note.\n\n  415 9 Cyc, 331.\n\n  416 45 Cent. Dig., 7.\n\n  417 45 Cent. Dig., 38.\n\n  418 45 Cent. Dig., 14.\n\n  419 45 Cent. Dig., 1-54; Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, \u201cSubscriptions.\u201d\n\n  420 Legal Maxims, Broom, 745; Hodges v. Nalty, 104 Wis., 464; 80 N. W.,\n      726.\n\n  421 Hodges v. Nalty, 113 Wis., 557; 89 N. W., 535; Hodges v. O\u2019Brien,\n      113 Wis., 97; 88 N. W., 901.\n\n  422 Barnes v. Perine, 9 Bar., N. Y., 202.\n\n  423 Macon v. Shepard, 2 Humphrey, Tenn., 335.\n\n  424 O\u2019Hear v. De Goesbriand, 33 Vt., 593; 80 Am. Dec., 662.\n\n  425 Bates v. Sperrell, 10 Mass., 323; Hodges v. Green, 28 Vt., 358;\n      Pres. v. Andrus, 21 N. J. L., 225.\n\n  426 Church v. Wells, 24 Pa., 249.\n\n  427 O\u2019Hear v. De Goesbriand, 33 Vt., 593; 80 Am. Dec., 662.\n\n  428 Proprietors v. Roswell, 66 Me., 400; Sohier v. Trinity, 109 Mass.,\n      1; Aylward v. O\u2019Brien, 160 Mass., 118; 35 N. E., 313; 22 L. R. A.,\n      206.\n\n  429 Aylward v. O\u2019Brien, 160 Mass., 118; 35 N. E., 313; 22 L. R. A., 206;\n      O\u2019Hear v. De Goesbriand, 33 Vt., 593; 80 Am. Dec., 662.\n\n  430 Smith v. Bonhoff, 2 Mich., 115.\n\n  431 Vorhees v. Presbyterian, 8 Barb., 135.\n\n  432 Price v. Lyon, 14 Conn., 280.\n\n  433 Baptist v. Witherell, 3 Paige, N. Y., 296; 24 Am. Dec., 223.\n\n  434 Perrin v. Granger, 33 Vt., 101.\n\n  435 French v. Old, 106 Mass., 479.\n\n  436 Curry v. First, 2 Pittsburg, 105.\n\n  437 Succession of Gambla, 23 La. Ann., 9.\n\n  438 First v. Braydon, 91 Mass., 248.\n\n  439 Downs v. Bowdoin, 149 Mass., 135; 21 N. E., 294.\n\n  440 Trustees v. Quackenbush, 10 Johnson, 217.\n\n  441 Kellogg v. Dickenson, 18 Vt., 266.\n\n  442 Jackson v. Rounsville, 5 Metcalf, Mass., 127.\n\n  443 Murray v. Cargill, 32 Me., 517; Gay v. Baker, 17 Mass., 435; Shaw v.\n      Beveridge, 3 Hill, N. Y., 26; Perrin v. Granger, 33 Vt., 101.\n\n  444 Vanhorn v. Tailmadge, 8 N. J. Eq., 108.\n\n  445 Fassett v. Boylston, 19 Pickering, Mass., 361.\n\n  446 Kimball v. Rowley, 24 Pickering, Mass., 347.\n\n  447 Aylward v. O\u2019Brien, 160 Mass., 118; 35 N. E., 313; 22 L. R. A., 206;\n      Van Houten v. Trustees, 17 N. J. Eq., 126.\n\n  448 Howard v. Stevens, 47 Vt., 262.\n\n  449 Stoddard v. Vestry, 2 Gill. & J., Md., 227.\n\n  450 City v. McIntyre, 8 Rob., La., 467.\n\n  451 Sargent v. Pierce, 43 Mass., 80.\n\n  452 Perrin v. Leverett, 13 Mass., 128.\n\n  453 Crowley v. Miller, 19 N. Y. Weekly Dig., 262.\n\n  454 Sheldon v. Vail, 28 Hun., 354.\n\n  455 Price v. Lyons, 14 Conn., 280.\n\n  456 Perrin v. Granger, 33 Vt., 101.\n\n  457 Commonwealth v. Cain, 5 Srg. & R., Pa., 510.\n\n  458 In re Bullock, 6 Dem. Sur., 335; Heiss v. Murphy, 40 Wis., 276; Ruth\n      v. Oberbrunner, 40 Wis., 238.\n\n  459 Ruth v. Oberbrunner, 40 Wis., 238; Goesele v. Bimeler, 55 U. S.,\n      589; 14 L. Ed., 554; Van Houten v. Trustees, 17 N. J. Eq., 126.\n\n  460 Winnepesaukee v. Gordon, 63 N. H., 505; 3 At., 426.\n\n  461 Bethel v. Carmack, 2 Md., Ch., 143; Tartar v. Gibbs, 24 Md., 323.\n\n  462 Lynch v. Pfeiffer, 110 N. Y., 33; 17 N. E., 402.\n\n  463 Enos v. Chestnut, 88 Ill., 590.\n\n  464 Walwrath v. Camel, 28 Mich., 111.\n\n  465 Harpending v. Reformed, 41 U. S., 455; 10 L. Ed., 1029.\n\n  466 Inhabitants v. Catholics, 40 Mass., 139; People v. Trinity, 22 N.\n      Y., 44.\n\n  467 Lynch v. Pfeiffer, 110 N. Y., 33; 17 N. E., 402; Eggleston v.\n      Doolittle, 33 Conn., 396.\n\n  468 Tomlin v. Blunt, 31 Ill. App., 234.\n\n  469 Centenary v. Parker, 43 N. J. Eq., 307; 12 At., 142.\n\n  470 Levasseur v. Martin, 11 La. Ann., 684.\n\n  471 O\u2019Donnell v. Holden, 21 Weekly Law Bulletin, 254.\n\n  472 Walwrath v. Camel, 28 Mich., 111.\n\n  473 Fitzpatrick v. Fitzgerald, 79 Mass., 400.\n\n  474 Hubbard v. German, 34 Ia., 31.\n\n  475 In re First, 106 N. Y., 251; 12 N. E., 626; Wiswell v. First, 14\n      Ohio St., 31.\n\n  476 Scott v. First, 50 Mich., 528; 15 N. W., 891.\n\n  477 In re First, 106 N. Y., 251; 12 N. E., 626.\n\n  478 Katzer v. City of Milwaukee, 104 Wis., 16; 79 N. W., 745; 80 N. W.,\n      41.\n\n  479 Beckwith v. St. Phillip\u2019s Parish, 69 Ga., 564.\n\n  480 Miller v. Chittenden, 2 Ia., 315; 4 Ia., 252; Schenectady v. Veeder,\n      4 Wendell, N. Y., 494.\n\n  481 St. Patrick\u2019s v. Daly, 116 Ill., 76.\n\n  482 Nobilli v. Redman, 6 Cal., 325.\n\n  483 San Antonio v. Odin, 15 Tex., 539.\n\n  484 Blair v. Odin, 3 Tex., 288.\n\n  485 Heiss v. Vosburg, 59 Wis., 532; 18 N. W., 463.\n\n  486 Santillan v. Moses, 1 Cal., 92.\n\n  487 Heiss v. Murphy, 40 Wis., 276.\n\n  488 Robertson v. Bullions, 11 N. Y., 243.\n\n  489 Hennessey v. Walsh, 55 N. H., 515.\n\n  490 Pawlet v. Clarke, 13 U. S., 292; 3 L. Ed., 735.\n\n  491 Cheever v. Pierson, 33 Mass., 266.\n\n  492 Amish v. Gelhaus, 71 Ia., 170; 32 N. W., 318.\n\n  493 Cushman v. Church, 162 Pa., 280; 29 At., 472.\n\n  494 Kulinsky v. Dambrowski, 29 Wis., 109.\n\n  495 Reed v. Church, 6 Pa. Co. Ct., 76.\n\n  496 Fulbright v. Higgenbotham, 133 Mo., 668; 34 S. W., 875; People v.\n      Runkel, 9 Johnson, 147; Central v. Patterson, 30 N. Y. Supp., 248;\n      Unangst v. Shortz, 5 Horton, Pa., 506.\n\n  497 Bowden v. MacLeod, 1 Edw., N. Y., 588; Gable v. Miller, 10 Paige, N.\n      Y., 627; Wilson v. Johns, 2 Rich., S. C., Eq., 192; Ferraria v.\n      Vasconcellos, 31 Ill., 25.\n\n  498 Antones v. Eslava\u2019s heirs, 9 Port., 527.\n\n  499 Ferraria v. Vasconcellos, 31 Ill., 25; Brunnenmeyer v. Buhre, 32\n      Ill., 183.\n\n  500 Organ v. Seaford, 1 Dev., N. C. Eq., 453; Post 290, 319.\n\n  501 Gram v. Prussia, 36 N. Y., 161; Reformed v. Draper, 97 Mass., 349.\n\n  502 Dochkus v. Lithuanian, 206 Pa., 25; 55 At., 779.\n\n  503 Burke v. Wall, 29 La. Ann., 38.\n\n  504 Thompson v. West, 59 Neb., 677; 82 N. W., 13; 49 L. R. A., 337.\n\n  505 Morgan v. Leslie, Wright, O., 144.\n\n  506 Consistory v. Brandow, 52 Barb., N. Y., 228.\n\n  507 Grisson v. Hill, 17 Ark., 483.\n\n  508 Scott v. Stipe, 12 Ind., 74; Mills v. Davison, 54 N. J. Eq., 659; 35\n      At., 1072; 35 L. R. A., 113.\n\n  509 Appeal of Tappen, 52 Conn., 412.\n\n  510 Neely v. Hoskins, 84 Me., 386; 24 At., 882.\n\n  511 Second v. Dugan, 65 Md., 460; 5 At., 415.\n\n  512 Craig v. Inhabitants, 58 Me., 479.\n\n  513 Beckwith v. St. Phillip\u2019s Church, 68 Ga., 564.\n\n  514 Mannix v. Purcell, 46 Ohio St., 102; 19 N. E., 572; 2 L. R. A., 753.\n\n  515 Draper v. Minor, 36 Mo., 290.\n\n  516 Burton\u2019s Appeal, 57 Pa. St., 213.\n\n  517 Smith v. Pedigo, 145 Ind., 361; 33 N. E., 777; 44 N. E., 363; 32 L.\n      R. A., 838.\n\n  518 Free Ch. of Scotland v. Overton, Appeal Cases, House of Lords, 1904;\n      McGinnis v. Watson, 41 Pa. St., 9; Ante, 278.\n\n  519 First v. Rauss, 21 Conn., 160; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wallace, 679; 20\n      L. Ed., 666.\n\n  520 App. v. Lutheran, 6 Pa. St., 201.\n\n  521 Keller v. Tracy, 11 Ia., 530; Happy v. Morton, 33 Ill., 398; Leftwig\n      v. Thornton, 18 Ia., 56.\n\n  522 Watson v. Jones, 13 Wallace, 679; 20 L. Ed., 666.\n\n  523 Dolan v. Mayor, 4 Gill., Md., 394.\n\n  524 Goode v. McPherson, 51 Mo., 126.\n\n  525 Olcott v. Gabert, 86 Tex., 121; 23 S. W., 985.\n\n  526 Strong v. Doty, 32 Wis., 381.\n\n  527 Fadness v. Braunburg, 73 Wis., 257; 41 N. W., 84.\n\n  528 Weld v. May, 9 Cushing, Mass., 181.\n\n  529 Field v. Field, 9 Wendell, N. Y., 394; Stokes v. Dale, 14 N. Y.,\n      901.\n\n  530 Hendrickson v. Shotwell, 1 N. J. Eq., 577; Calkins v. Cheney, 92\n      Ill., 463; Park v. Chaplain, 96 Ia., 55; 64 N. W., 674.\n\n  531 Beech v. Allen, 7 Hun., 441.\n\n  532 Catholic v. Gibbons, 3 Weekly Law Bulletin, 581.\n\n  533 Lyons v. Planters, 86 Ga., 485.\n\n  534 African v. Duru, 19 La. Ann., 302; Harrisburg v. Washburn, 29\n      Oregon, 150; 44 Pac., 390.\n\n  535 Lynn v. Carson, 32 Grat., Va., 170.\n\n  536 Proprietor v. Butler, 56 Mass., 597.\n\n  537 DeRuyter v. St. Peter\u2019s, 3 N. Y., 238.\n\n  538 Perrian v. Methodist, 4 Abbot\u2019s Pr., N. Y., 424; Unangst v. Shortz,\n      5 Horton, Pa. St., 506; Trustees v. Hoessli, 13 Wis., 348.\n\n  539 Miller v. Chittenden, 2 Ia., 315; Church v. Grace, 68 N. Y., 570;\n      Gilmer v. Stone, 120 U. S., 586; 30 L. Ed., 734; Kinney v. Kinney\u2019s\n      Executors, 86 Ky., 610; 6 S. W., 593.\n\n  540 St. Peter\u2019s v. German, 104 Ill., 440.\n\n  541 Kinney v. Kinney\u2019s Executors, 86 Ky., 610; 6 S. W., 593.\n\n  542 Trustees v. Manning, 72 Md., 116; 19 At., 599.\n\n  543 Morgan v. Leslie, Wright, 144.\n\n  544 U. S. v. Church, 5 Utah, 361; 15 Pac., 473.\n\n  545 In re Ticknor\u2019s estate, 13 Mich., 44; Levy v. Levy, 33 N. Y., 97.\n\n  546 Trustees v. Hilkin, 84 Md., 170; 35 At., 9.\n\n  547 Hamsher v. Hamsher, 132 Ill., 273; 23 N. E., 1123; 8 L. R. A., 556.\n\n  548 Hanson v. Little Sisters, 79 Md., 434; 32 At., 1052; Jones v.\n      Habersham, 107 U. S., 174; 27 L. Ed., 401.\n\n  549 Church v. Grace, 68 N. Y., 570.\n\n  550 Tartar v. Gibbs, 24 Md., 323.\n\n  551 Trinitarian v. Union, 61 N. H., 384.\n\n  552 Smith v. Pedigo, 145 Ind., 361; 44 N. E., 363; 32 L. R. A., 838.\n\n  553 Miller v. English, 21 N. J. L., 317.\n\n  554 Petot v. Tucker, 21 N. Y., 267.\n\n  555 Ludlam v. Higbee, 11 N. J. Eq., 342.\n\n  556 Happy v. Morton, 33 Ill., 398.\n\n  557 Sutor v. Spangler, 4 Phil., 331.\n\n  558 Scott v. Stipe, 12 Ind., 74.\n\n  559 Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 107 Mass., 243.\n\n  560 In re Wright\u2019s estate, Myr. Prob., 213 Cal.\n\n  561 Green v. Dennis, 6 Conn., 293; Ferguson v. Hedges, 1 Harr., 524.\n\n  562 Murphy v. Dallam, 1 Bland, 529.\n\n  563 Festorazzi v. St. Joseph\u2019s, 104 Ala., 327; 18 So., 394; 25 L. R. A.,\n      360; Ex parte Schuler, 134 Mass., 436; Seiber\u2019s Appeal, 9 At., Pa.,\n      863; Holland v. Alcock, 108 N. Y., 312; 16 N. E., 305.\n\n  564 Festorazzi v. St. Joseph\u2019s, 104 Ala., 327; 18 So., 394; 25 L. R. A.,\n      360.\n\n  565 McHugh v. McCole, 97 Wis., 166; 72 N. W., 352.\n\n  566 Wilson v. Perry, 29 W. Va., 169; 1 S. E., 302.\n\n  567 Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S., 174; 27 L. Ed., 401.\n\n  568 Good v. Zook, 116 Ia., 582; 88 N. W., 376.\n\n  569 Trustees v. Sturgeon, 9 Pa. St., 321.\n\n  570 Scott v. Curle, 9 B. Mon., 17; Ante, 278, 290.\n\n  571 In re Paulson\u2019s will, 127 Wis., 612; 107 N. W., 484.\n\n  572 Robertson v. Bullions, 11 N. Y., 243.\n\n  573 62 Cen. L. J., 167.\n\n  574 Ould v. Washington, 95 U. S., 303; 24 L. Ed., 450.\n\n  575 Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S., 174; 27 L. Ed., 401.\n\n  576 Darcy v. Kelley, 153 Mass., 433; 26 N. E., 1110.\n\n  577 Bronson v. Strouse, 57 Conn., 147; 17 At., 699.\n\n  578 Tichenor v. Brewer\u2019s, 98 Ky., 349; 33 S. W., 86.\n\n  579 Banker v. Phelan, 4 Barb., 80.\n\n  580 Bowers v. Fromm, Add., Pa., 362.\n\n  581 Germania v. Baltes, 113 Ill., 29.\n\n  582 McDonald v. Shaw, 98 S. W., 952.\n\n  583 Beaty v. Kurtz, 27 U. S., 566; 7 L. Ed., 521.\n\n  584 Heiss v. Murphy, 40 Wis., 276; Fadness v. Braunburg, 73 Wis., 257;\n      41 N. W., 84.\n\n  585 Coe v. Washington, 149 Mass., 543; 21 N. E., 966.\n\n  586 Clark v. Brown, 108 S. W., 421, Tex.\n\n  587 Parker v. Quinn, 23 Utah, 332; 64 Pac., 961.\n\n  588 All Saints v. Brookline, 59 N. E., 1003, Mass.\n\n  589 Green v. Outagamie, 76 Wis., 587; 45 N. W., 536.\n\n  590 Katzer v. City, 104 Wis., 16; 80 N. W., 41.\n\n  591 St. Joseph Hospital v. Ashland, 96 Wis., 636; 72 N. W., 43.\n\n  592 Ramsey v. Church, 45 Minn., 229; 47 N. W., 783.\n\n  593 Gray v. Lafayette, 65 Wis., 567; 27 N. W., 311.\n\n  594 Newport v. Masonic, 108 Ky., 333; 56 S. W., 405; 49 L. R. A., 252.\n\n  595 Trustees v. City, 122 Wis., 452; 100 N. W., 837.\n\n  596 Dahl v. Kimball, 6 Me., 171.\n\n  597 Turner v. Inhabitants, 16 Mass., 208; Goodell Mfg. Co. v. Trask, 28\n      Mass., 514.\n\n  598 Muzzy v. Wilkins, Smith, 1; Ebau v. Hendell, 5 Watts, 43; 30 Am.\n      Dec., 291.\n\n  599 Miller v. Board, 19 Ill. App., 48; Municipality of Ponce v. R. C. A.\n      Ch., 28 Sup. Ct. R., 737; Reuben Quick-Bear v. Leupp, 28 Sup. Ct.\n      Repr., 690; Dorner v. Dist., 118 N. W., 353.\n\n  600 53 Cen. L. J., 224.\n\n  601 Hewitt v. Woman\u2019s, 73 N. H., 556; 64 At., 190.\n\n  602 Collins v. New York, 69 N. Y. Supp., 106.\n\n  603 Louisville v. Hammock, 106 S. W., Ky., 219; 14 L. R. A., N. S., 784.\n\n  604 Indianapolis v. Grant, 25 Ind., 518.\n\n  605 Newport v. Masonic, 108 Ky., 333; 56 S. W., 405; 49 L. R. A., 252.\n\n  606 McGee v. German, 13 N. J. Eq., 77.\n\n  607 Miller v. Lerch, Wall. Jr., Pa., 210.\n\n  608 St. Mary\u2019s Industrial School for Boys v. Brown, 45 Md., 310.\n\n  609 White v. Price, 108 N. Y., 661; 15 N. E., 427.\n\n  610 Sec. 5, Ky. Constitution; Contra: N. H. Constitution, art. 6.\n\n  611 Donahue v. Richards, 38 Me., 376; State v. Baily, 157 Ind., 324; 61\n      N. E., 730; 54 Cen. L. J., 142.\n\n  612 St. Patrick\u2019s v. Rochester, 34 How. Pr., 227.\n\n  613 People v. Board, 13 Barb., N. Y., 400.\n\n  614 Synod v. State, 2 S. Dak., 366; 50 N. W., 632; 14 L. R. A., 418.\n\n  615 State v. Hallock, 16 Nev., 373; Dorner v. School Dist., 118 N. W.,\n      Wis., 353 (Nov. 27, 1908).\n\n  616 Jenkins v. Andover, 103 Mass., 94.\n\n  617 Millard v. Board, 121 Ill., 297; 10 N. E., 669; Dorner v. School\n      Dist., 118 N. W., Wis., 353.\n\n  618 Church v. Bullock, 100 S. W., Tex., 1025; Donahue v. Richards, 38\n      Me., 379; 56 C. L. J., 81.\n\n  619 State v. Board, 76 Wis., 177; 44 N. W., 967; 7 L. R. A., 330; 53 Am.\n      R., 282; 14 L. R. A., 419; Dorner v. School Dist., 118 N. W., Wis.,\n      353 (Nov. 27, 1908).\n\n  620 Billard v. Board, 69 Kan., 53; 76 Pac., 422; 66 L. R. A., 166.\n\n  621 Stevenson v. Hanyon, 7 Pa. Co. Ct., 585; State v. Board, 76 Wis.,\n      177; 44 N. W., 967; 7 L. R. A., 330; State v. Scheve, 65 Neb., 853;\n      91 N. W., 846; 59 L. R. A., 927.\n\n  622 Dorner v. School District, 118 N. W., Wis., 353 (Nov. 27, 1908);\n      County v. Industrial School, 125 Ill., 540; 18 N. E., 183; 1 L. R.\n      A., 437; 8 Am. St. Rep., 386; O\u2019Connor v. Hendrick, 184 N. Y., 421;\n      77 N. E., 612.\n\n  623 Board v. Minor, 23 Ohio, 250; Campanas v. Calderhead, 17 Mont., 548;\n      44 Pac., 83; 36 L. R. A., 277.\n\n  624 Spiller v. Woburn, 12 Allen, Mass., 127.\n\n  625 School Commissioners v. State Board, 26 Md., 505.\n\n  626 Donahue v. Richards, 38 Me., 379; 56 Cen. L. J., 81.\n\n  627 Scofield v. State, 27 Conn., 499.\n\n  628 School v. Arnold, 21 Wis., 657.\n\n  629 Sherman v. Charleston, 8 Cushing, Mass., 160; State v. Board, 116 N.\n      W., 232; 67 Cen. L. J., 241.\n\n  630 Guernsey v. Pitkin, 32 Vt., 224.\n\n  631 Wood v. Morrow, 35 Wis., 59.\n\n  632 Anderson v. State, 3 Head, Tenn., 455.\n\n  633 Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt., 114.\n\n  634 Stevens v. Fassett, 27 Me., 266.\n\n  635 Draper v. Cambridge, 20 Ind., 268.\n\n  636 Lane v. Baker, 12 Ohio St., 237; State v. City, 19 Ohio, 178; Van\n      Camp v. Board, 9 Ohio St., 406.\n\n  637 Ex parte Plessy, 45 La. Ann., 80; 11 So., 948; 16 Sup. Ct. R., 1138;\n      163 U. S., 537; 41 L. Ed., 256; 18 L. R. A., 639.\n\n  638 State v. School Directors, 10 Ohio St., 448.\n\n  639 Jackson v. Hampden, 16 Me., 184.\n\n  640 Markwell v. Pereles, 95 Wis., 406 and 424; 69 N. W., 798 and 984.\n\n  641 Perry v. State, 113 Ga., 936; 39 S. E., 315.\n\n  642 Aycock v. Harrington, 84 Miss., 204; 36 So., 245; 65 L. R. A., 689.\n\n  643 Wright v. Bennett, 7 Ill., 587.\n\n  644 Graham v. Bennett, 2 Cal., 503.\n\n  645 State v. Harris, 63 N. C., 1.\n\n  646 Rex. v. Canon, 7 Car. and P., 438.\n\n  647 Rex. v. Griffen, 6 Cox. C. C., 402.\n\n  648 F. v. F., 1 Ch. (1902), 688.\n\n  649 In re Jacques, 82 N. Y. Sup., 986.\n\n  650 In re Marshall, 33 N. Y. S., 104.\n\n  651 Kennedy v. Borah, 226 Ill., 243; 80 N. E., 767.\n\n  652 Prieto v. Alphonso, 52 La. Ann., 631; 27 So., 153.\n\n  653 Clarkson v. Hatton, 143 Mo., 47; 44 S. W., 761; 65 Am. St. R., 635;\n      Matter of Johnson, 98 Cal., 531; 33 Pac., 260; 21 L. R. A., 380;\n      Schlitz v. Roenitz, 86 Wis., 31; 56 N. W., 194; 39 Am. St. R., 873;\n      21 L. R. A., 482; Markwell v. Pereles, 95 Wis., 406; 69 N. W., 798;\n      67 Cen. L. J., 197.\n\n  654 Elliott v. Elliott, 77 Wis., 634; 46 N. W., 806; 57 L. R. A., 155;\n      10 L. R. A., 568.\n\n  655 Cole v. State, 75 S. W., 527; 45 Tex.; Cr. App., 225; 57 Cen. L. J.,\n      341.\n\n  656 Mutter v. Senibbs, 79 N. E., 762, Mass.\n\n  657 Commonwealth v. McAfee, 108 Mass., 458.\n\n  658 Tuttle v. Sutts, 96 Pac., 260.\n\n  659 Gleason v. Gleason, 4 Wis., 64; 14 Cyc, 846.\n\n  660 32 St. At. L., 636 and 645.\n\n  661 Chap. 1402, U. S. Laws of 1904.\n\n  662 Quick-Bear v. Leupp, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 690 (1908).\n\n  663 Sec. 2045, U. S. Statutes.\n\n  664 Secs. 2071 and 2072, U. S. Statutes, and Chap. 188, Laws of 1895.\n\n  665 26 St. At. L., 1014.\n\n  666 Quick-Bear v. Leupp, 28 Sup. Ct. Repr., 690; 27 St. L., 628 and 635.\n\n  667 In re Lehah-puc-ka-chee, 98 Fed., 429.\n\n  668 Chap. 503, Laws of 1888.\n\n  669 Chap. 3, Laws of 1897.\n\n  670 61 Cen. L. J., 101, 289; 62 Cen. L. J., 215, 219.\n\n  671 McCann v. County, 6 Mont., 297.\n\n  672 Hubbard v. Railway, 104 Wis., 160; 80 N. W., 454.\n\n  673 Hochheimer on Custody of Infants, sec. 54; People v. Turner, 55\n      Ill., 280; People v. Park, 41 N. Y., 21, 33.\n\n  674 Kleizer v. Symes, 40 Ind., 562; Etchison v, Pergeson, 88 Ga., 620;\n      15 S. E., 680; Lucas v. Case, 72 (9 Bush) Ky., 297; York v. Pease,\n      68 Mass., 288; Piper v. Woolman, 43 Neb., 280; 61 N. W., 588;\n      O\u2019Donahue v. McGovern, 23 Wendell, N. Y., 26; Servatius v. Pichel,\n      34 Wis., 292.\n\n  675 Combes v. Rose, 8 Blackf., 155; Servatius v. Pichel, 34 Wis., 292;\n      Etchison v. Pergeson, 88 Ga., 620; 15 S. E., 680.\n\n  676 Gardener v. Anderson, Fed. Case, 5220; Rector v. Smith, 11 Ia., 302.\n\n  677 See \u201cExcommunication,\u201d ante. Servatius v. Pichel, 34 Wis., 292; 11\n      L. R. A., 592.\n\n  678 Shelton v. Nause, 46 Ky., 128.\n\n  679 Fawcett v. Charles, 13 Wendell, 473.\n\n  680 54 Cen. L. J., 313.\n\n  681 Hellstern v. Katzer, 103 Wis., 391; 79 N. W., 429.\n\n  682 Hills v. State, 61 Neb., 589; 85 N. W., 836.\n\n  683 Konkle v. Haven, 140 Mich., 472; 103 N. W., 850.\n\n  684 Klos v. Zahorik, 113 Ia., 161; 84 N. W., 1046.\n\n  685 Libel and Slander, Townsend, secs. 233, 234; 25 Cyc, 390, 398, 411.\n\n  686 Grace v. Dempsey, 75 Wis., 313; 43 N. W., 1127; Grace v. McArthur,\n      76 Wis., 641; 45 N. W., 518.\n\n  687 25 Cyc, 390, 398.\n\n  688 62 Cen. L. J., 180.\n\n  689 Libel and Slander, Townsend, p. 182 (notes).\n\n  690 Libel and Slander, Townsend, sec. 177; 25 Cyc, 398; Edwards v. Bell,\n      8 Moore, 467.\n\n  691 Remington v. Congdon, 2 Pickering, 315; Bradley v. Heath, 12\n      Pickering, 163.\n\n  692 McConckle v. Binns, 5 Binns, Pa., 340.\n\n  693 MacBride v. Allis, 9 Rich., S. C., 313.\n\n  694 State v. Riggs, 22 Vt., 322.\n\n  695 Commonwealth v. Batchelder, Thach., Mass., Cr. Cas., 191.\n\n  696 Shoe & L. v. Thompson, 18 Abbot\u2019s Pr., N. Y., 413.\n\n  697 Sans v. Joerris, 14 Wis., 663.\n\n  698 5 Cyc, 715; \u201cDisorderly Conduct,\u201d 14 Cyc, 467.\n\n  699 14 Cyc, 540.\n\n  700 Williams v. State, 83 Ala., 78; 3 So., 616.\n\n  701 Hull v. State, 120 Ind., 153; 22 N. E., 117.\n\n  702 Hunt v. State, 3 Tex., 116.\n\n  703 State v. Kirby, 108 N. C., 772; 12 S. E., 1045.\n\n  704 Commonwealth v. Sigman, 2 Clark, Pa., 36.\n\n  705 State v. Wright, 41 Ark., 410; Tanner v. State, 126 Ga., 77; 54 S.\n      E., 914.\n\n  706 State v. Shepherd, 54 S. C., 178; 32 S. E., 146; 14 Cyc, 467, 540.\n\n  707 Martin v. State, 65 Tenn., 234.\n\n  708 State v. Leighton, 35 Me., 195.\n\n  709 Marvin v. State, 19 Ind., 181.\n\n  710 Brown v. State, 46 Ala., 175.\n\n  711 State v. Turkhaw, 69 N. C., 215.\n\n  712 Richardson v. State, 5 Tex. App., 470.\n\n  713 U. S. v. Brooks, 4 Cranch, C. C., 427.\n\n  714 People v. Crowley, 23 Hun., 412; McLane v. Mallock, 7 Ind., 525.\n\n  715 Kinney v. State, 38 Ala., 224; State v. Lusk, 68 Ind., 264; State v.\n      Edwards, 32 Mo., 548; Tanner v. State, 126 Ga., 77; 54 S. E., 914.\n\n  716 MacLean v. Mallock, 7 Ind., 525.\n\n  717 Wall v. Lee, 34 N. Y., 141.\n\n  718 Meyer v. Baker, 120 Ill., 567; 12 N. E., 79; Commonwealth v. Bearse,\n      132 Mass., 542; 42 Am. R., 450; West v. State, 28 Tenn., 66; Cramer\n      v. Marks, 64 Pa. St., 151.\n\n  719 5 Cyc, 713; Commonwealth v. Linn, 158 Pa., 22; 27 At., 843; 22 L. R.\n      A., 353.\n\n  720 Gaines v. State, 75 Tenn., 410; Holcombe v. Cornish, 8 Conn., 375;\n      Bodenheimer v. State, 60 Ark., 10; 28 S. W., 507.\n\n  721 State v. Chandler, 2 Har., Del., 553.\n\n  722 Commonwealth v. Kneeland, 37 Mass. (20 Pick), 206.\n\n  723 People v. Ruggles, 8 Johnson, 225.\n\n  724 State v. Chandler, 2 Harr., Del., 553.\n\n  725 State v. Pepper, 68 N. C., 259.\n\n  726 Odell v. Garnett, 4 Blackf., Ind., 549.\n\n  727 People v. Porter, 2 Park, N. Y. Cr., 14.\n\n  728 State v. Chandler, 2 Harr., Del., 553; Commonwealth v. Kneeland,\n      Thach., Mass. Cr. Cas., 346.\n\n  729 Miller v. State, 76 Ind., 310.\n\n  730 Petty v. State, 58 Ark., 1; 22 S. W., 654.\n\n  731 Splane v. Commonwealth, 12 At., Pa., 431.\n\n  732 Commonwealth v. Keiten, 1 Monag., 368.\n\n  733 Cain v. Daly, 74 S. C, 480; 55 S. E., 110.\n\n  734 Ex parte Jentisch, 112 Cal., 468; 44 Pac., 803.\n\n  735 State v. Lorey, 66 Tenn., 95.\n\n  736 State v. Krech, 10 Wash., 166; 38 Pac., 1001.\n\n  737 People v. Havenor, 149 N. Y., 195; 43 N. E., 541; 3 L. R. A., 689;\n      State v. Dolan, 13 Idaho, 693; 92 Pac., 995; 14 L. R. A., N. S.,\n      1259.\n\n  738 Flag v. Inhabitants, 58 Mass., 243; Doyle v. Lynn, 118 Mass., 195.\n\n  739 Hayden v. Mitchell, 103 Ga., 431; 30 S. E., 287.\n\n  740 Roth v. Hacks, 68 Mo. App., 283.\n\n  741 Hofer v. Cowan, 55 Cen. L. J., 290.\n\n  742 Byrant v. Watson, 127 Ind., 42; 26 N. E., 687; Allen v. Duffy, 43\n      Mich., 1; 4 N. W., 427; 11 L. R. A., 63; Dale v. Knapp, 98 Pa., 389.\n\n  743 Society v. Commonwealth, 52 Pa., 125; Parker v. State, 84 Tenn.,\n      476.\n\n  744 McCabe v. Father Matthews, 24 Hun., 149; People v. Young, 67 Barb.,\n      357.\n\n  745 Philadelphia v. Lehman, 56 Md., 209; Kroer v. People, 78 Ill., 294.\n\n  746 Fox v. Abel, 2 Conn., 541.\n\n  747 Bryant v. Inhabitants, 30 Me., 193; Tracy v. Jenks, 32 Mass., 465.\n\n  748 Carpenter v. Crane, 1 Root, Conn., 98.\n\n  749 Judefinde v. State, 78 Md., 510; 28 At., 405; 22 L. R. A., 721,\n      note.\n\n  750 55 Cen. L. J., 44; 56 Cen. L. J., 261; State v. Cheneworth, 163\n      Ind., 94; 71 N. E., 197; 59 Cen. L. J., 202.\n\n  751 Speed v. Tomlinson, 73 N. H., 46; 59 At., 376; 68 L. R. A., 432.\n\n  752 State v. Rodgers, 128 N. C., 576; 38 S. E., 34.\n\n  753 U. S. v. Moore, 104 Fed., 78.\n\n  754 Constant v. Rector, 4 Daly, 1.\n\n  755 Frederickson v. W. R. Cem. Ass., 133 Wis., 502; 113 N. W., 1023.\n\n  756 14 Op. Atty-Gen., 27; secs. 4780-4782, U. S. Statutes; 16 Op.\n      Atty-Gen., 13.\n\n  757 20 St. at L., 281.\n\n  758 Sohier v. Trinity Ch., 109 Mass., 1; City v. Town, 82 Wis., 374; 52\n      N. W., 425.\n\n  759 Trustees v. Manning, 72 Md., 116; 19 At., 599.\n\n  760 Porch v. St. Bridget\u2019s, 81 Wis., 599; 51 N. W., 1007.\n\n  761 In re Highland, 4 Pa. Dist. Rep., 653.\n\n  762 Commonwealth v. Fisher, 7 Phil., 264; Bourland v. Springdale, 158\n      Ill., 458; 42 N. E., 86.\n\n  763 City v. Watson, 56 N. J. L., 667; 24 L. R. A., 843; 49 Cen. L. J.,\n      307.\n\n  764 Coates v. City, 7 Cowan, N. Y., 585; Humphrey v. Frost, 109 N. C.,\n      132; 13 S. E., 793; City v. Austin, 87 Tex., 330; 28 S. W., 528; 47\n      Am. St. R., 114.\n\n  765 Stockton v. City, 42 N. J. Eq., 531; 9 At., 203; First v. Meyers, 5\n      Okla., 819; 50 Pac., 70; 38 L. R. A., 329.\n\n  766 Steams v. Manchester, 63 N. H., 390; Henry v. Trustees, 48 Ohio,\n      671; 30 N. E., 1122.\n\n  767 Upjohn v. Board, 46 Mich., 542; 9 N. W., 845.\n\n  768 Edwards v. Stonington, 20 Conn., 466.\n\n  769 Oakland v. People, 93 Tex., 569; 57 S. W., 27; 55 L. R. A., 503.\n\n  770 Louisville v. Nevin, 73 Ky., 549; First v. Hazel, 63 Neb., 844; 89\n      N. W., 378.\n\n  771 Page v. Simons, 63 N. H., 17.\n\n  772 Wygant v. McLaughlin, 39 Or., 429; 64 Pac., 867; 54 L. R. A., 636;\n      53 Cen. L. J., 48.\n\n  773 Trustees v. Manning, 72 Md., 116; 19 At., 599; Close v. Glenwood,\n      107 U. S., 466; 2 Sup. Ct. R., 267; 27 L. Ed., 408; Matter of Bd. of\n      Street Opening, 133 N. Y., 329; 31 N. E., 102; 28 Am. St. R., 640;\n      16 L. R. A., 180.\n\n  774 In re Waldron, 26 R. I., 84; 58 At., 453; 67 L. R. A., 118; Wright\n      v. Hollywood, 112 Ga., 884; 38 S. E., 94; 52 L. R. A., 621.\n\n  775 Perkins v. Mass., 138 Mass., 361.\n\n  776 Wright v. Hollywood, 112 Ga., 884; 38 S. E., 94.\n\n  777 People v. Trustees, 21 Hun., 184; McGuire v. St. Pat. C. C., 3 N. Y.\n      Sup., 781; Baltimore v. Manning, 72 Md., 116; 19 At., 599.\n\n  778 Palmer v. Cypress, 122 N. Y., 429; 25 N. E., 983.\n\n  779 Conger v. Weyant, 55 Hun., 605.\n\n  780 Baltimore v. Manning, 72 Md., 116; 19 At., 599.\n\n  781 Went v. Methodist, 80 Hun., 266; Adams v. First, 148 Mich., 140; 111\n      N. W., 757; 11 L. R. A., N. S., 509.\n\n  782 Lakin v. Ames, 64 Mass., 198.\n\n  783 Donnelly v. Boston, 146 Mass., 163; 15 N. E., 505.\n\n  784 Rawson v. School, 89 Mass., 299.\n\n  785 St. Johns v. Haans, 31 Pa. St., 9.\n\n  786 Dangerfield v. Williams, 26 App., S. C., 508.\n\n  787 Silverwood v. Latrobe, 68 Md., 620; 13 At., 161.\n\n  788 Bessimer v. Jenkins, 111 Ala., 135; 18 So., 565; 66 Am. St. R., 26.\n\n  789 Davidson v. Reed, 111 Ill., 167; 53 Am. R., 613; Boyce v. Kalbough,\n      47 Md., 334.\n\n  790 Burke v. Wall, 29 La. Ann., 38; Seymour v. Page, 33 Conn., 61;\n      Perkins v. Mass., 138 Mass., 361.\n\n  791 Hyde Park v. Oakwoods, 119 Ill., 141; 7 N. E., 627; Matter of Bd. of\n      Street Opening, 133 N.Y., 329; 31 N. E., 102; 28 Am. St. E., 640 L.\n      R. A., 180.\n\n  792 Eastern v. City of Louisville, 13 Ky. L. Rep., 279; 15 S. W., 1117.\n\n  793 Burke v. Wall, 29 La. Ann., 38; Appeal of Gumbert, 110 Pa. St., 496;\n      1 At, 437.\n\n  794 In re Reformed, 7 Howard\u2019s Pr., 476; Scoville v. MacMahon, 62 Conn.,\n      378; 26 At., 479.\n\n  795 Antrim v. Malsbury, 43 N.J. Eq., 288; 13 At., 180.\n\n  796 Hertle v. Riddell, Ky., 106 S. W., 282; 15 L. R. A., N. S., 796.\n\n  797 Lewis v. Walker, 165 Pa. St., 30; 30 At., 500.\n\n  798 State v. Wilson, 94 N. C., 1015.\n\n  799 Farelly v. Metairie, 42 La. Ann., 28; 10 So., 386; Commonwealth v.\n      Maria, 2 Weekly Notes Cases, 244.\n\n  800 Hullman v. Honcomp, 5 Ohio St., 237.\n\n  801 MacGuire v. St. Patrick\u2019s, 54 Hun., 207.\n\n  802 Dwenger v. Geary, 113 Ind., 106; 14 N. E., 903; Nance v. Busby, 91\n      Tenn., 303; 15 L. R. A., 801.\n\n  803 Mt. Maria v. Commonwealth, 81 Pa. St., 235; 22 Am. Rep., 743;\n      Cemetery Co. v. Walker, 29 Ky. L. R., 1252; 97 S. W., 34; 7 L. R.\n      A., N. S., 155.\n\n  804 Larson v. Chase, 47 Minn., 307; 50 N. W., 238; 14 L. R. A., 85; 28\n      Am. St. R., 370; Pettigrew v. P., 207 Pa., 313; 56 At., 878; 64 L.\n      R. A., 179.\n\n  805 McEntee v. Bonacum, 66 Neb., 651; 92 N. W., 633; 66 L. R. A., 440.\n\n  806 Hook v. Joyce, 94 Ky., 450; 22 S. W., 651; 21 L. R. A., 96.\n\n  807 Columbus v. C., 82 Wis., 334; 52 N. W., 425; 16 L. R. A., 695; Mt.\n      Hope v. Boston, 158 Mass., 509; 33 N. E., 695; 35 Am. St. R., 515;\n      Kincaid\u2019s Appeal, 66 Pa. St., 411; 5 Am. R., 377; Bessimer v.\n      Jenkins, 111 Ala., 135; 56 Am. St. R., 26; 18 So., 565.\n\n  808 Wilson v. Reed, 68 At., 37, N. H.; Wormley v. Wormley, 207 Ill.,\n      411; 60 N. E., 865; 3 L. R. A., N. S., 481.\n\n  809 Thirkfield v. Mountain, 12 Utah, 76; 41 Pac., 564; Wright v.\n      Hollywood, 112 Ga., 884; 38 S. E., 94; 52 L. R. A., 621.\n\n  810 Toppin v. Moriarty, 59 N. J. Eq., 115; 44 At., 469; 50 Cen. L. J.,\n      21.\n\n  811 Cohen v. Cong., 99 N. Y. S., 732.\n\n  812 Feeley v. Andrews, 191 Mass., 313; 77 N. E., 766; State v. McLean,\n      121 N. C., 589; 28 S. E., 140; 42 L. R. A., 721.\n\n  813 McEntee v. Bonacum, 66 Neb., 651; 92 N. W., 633; 66 L. R. A., 440.\n\n  814 Mutual, etc., v. Griesa, 156 F., 398.\n\n  815 Hayes v. State, 112 Wis., 304; 87 N. W., 1076.\n\n  816 14 L. R. A., 85; Young v. College of Physicians, 81 Md., 358; 32\n      At., 177; 31 L. R. A., 540; Meyers v. Clarke, 28 Ky. L., 1000; 90 S.\n      W., 1049; 5 L. R. A., N. S., 727.\n\n  817 Lindh v. Ry., 99 Minn., 408; 109 N. W., 823; 7 L. R. A., N. S.,\n      1018.\n\n  818 Long v. Ry., 15 Oklahoma, 512; 86 Pac., 289; 6 L. R. A., N. S., 883;\n      Griffith v. Charlotte, 23 S. C., 25; 55 Am. Rep., 1.\n\n  819 Koerber v. Patek, 123 Wis., 453; 102 N. W., 40; Thompson v. State,\n      105 Tenn., 177; 58 S. W., 213; 80 Am. St. R., 875; 51 L. R. A., 883.\n\n  820 Williams v. Williams, 20 Ch. Div., 659.\n\n  821 Reg. v. Fox, 2 Q. B., 246.\n\n  822 52 Cen. L. J., 141.\n\n  823 O\u2019Donnell v. Slack, 123 Cal., 285; 55 Pacific, 906; 43 L. R. A.,\n      388; Neighbors v. Neighbors, 23 Ky. L., 1433; 65 S. W., 607; Larson\n      v. Chase, 47 Minn., 307; 50 N. W., 238; 14 L. R. A., 85.\n\n  824 Enos v. Snyder, 131 Cal., 68; 63 Pac., 170; 82 Am. St. R., 330; 53\n      L. R. A., 21.\n\n  825 Thompson v. Deeds, 93 Ia., 228; 61 N. W., 842.\n\n  826 Durrell v. Haywood, 75 Mass., 248.\n\n  827 Boham v. Loeb, 107 Ala., 604; 18 So., 300; Hamilton v. State, 30\n      Ind., 482; Partridge v. First, 39 Md., 631; Fletcher v. Evans, 140\n      Mass., 24; 2 N. E., 837.\n\n  828 Commonwealth v. Viall, 84 Mass., 512.\n\n  829 Donnelly v. Boston, 146 Mass., 163; 15 N. E., 505.\n\n  830 Houston v. Drew, 13 Tex. Cir. App., 536; 36 S. W., 802.\n\n  831 Robertson v. Bullions, 11 N. Y., 243.\n\n  832 Canadian v. Palmenter, 180 Mass., 415; 62 N. E., 740.\n\n  833 Barabasz v. Kabat, 86 Md., 23; 37 At., 720.\n\n  834 In re Hawkins, 165 N. Y., 188; 58 N. E., 884.\n\n  835 Chapin v. Holyoke, 165 Mass., 280; 42 N. E., 1130; Am. & Eng. Cyc.\n      of L., \u201cTaxation.\u201d\n\n  836 In re Barry, 164 N. Y., 18; 58 N. E., 12.\n\n  837 American Law of Electors, McCrary, sec. 41.\n\n  838 Lansing v. Haynes, 95 Mich., 16; 54 N. W., 699; Baacke v. Baacke, 50\n      Neb., 18; 69 N., 303; Jones, Jr., estate, 211 Pa., 364; 60 At., 915;\n      69 L. R. A., 940; White v. B. of A. Y., 124 Ia., 293; 99 N. W.,\n      1071; 66 L. R. A., 164.\n\n  839 Rogers v. Elliott, 146 Mass., 349; 15 N. E., 768; Davis v. Sawyer,\n      133 Mass., 289; 43 Am. R., 519; Harrison v. St. Mark\u2019s, 12 Phil.,\n      259; Soltau v. DeHeld, 9 Eng. L. & E., 104; Leete v. Pilgrim Cong.\n      Ch., 14 Mo. App., 590.\n\n  840 Osborne v. Osborne, New York, Sept. 12, 1908; Landry v. Bellanger,\n      45 So., 956; 15 L. R. A., N. S., 463; Lawson v. Lawson, 30 Tex. Civ.\n      App., 43; 69 S. W., 246; Schmitt v. Schneider, 109 Ga., 628; 35 S.\n      E., 145.\n\n  841 14 Cyc, 466.\n\n  842 Minagham v. State, 77 Wis., 643; 46 N. W., 894; Gilmore v. Fuller,\n      198 Ill., 130; 65 N. E., 84.\n\n  843 Am. & Eng. Ency. of L., \u201cStara decisis,\u201d \u201cRes judicata\u201d; 67 Central\n      L. Journal, 255; Pautz v. Plankinton, 126 Wis., 37; 105 N. W., 482;\n      Whittaker v. Mich. M. L. Ins. Co., 83 N. E., 899.\n\n  844 Bonacum v. Murphy, 71 Neb., 463; 104 N. W., 180.\n\n  845 U. S. Bankruptcy Act, sec. 1, sub-sec. 25.\n\n  846 20 Cyc, 457.\n\n  847 20 Cyc, 1243; Insolvent Corporations, Wait, sec. 637.\n\n  848 20 Cyc, 469.\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Clergyman's Hand-book of Law: The Law of Church and Grave","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":58080}