Guthrie v. Central Baptist Church

GRASON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill of complaint in this case was filed in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City by the Central Baptist Church of that City (herein called the Church), against Ira T. Guthrie. James Ellerbee signed his name to the bill as Moderator on behalf of the Church. The bill alleges as follows: “1.

That is a religious corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland, being governed by the uses and practices of an independent Baptist congregational church. ⁶⁹⁴ “2. That for a long time prior to April 29th, 1947, a majority of the members of the Church had become dissatisfied with the action and demeanor of Ira T. Guthrie, the pastor of the church, who among other things (a) without the authorization of the Church, had leased the basement of your Orator’s Church property on Park Avenue near Dolphin Street to another church; (b) appointed his wife as financial secretary of the church, without the consent of the members, she having previously resigned at the request of a majority of the members; (c) failed to attend any of three meetings called by a majority of the church members, and refused to give an explanation for his failure; (d) he has arrogated to himself full authority to conduct the affairs of the church, in spite of consistent complaints by a majority of the members. “3. That a meeting of the Church was held on April 29th, 1947, at the call of said Ira T. Guthrie, to which meeting said Ira T. Guthrie invited five ministers, without the consent of the members. A discussion took place as to the presence of these ministers, whereupon the said Ira T. Guthrie, the five ministers and several of the members withdrew from the meeting; whereupon those who remained, constituting a majority of the membership, elected James Ellerbee to act as moderator of the meeting and Miss Rubye Staggers was asked to serve as Secretary. “4.

Thereafter the charges and complaints against the said Ira T. Guthrie were read and fully discussed, after which a resolution was presented and adopted that the services of the said Ira T. Guthrie as Pastor be discontinued and the pulpit declared vacant, and that he be paid all indebtedness due him up to and including May 15th, 1947. “5. Thereafter a resolution was adopted that the church engage counsel and that he notify the defendant, Ira T. Guthrie", of the action taken by the members, and to request him to deliver all church papers in his possession to your Orator. ⁶⁹⁵ “6. That said Ira T. Guthrie was notified of such action by letter, a copy of which is filed herewith marked Plaintiffs ‘Exhibit 1’, but notwithstanding, persisted thereafter in attending and conducting the services of the Church, and although your Orator placed a lock on the building to prevent him from entering, he has broken and removed said lock and openly defies the lawful authority of the majority of the congregation of the Church. “7. Your Orator has no adequate remedy at law to compel the said Guthrie from usurping the office of Pastor and to relinquish duties heretofore performed by him. “Wherefore your Orator prays that the writ of Injunction may be issued to restrain and prevent said Ira T. Guthrie from acting or attempting to act as Pastor of your Orator church and from holding any services therein, and to require him to obey the action of the Church removing him from office, and to desist from in any manner entering the church property or from handling or using any of its property, money or assets.

And for such other and further relief as the nature of its case may require.” To this bill Guthrie demurred. The chancellor overruled the demurrer, with leave to answer in fifteen days. Thereafter the appellant appealed to this court from the chancellor’s order overruling the demurrer. The sole question for our determination is whether James Ellerbee, Moderator on behalf of the Church, is a proper party to institute this proceeding in the name of the church.

The appellee contends that any person, authorized by a majority vote of a general congregational meeting, can institute a suit for and on behalf of the Church. The contention is that under the Act of 1802, Chapter 111, authority was given a religious corporation to sue and be sued by its trustees. This power of the trustees, to sue and be sued, remained the law until the passage of the Act of 1868, Chapter 471. This Act dropped the provision in the former Act, authorizing religious corporations to sue and be sued by their trustees.

This ⁶⁹⁶ being so, it is argued, any person, authorized by a majority vote of the members of the Church, in a congregational meeting called for a particular purpose, can institute suit on behalf of the Church. That is to say, that the Legislature intended, by the Act of 1868, Chapter