oveiruled on other grounds by Board of Church Extension v. Eads, 159 W.Va. 943, 230 S.E.2d 911 (1976)
How later courts described this case
- oveiruled on other grounds by Board of Church Extension v. Eads, 159 W.Va. 943, 230 S.E.2d 911 (1976)
- "the construction of a deed is wholly a question of law for the court”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Board of Church Extension v. Eads, 159 W. Va. 943 (1976)
” Brady v. Reiner, 157 W.Va. 10, 30, 198 S.E.2d 812, 824 (1973), overruled on other grounds by Bd. of Church Extension v. Eads, 159 W.Va. 943, 230 S.E.2d 911 (1976).
The opinion
*70 Carrigan, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority in this case.
While I concur with Points 1 and 2 of the syllabus, I am at a loss to reconcile these points with the Court’s holding.
Article III, Section 15 of the West Virginia Constitution, as stated in Point 1 of the syllabus, forbids what the majority holding establishes, namely, the establishing of a form of church government.
The Avery Chapel is in the position of being told by the national body of the United Methodist Church— believe as we say you should believe, or we will take all of your property. Thus, the local congregations are forced to subscribe to beliefs and doctrines which may not coincide with theirs, under penalty of forfeiting all they have accumulated for their church over a period of years.
This, I believe, violates not only the above-mentioned provision of our Constitution but also Section 3, Article 1, Chapter 35 of our Code.
Why should the property of Avery Chapel be expropriated by the United Methodist Church when in my opinion there is no substantial showing that the state or national United Methodist Church ever contributed any money or other thing of value to Avery Chapel? I would recommend that the hierarchy of the United Methodist Church read Verse 17, Chapter 20 of Exodus, The Bible (King James Version).
Justices Carrigan and Kessel were members of the Court at the time the case was decided but departed from the Court prior to the preparation of the opinion. Justice Carrigan dissented from the decision and reserved the right to file a dissenting opinion. Justice Kessel, deeming *71 himself disqualified, did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case. Justices Sprouse and Neely did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.