Although there is at least a strong possibility that this religious corporation was organized for the mere temporal purposes of the religious society or congregation (cf. State v. Hutterische Gemeinde, 46 S.D. 189 at page 203, 191 N.W. 635, at page 640; Reinke v. German Evangelical Lutheran Trinity Church, 17 S.D. 262, 96 N.W. 90, and Presbytery of Huron v. Gordon, 68 S.D. 228, 300 N.W. 33), we accept the finding that the congregation was incorporated as an independent unit, and review the evidence to ascertain whether it supports the finding that it became an organic member of the Reformed Church. An examination of the articles of incorporation and of the statute under which the Reformed Bethanien Church was organized, §§ 538 to 545, Revised Civil Code 1877, reveals no provisions restraining the corporation from subordinating itself to a superior church body.
The voluntary act of joining the general denominational organization subjects the local church to its rules and regulations. Russian Serbian Holy Trinity Orthodox Church v. Kulik, 202 Minn. 560, 279 N.W. 364; 23 RCL 423; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall (US) 679, 20 L ed 666; Immaculate Conception v. Murphy, 89 Neb. 524, 131 N.W. 946; Canovaro v. Brothers of O.H. of St. Aug. 326 Pa. 76, 191 A. 140; Bonacum v. Harrington, 65 Neb. 831, 91 N.W. 885; Presbytery of Huron v. Gordon, 68 S.D. 228, 300 N.W. 33. To constitute a member of any church, two points at least are essential, without meaning to say that others are not so, a profession of its faith and a submission to its government.
First, although the court did not cite Watson or explicitly refer to the concepts of polity or "hierarchical deference" in resolving the dispute before it, it did refer to the governing documents of the general church, including the general church's constitution. Second, in a related vein, the Oregon Supreme Court, in referring to the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, cited two cases, Presbytery of Bismark v. Allen, 74 ND 400, 22 NW2d 625 (1946), and Presbytery of Huron v. Gordon, 68 SD 228, 300 NW 33 (1941). Both cases involved disputes between local Presbyterian churches and the higher church body.
The correctness of the ruling is beyond dispute. Helm v. Zarecor, 222 U.S. 32, 32 S.Ct. 10, 56 L.Ed. 77; Barkley v. Hayes, D.C., 208 F. 319, on appeal, Duvall v. Synod, etc., (Shepherd et al. v. Barkley et al.), 8 Cir., 222 F. 669; Shepard v. Barkley, 247 U.S. 1, 38 S.Ct. 422, 62 L.Ed. 939; Presbytery of Huron v. Gordon, [68] S.D. [228], 300 N.W. 33 [not yet reported in State Report]."
Since there are no express provisions to overcome this presumption of majority representation, this majority represents Ebenezer United Presbyterian Church. Accordingly, we affirm trial court's decision awarding control of the local church property to Local Church. We take note of two of our previous cases in this area, Reformed Bethanien Church v. Ochsner, 72 S.D. 150, 31 N.W.2d 249 (1948) and Presbytery of Huron v. Gordon, 68 S.D. 228, 300 N.W. 33 (1941). While these cases are factually distinguishable, they also are legally distinguishable as pre- Hull, supra, and pre- Jones, supra.
This is proper, reasoned Watson, because the local church is but a subordinate member of the general church and is thus subject to the general church's authority. The trial court also relied on Presbytery of Huron v. Gordon, 68 S.D. 228, 300 N.W. 33 (1941) and Reformed Bethanien Church v. Ochsner, 72 S.D. 150, 31 N.W.2d 249 (1948), cases similar to that before us, generally decided along the principles set down in Watson. The parties agree that the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America is a hierarchical organization as distinguished from a congregational form of church association.
The manner in which title to church property is held within the Presbyterian Church organization could have been made more explicit by reference to the Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America but we consider the testimony explaining the manner in which property is held within the church organization sufficient to show a devolution of title from the dissolved Pleasant Grove Presbyterian Church corporation to plaintiff Presbytery. Cf., Presbytery of Bismarck v. Allen, 74 N.D. 400, 22 N.W.2d 625 (1946); Presbytery of Huron v. Gordon, 68 S.D. 228, 300 N.W. 53 (1941). The decree of the lower court is affirmed.
These the courts will protect. Presbytery of Huron v. Gordon, 68 S.D. 228, 300 N.W. 33. See also 8 A.L.R. 105, 70 A.L.R. 75. In the Gordon case it was done by injunction which is the traditional remedy used by equity to settle such rights when a congregation develops discordant factions.
The principles set forth in Watson v. Jones and Barkley v. Hayes, supra, have been reiterated time and again by the courts. Among the more recent decisions are the following: Britton v. Jackson, 1926, 31 Ariz. 97, 250 P. 763; Board of Trustees, etc. v. Mount Carmel C.C. Ass'n, 1940, 152 Kan. 243, 103 P.2d 877; Clay v. Crawford, 1944, 298 Ky. 654, 183 S.W.2d 797; Kelly v. McIntire, 1938, 123 N.J. Eq. 351, 197 A. 736; Presbytery of Bismarck v. Allen, 1946, 74 N.D. 400, 22 N.W.2d 625; Church of God, etc., v. Church of God, etc., 1947, 355 Pa. 478, 50 A.2d 357; Turbeville v. Morris, 1943, 203 S.C. 287, 26 S.E.2d 821; Presbytery of Huron v. Gordon, 1941, 68 S.D. 228, 300 N.W. 33. Nothing appears in the instant case to except it from the operation of the general rule established in Watson v. Jones, supra, and the other authorities cited herein, and the ruling of the lower court is correct regarding the legal and beneficial ownership and right to possession of the property.
" Other foreign cases supporting appellant's point of view are Kelly v. McIntire (1938), 123 N.J. Eq. 351, 197 A. 736, and Presbytery of Huron v. Gordon (1941), 68 S.D. 228, 300 N.W. 33. The appellee church received aid through the years from the United Presbyterian Church of North America in a total sum of $45,436.