However, I would hold that part of the circuit court's order exceeded the court's jurisdiction. Courts have jurisdiction to resolve questions concerning property rights but do not have jurisdiction to resolve purely ecclesiastical questions. Berry v Bruce, 317 Mich. 490; 27 N.W.2d 67 (1947); White v Mount Beulah Baptist Church, 319 Mich. 392; 29 N.W.2d 774 (1947); United Armenian Brethren Evangelical Church v Kazanjian, 320 Mich. 214; 30 N.W.2d 842 (1948); Michigan Congregational Conference v United Church of Stanton, 330 Mich. 561; 48 N.W.2d 108 (1951); First Protestant Reformed Church v DeWolf, 344 Mich. 624; 75 N.W.2d 19 (1956). The circuit court here acted within its jurisdiction when it determined who had the right to control the church's property, but it exceeded its jurisdiction when it purported to determine who would perform the religious functions of the office of pastor.
In church disputes courts may concern themselves with property rights only and not with the ecclesiastical affairs of the church. Berry v. Bruce, 317 Mich. 490; White v. Mt. Beulah Baptist Church, 319 Mich. 392; United Armenian Brethren Evangelical Church v. Kazanjian, supra. The trial court properly added as parties plaintiff those members of defendant church who had signified a desire for continued adherence to the Congregational denomination. CL 1948, § 612.13 (Stat Ann § 27.665); Windoes v. Colwell, 247 Mich. 372. Whatever its previous status, defendant is, since the 1948 amendments, definitely not Congregational and, accordingly, the decree of the trial court properly provided, in effect, that defendant should be enjoined from use of the property in question and its officers and members from interfering with plaintiffs' use thereof and that the latter are entitled thereto.
The bill of complaint was filed in this case in the name of a corporation by one of two factions in the Mount Beulah Baptist Church in Detroit to enjoin the defendants, members of the other faction (which will be termed the defendant faction), from interfering with the possession of the church property and use thereof for purposes of worship by the corporation formed by the first above named faction (which will be termed the plaintiff faction). The affairs of this particular church have been before us in White v. Mount Beulah Baptist Church, 319 Mich. 392. The defendant faction filed an answer in which it denies the following allegations in the bill: That the plaintiff corporation has a legal right to represent the congregation of what is known as Mount Beulah Baptist Church; that all but two of defendants were expelled from membership in the church and that plaintiff corporation was properly formed so as to rightfully be considered as representing the congregation of the church in question; and further, that the members of the board named in the bill as trustees of the church in question, were in fact elected by the congregation.
Property rights, however, are the concern of the courts. Berry v. Bruce, 317 Mich. 490; White v. Mount Beulah Baptist Church, 319 Mich. 392. In the case at bar, the order was an improper judicial interference with the internal management of the church in ecclesiastical matters.