Grosvenor v. United Society of Believers
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- United Kosher Butchers Ass'n v. Associated Synagogues of Greater Boston, Inc. (Mass. 1965)
- Antioch Temple, Inc. v. Parekh (Mass. 1981)
- Newburyport Society for the Relief of Aged Women v. Noyes (Mass. 1934)
- Snay v. Collis (Mass. 1931)
- Cohen v. Silver (Mass. 1931)
- Moustakis v. Hellenic Orthodox Society (Mass. 1928)
- Spilman v. Supreme Council of the Home Circle (Mass. 1892)
- Hechmer v. Gilligan (W. Va. 1886)
- Karcher v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor (Mass. 1884)
- O'Donovan v. Chatard (Ind. 1884)
- Whitecar v. Michenor (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1883)
- Chamberlain v. Lincoln (Mass. 1880)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In each of these cases, the plaintiff, after arriving at full age, signed the instrument styled “ Covenant or Constitution,” by which the “ United Society of Believers ” were bound together as one body in all their religious, social and pecuniary interests. Her rights must therefore be determined by the provisions of that instrument.
1. She cannot recover for her services, either upon the written agreement or upon an implied assumpsit; because all such right is expressly and explicitly renounced.
2, She cannot recover for the expenses of her support since her separation from the community; because, whatever support she was entitled to receive under the “ covenant,” she was to enjoy as a member of the church so constituted, with the others, “ according to their several needs and circumstances,” and only “ while standing in Gospel union and maintaining the principles of this covenant.” It is not an absolute right of support, but a qualified and peculiar one; the extent and manner of which can be measured and determined only by the constituted authorities dí the organization thus created.
The plaintiff has been found and declared by this authority to be not in conformity with the principles of the society; and, upon being warned thereof, refused to submit to the admonition. She was excluded for refusing to “ conform and subject ” herself “ to the counsels and directions of the elders; ” and, still persisting in and adhering to the objectionable opinions and doctrines, she proposes to try here the question whether they are in reality inconsistent with the established belief of the society. We have no standard by which to try that question. By her agreement it must be submitted solely and exclusively to the ministers and elders, who are, by that instrument, made “ the proper and constitutional judges ” of her compliance or non-compliance with the conditions of the association.
Judgments on the verdicts for the defendant,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.