is entitled to all goods remaining unsold.85[13] F. Waiver of Rights. The right of a person whose goods have beeh mixed with those of another person to a return of his original property, III. or a recovery of the value thereof, may be waived by insisting on a recovery of the entire mixture, or the value thereof.86 REMEDIES [14] A. In General. Persons whose goods have become commingled with others may follow and reclaim their respective shares and take possession of the same wherever they can find them, if they can do so peaceably,87 or they may bring actions for their proportionate shares or the value thereof against the person in possession.88 Obviously, where the facts are such as to produce a forfeitures the rights and remedies of the innocent party pertain to the whole mixture; and in an action to recover the value of one's proportionate share of goods confused by another it is not necessary to identify the precise article or the exact property formerly owned.9 Where one of the owners seizes the whole mass, claiming entire ownership, and refuses to deliver any portion to the other party he will not be allowed to charge storage on such goods not owned by him, it being subsequently shown that the other claimant was in fact entitled to a portion of the mass and that the confusing was not done fraudulently.91 Sometimes delay on the part of the innocent party precludes 85. 90 Burr v. Dana, 72 Wis. 639, 39 NW 562, 40 NW 635. 86. International Lumber Co. V. Bradley Timber, etc., Co., 132 Minn. 155, 157, 156 NW 274. to "Defendant does not dispute that plaintiff was originally entitled either the return of the lumber sawed from its logs or to the value thereof, but insists that plaintiff waived the right to this relief by insisting all through the trial that it was entitled to recover all of the lumber seized on the writ, and by expressly consenting to the instruction of the court to the jury that the verdict must either be for $20,000, the value, as alleged in the complaint, of all the lumber described in the complaint, or a verdict for the defendant. We hold with defendant on this point. Plaintiff has waived its right to recover the lumber sawed from its logs or its value." International Lumber Co. v. Bradley Timber, etc., Co., supra. 87. Ark.-Hamilton v. Rankin, 108 Ark. 496, 158 SW 496: Rust Land. etc., Co. v. Isom, 70 Ark. 99, 66 SW 434. 91 AmSR 68. Mass.-Ryder V. Pick. 298. Hathaway, 21 Mich. -Gates v. Rifle Boom Co., 70 Mich. 309, 38 NW 245. N. H.-Pickering v. Moore, 67 N. H. 533, 32 A 828, 68 AmSR 695, 31 LRA 698; Moore v. Bowman, 47 N. H. 494. Wis.-Arpin v. Burch, 68 Wis. 619, 32 NW 681. To same effect Sims v. Glazener, 14 Ala. 695, 48 AmD 120. [a] "Whenever goods of a similar kind are innocently intermixed, so that they cannot be distinguished, and they are not substantially destroyed, by the production of something of a different species, the several owners may reclaim their respective shares, and may take possession of the same wherever they can find it, if they can do so without a breach of the peace.' U. S. v. Two Hundred and Seventy-Eight Barrels of Distilled Spirits, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,580, 3 Cliff. 261, 270 [aff 11 Wall. 356, 20 L. ed. 167]. 88. U. S.-Smith v. Au Gres Tp.. 150 Fed. 257, 80 CCA 145, 9 LRANS 876; U. S. V. Two Hundred and Seventy-Eight the maintenance of an action by him against a purchaser without notice.92 [15] B. Demand.93 Where a party in reclaiming his property in good faith actually takes more than his share the other party can maintain no action against him until after a demand for the excess has been made; but it has been held that where the confusion occurred without the fault of either party and one in the division of the mass took an undue amount, it is unnecessary on the part of the other to make a special demand before instituting an action;95 and a demand is not necessary before suing a third person who has received the goods in question from a trespasser causing the confusion and has sold them and accounted for the proceeds to the trespasser. 96 [16] C. Evidence. Where a plaintiff claims a forfeiture the burden is on him to show not only a confusion of goods but also that the mixing was done willfully with a fraudulent intent.97 The rule that the person who caused the confusion must identify his own property or else lose it98 does not Barrels Distilled Spirits, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,580, 3 Cliff. 261 [aff 11 Wall. 356, 20 L. ed. 167]. Ark.-Nashville Lumber Co. V. Barefield, 93 Ark. 353, 124 SW 758, 20 AnnCas. 968; Rust Land. etc., Co. v. Isom, 70 Ark. 99, 66 SW 434, 91 AmSR 68. Ida-Hawkins v. Spokane Hydraulic Min. Co., 3 Ida. (Hasb.) 650, 33 P 40. Miss.-Blodgett v. Seals, 78 Miss. 522, 29 S 852. Mo.-Kaufmann v. Schilling, 58 Mo. 218; Blurton v. Hansen, 135 Mo. A. 548, 116 SW 474. Tex.-Boaz v. Ferrell, (Civ. A.) 152 SW 200. no [a] Whether trover, assumpsit, or book account lie. A party believing that there was a contract between himself and defendant for the delivery of a quantity of wood placed such wood upon the premises of defendant, where it was so intermingled with other wood belonging to the latter that it could not be distinguished. It subsequently developed that contract in fact existed, and defendant warned plaintiff that in taking such wood away he must be careful not to take any which did not belong to him. The wood being intermingled, plaintiff was unable to select his wood from the mass, and did not take any away. that defendant would be liable in trover if he used the wood by mistake or refused to allow plaintiff to take it away, or in assumpsit if he sold the property, but that book account could not be sustained. Pratt v. Bryant, 20 Vt. 333. Right to maintain: It was held Replevin see Replevin [34 Cyc 1359]. Trover see Trover [38 Cyc 2020]. 89. See supra § 3. 90. Ill.-Elgin First Nat. Bank v. Kilbourne, 127 Ill. 573, 20 NE 681, 11 AmSR 174, Ky.-Reid v. King, 89 Ky. 388, 12 SW 772, 11 KyL 615. Miss.-Peterson v. Polk, 67 Miss. 163, 6 S 615. N. Y.-Wilson v. Nason, 17 N. Y. Super, 155. Wis.-Bent v. Hoxie, 90 Wis. 625, 64 NW 426; Starke v. Paine, 85 Wis. 633, 55 NW 185; Arpin v. Burch, 68 Wis. 619, 32 NW 681; Eldred V. Oconto Co., 33 Wis. 133; Stearns v. Raymond, 26 Wis. 74. Necessity of identification of his own property by person causing confusion see supra § 9. Replevin for aliquot part of mixed goods of same nature and value see Replevin [34 Cyc 1359]. 91. Busch v. Fisher, 89 Mich. 192, 50 NW 788. 92. Meyers v. Gerhart, 54 Wash. 657, 103 P 1114. logs [a] Illustration. Certain were wrongfully cut by defendants' assignor from plaintiff's land during the summer and fall of 1906. They were removed to the sawmill, intermingled with other logs so that they entirely lost their identity, and on Dec. 8, 1906, the logs, mill, etc., were transferred to defendants, who purchased without notice of the conversion. Plaintiff first informed them by letter in January, 1907, stating that he would claim the prod uct of his timber in whatever form it might be, but made no demand for any logs or lumber, and in June, 1907, he claimed the same was worth three thousand three hundred ninetyeight dollars and thirty-three cents. Plaintiff never made any demand for logs or lumber until Sept. 12, 1907, during which time the logs had been sawed, and a large part of the lumber intermingled and sold. It was held that plaintiff's delay in claiming his property precluded his right to recover in replevin from the mass of lumber and manufactured material remaining an amount which the logs taken from his land would have made. Meyers v. Gerhart, 54 Wash. 657, 103 P 1114. 93. Demand as condition precedent to trover where flocks or goods have been intermingled see Trover and Conversion [38 Cyc 20371. 94. Smith v. Morrill, 56 Me. 566; Chandler v. De Graff, 25 Minn, 88; Smith v. Welch, 10 Wis. 91. 95. Martin v. Mason, 78 Me. 452, 7 A 11. 96. Union Naval Stores Co. v. U. S., 240 U. S. 284, 36 SCt 308, 60 L. ed. 644. 97. International Lumber Co. v. Bradley Timber, etc., Co., 132 Minn. 155, 156 NW 274. 98. See supra § 9. do away with the necessity of evidence in an action relating to goods which have been mixed;99 but every reasonable doubt will be resolved in favor of the innocent party and against the wrongdoer.1 While the comparative value of the respective goods which have been intermingled is not decisive of the question of confusion,2 yet the fact that plaintiff's property, as compared with defendant's, is small in amount is material on the question of intent.3 In a case of the intermingling of mortgaged with other property, parol evidence is admissible to identify the property described in the mortgage and separate it from the other chattels.1 [17] D. Trial. In an action relating to a confusion of goods, proper instructions should be given; and the question as to the existence of bad faith on the part of the intermixer of goods being one of fact should be submitted to the jury. [18] E. Damages. Where the party whose goods have been confused elects to sue for damages in their stead, or where the confusion or disposition of the goods is such that their specific recovery would be impossible, the amount awarded him will be the utmost that the value of the goods will permit. A recovery according to plaintiff's evidence as to amount and value, which is not disproved by defendant's evidence, is not improper. Conduct of parties. In determining the damages, the conduct of the party producing the confusion, after he has knowledge of the claim of right by another, may be construed against him by the jury, if such conduct is in willful disregard of the claimant's rights. 8 1. Great Southern Gas, etc., Co. V. Logan Natural Gas, etc., Co., 155 Fed. 114, 83 CCA 574 [certiorari den 207 U. S. 590, 28 SCt 256, 52 L. ed. 354]; Bethel v. Linn, 63 Mich. 464, 30 NW 84; Osborne v. Cargill El. Co., 62 Minn. 400, 64 NW 1135. 2. See supra § 10. V. 3. International Lumber Co. Bradley Timber, etc., Co., 132 Minn. 155, 156 NW 274. 4. Caring v. Richmond, 28 Hun 25, 15 NY Wkly Dig 546. 5. St. Clair v. Čash Gold Min., etc., Co., 9 Colo. A. 235, 47 Р 466; Maloney v. King, 30 Mont. 158, 76 P 4; Johnson v. Hocker, (Tex. Civ. A.) 39 SW 406. 6 Lanier v. Montgomery Branch Bank, 18 Ala. 625; Johnson v. Ballou, 25 Mich. 460; Taylor v. Jones, 42 N. H. 25. [a] Thus in an action to recover the value of goods illegally taken by creditors, with some belonging to 7. U. S.-Great Southern Gas, etc., Ind.-Brackenridge v. Holland, 8. 9. 10. Rapalje & L. L. D. Rapalje & L. L. D. Black L. D. [a] Application of the term."Disseisin is properly where a man entereth into any lands or tenements where his entry is not con2geable, and putteth out him that hath the freehold." Black L. D. [cit Coke Litt. § 279]. Md. Ringgold v. Ringgold, 1 Harr. 464, 30 NW 84. Wis.-Weymouth v. Chicago, etc., Eng.-Rokeby v. Elliot, 13 Ch. D. St. Clair v. Cash Gold Min.. 9. Cheesman v. Shreeve, 40 Fed. 1. See Confusion ante p 489. them on 8. a recission of sale, and mingled with their own, the court held that the case would fall within the operation of the principle that where a person mingles his goods with those of another and is unable to distinguish them, the loss must fall on him, and submitted to the jury the mere question of the value of the whole amount taken. It was held that the court should have submitted the question of whether the goods were mixed willfully, fraudulently, or wrongfully, for if they were mixed innocently or by mistake the relative rights of the interested parties would be different. Claflin D. [cit Palmer V. 3. Black L. D. 4. Black L. Burnside, 18 F. Woods 179, 182]. ante p 489. 5. Burrill L. D. 6. Burrill L. D. Black L. D. 7. 11. Black L. D. 12. Black L. D. 13. Black L. D. See generaily Accord and Satisfaction 1 C. J. p 520. 14. Black L. D. [cit 3 Blackstone Comm. 299]. 15. 1 Paris & F. New Med. Jur. 308 [quot Stinson v. Bowlware, 14 S. C. L. 251, 252]. See also Insane Persons [22 Cyc 1111 note 7). 16. Standard D. [a] As applied to patents.-"In a combination device [of a patent] in consisting congeries of wellknown mechanical appliances, no liberality of construction is accorded to it to create a monopoly but it is limited to the descriptive elements in the combination as expressed in the specifications; and no great liberality of the doctrine of mechanical equivalents can be indulged in its favor. As the applicant for such combination of old devices chooses his own expressions in presenting it, and is required to enumerate the elements of his claim, he is limited to the combined apparatus as specified.' Portland Gold Min. Co. v. Hermann, 160 Fed. 91, 99, 87 CCA 247. 17. Century D. [quot Chicago v. Duffy, 117 II. A. 261, 280]. "By WILLIAM MORTIMER CROWTHER (Confusion of Rights-Conspicuous inclusive except the Spanish words and phrases)..... stance; 18 rock formed by the cementing together of gravel stones and boulders by argillaceous and silicious cement, making it rock;19 a homogeneous mass, so that, when it breaks, it doesn't separate the pebbles but breaks as one mass;" that which is composed of stone, pebbles, or fragments of rock. cemented together;21 a sort of pudding-stone.22 20 As an adjective. Gathered together into a mass; 23 collected ; 24 closely crowded together.25 CONGREGATE. To collect into a crowd, mass, assembly, or assemblage.26 The term necessarily The term necessarily implies the joint action or co-operation of two or more persons, and is usually applicable to the coming together of a considerable number of persons;27 it is meaningless to say that a man can "congre 18. Century D.; Standard D.; Webster D. [all quot Chicago v. McKechney, 205 III. 372, 432, 68 NE 954]. 19. Chicago V. McKechney, 205 Ill. 372, 432, 68 NE 954. 20. Chicago v. McKechney, 205 Ill. 372, 432, 68 NE 954. 21. Roosevelt v. Law Tel. Co., 33 Fed. 505, 509. 22. Roosevelt v. Law Tel. Co., 33 Fed. 505, 509. 23. Roosevelt v. Law Tel. Co., 33 Fed. 505, 509. 24. Roosevelt v. Law Tel. Co., 33 Fed. 505, 509. 25. Roosevelt v. Law Tel. Co., 33 Fed. 505, 509. 26. 27. 532. Webster Int. D. Powell v. State, 62 Ind. 531, 28. Powell v. State, 62 Ind. 531, Disturbance of 30. Black L. D. [a] An assembly of people of different churches distinguished.-In construing a statute exempting from taxation all church property actually and exclusively used for public, worship, where the land (to be of reasonable size for the location of the church building) "is owned by the congregation," (1) it was held that camp-meeting grounds used by several congregations of the Methodist Church for public worship, but the title to which, instead of being in any religious congregation, is in a corporation organized "not for pecuniary profit," are not exempt, the court saying: "The clear import of the language of the clause is, that in order that such property be exempt from taxation it must not only be actually and exclusively used for public worship, but some distinct congregation must use it. By this we do not mean that others may not worship in it by permission, but that some one society or congregation shall so use the property and own it. The language owned by the congregation,' admits of no other construction. It can scarcely be claimed that the people who annually assemble in these grounds for worship constitute a congregation,, within the meaning of the statute.' Peo. v. Watseka Camp Meeting Assoc., 160 Ill. 576, 579, 43 NE 716. (2) "Every church building which has been constructed for or is to be devoted to the purpose of providing a room or place in which the congregation of the church, and other persons who may desire to attend, may assemble for the purpose of engaging in those devotional exercises which are properly known as 'religious worship,' should, if in no part devoted to secular uses, be regarded as exclusively devoted to public worship, and, together with the land or lot, of sufficient size for the location of the building, be deemed exempt from taxation, though such church build 32 .30 gate" at any given place without the co-operation of some one else, or that one man by himself can form a "congregation" of any kind.28 CONGREGATION.29 In ecclesiastical law, an assembly or society of persons who together constitute the principal supporters of a particular parish, or habitually meet at the same church for religious exercises; an assembly met, or a body of persons who usually meet in some stated place for the worship of God and religious instruction,31 which may or may not include a church or spiritual body; an assemblage or union of persons in society for some religious purpose, to unite in the public worship of their God, in such manner as they deem most acceptable to him;33 a voluntary association ing should also contain such adjuncts | uously to disquiet or disturb them. to the audience room or place for the But a congregation assembled at a assembling of the congregation as church, or other place where divine room for the safe keeping of the worship is wont to be had, is not outer coats, wraps, umbrellas, etc., protected by this act, unless so asof the persons who are to participate sembled for the purpose of religious in the religious exercises of worship, worship. But there is nothing, or rooms required in order to secure either in the language, or in the the comfort of such persons compos- spirit and intention of the law, to ing such worshiping congregation, or justify the construction that the disa study room for the use of the pas- turbance contemplated by it can tor in the preparation of his sermons, only occur during divine service. It or rooms for Sunday schools or for may occur during service, and is sub-organizations of the church, or then certainly an offence against the other purposes wholly nonsecular and statute; but it is equally an offence, as aids to general religious designs when it occurs either before or after of the congregation, provided the service, provided the congregation be title to the exempted property is in assembled for religious worship"). the church organization." In re Walker, 200 II. 566, 574, 66 NE 144. [b] Harmony of faith essential.A violation, by any particular church, of the constitution or laws by which the great body of the church to which it is united is formed, dissolves its connection with that church as effectually as if no connection had ever existed. A congregation, professing to be Roman Catholic, must not only hold the same faith but must render submission to the government and discipline of the church of which it is a branch. Obedience to the laws of a church by its members is as essential to its harmony and existence as obedience to the municipal law is essential to good order and the existence of civil government. The duty of every member, connected with a church, to uphold and submit to its government and discipline is self-imposed and if the obligations voluntarily assumed, become burdensome, or his opinions undergo a change he is at liberty to withdraw in the mode prescribed by its constitution or laws. But no member of a church has the right to thrust on his fellow members articles of faith to which his assent has never been given, or prescribe rules for the government of the society to which he never submitted. Smith v. Bonhoof, 2 Mich. 115. 31. Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 64, 95. 32. Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 64, 95. [a] Church distinguished.—There is a "distinction between the congregation, and the church strictly so called, which comprises only a part of the congregation or society. The church consists of an indefinite number of persons, of one or both sexes, who have made a public profession of religion; and who are associated together by a covenant of church fellowship, for the purpose of celebrating the sacrament, and watching over the spiritual welfare of each other. But a religious society, or congregation, as recognized by the third section of the statute providing for the incorporation of religious societies, is, with us, what is usually denominated a poll parish, in some of the neighboring states. It consists of a voluntary association of individuals or families, united for the purpose of having a common place of worship, and to provide a proper teacher to instruct them in religious doctrines and duties, and to administer the ordinances of baptism, &c. Although a church, or body of professing Christians, is almost uniformly connected with such a society or congregation, the members of the church have no other or greater rights than any other members of the society who statedly attend with them for the purposes of divine worship. Over the church, as such, the legal or temporal tribunals of this state do not profess to have any jurisdiction whatever, except so far as is necessary to protect the civil rights of others, and to preserve the public peace. All questions relating to the faith and practice of the church and its members, belong to the church judicatories to which they have voluntarily subjected themselves. But, as a general principle, those ecclesiastical judicatories cannot interfere with the temporal concerns of the congregation or society with which the church, or the members thereof, are connected." Hartford First Baptist Church v. Witherell, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 296, 300, 24 AmD 223. [c] Dismissal as affecting the 33. Runkel V. Winemiller, 4 Harr. & M. (Md.) 429, 452, 1 AmD 341 39 35 to vote and the others not.45 · The term is also used in the penal laws of England against disturbing public worship; particularly those to protect the worship of protestant dissenters.46 CONGREGATIONAL. Of or pertaining to, or of the nature of, a congregation.18 The term as used by Congregationalists, or any division of the denomination, is not in any peculiar sense different from the common and generic meaning. 49 It is not one of the terms, like "evangelical" or "liberal,” which have acquired a peculiar and conventional meaning in the usage of a particular religious sect or party. 50 of individuals or families, united for the purpose 35. Bouvier L. D. [quot In re Walker, 200 Ill. 566, 574, 66 NE 144]. 36. Robertson Bullions, 9 V. Barb. (N. Y.) 64, 95. 37. Black L. D. 38. Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 64, 95. 39. Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 64, 95. 40. Everett v. First Presb. Church, 53 N. J. Eq. 500, 506, 32 A 747. 41. Leslie v. Birnie, 2 Russ. 114, 120, 3 EngCh 114, 38 Regard 279. 42. Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 64, 141. 43. Leslie v. Birnie, 2 Russ. 114, 119, 3 EngCh 114, 38 Reprint 279. 44. Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 64, 141. 45. State v. Crowell, 9 N. J. L. 390, 423. [a] Practical effect of this distinction. "This distinction appears to be made by the society itself, in their order or regulation touching the election of a pastor. It directs notice of a meeting for that purpose to be given to the members of the congregation, but when assembled the moderator shall proceed to take the votes of the electors of the congregation; thus plainly distinguishing members from electors. Moreover, persons under age cannot certainly be electors, yet they are as certainly members of the congregation, and as such are received into the communion of the church. Poor communicants, also, who pos Bess no ability of contributing to the support of the gospel, nor consequently any title to vote, are nevertheless members of the religious society. Nothing in the book of church government countenances the idea that married women can vote, yet they are subject (separately from their husbands) to the discipline and censures of the church, and therefore must be regarded as members of the religious society." State v. Crowell, 9 N. J. L. 390, 423. 46. Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 64, 95. 47. See Congregation ante p 500; Congregational Church post this page; Congregationalism post p 502; Congregationalist post p 502; Congregational Persuasion post p 502; Congregational Society post p 502. 48. Webster Int. D. 459, 551. 50. Atty.-Gen. v. Dublin, 38 N. H. 459, 551. 52 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH.51 A voluntary tary association of Christians united for discipline and worship, connected with, and forming a part of some religious society, having a legal existence; a body of persons, members of a congregational or other religious society, established for the promotion and support of public worship, which body was set apart from the rest of the society, for peculiar religious observances, for the celebration of the Lord's supper, and for mutual edification;53 an aggregate body or association-not a corporation or quasi corporation-formed within. 52. Anderson v. Brock, 3 Me. 243, 247. [a] Origin, principles, and his- And in this country All Congregationalists were of course however, to be equally clear, as matter of history, that there was in fact a great general conformity in the doctrines held by the first colonists of New England, and in particular that no churches or ministers were then Unitarian, Socinian, Arian or even Arminian; that they were all, at least so far as their opinions were publicly avowed, Trinitarian, and such as would now be termed orthodox; that Unitarians were not then, nor for long afterward, known as a sect or religious party in the denomination. Such were the principles with which Congregationalists started." Atty.-Gen. v. Dublin, 38 N. H. 459, 516. 53. Weld v. May, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 181, 184. [a] "The character, powers and duties of churches gathered within the various congregational parishes and religious societies in this commonwealth, have been definitely known and understood from the earliest period of its existence. Indeed, the main object of the first settlers of the country, in their emigration hither, was to manage their religious affairs in their own way. The earli a a assist est thing they established was 66 55 54 a religious society or parish, and set apart from the rest of the society for peculiar religious observances, for the celebration of the Lord's supper, and for mutual edification.5 The leading American lexicographers make the primary meaning of the word Congregational" as used in the term Congregational Church, pertain to church government, although a secondary and popular meaning. relates to doctrine.57 The word is not a term of art, used only in some particular trade or business, and understood by those only who are engaged in that trade or business, but a general term, in common use by all people, to designate a well known denomination of Christians, whenever there is occasion to speak of it, and its meaning is a matter of law to be determined by the court.58 CONGREGATIONALISM. That mode of church government which maintains the independence of separate churches;59 that system of church government which vests all ecclesiastical power in the assembled brotherhood of each local church as an independent body. Strictly speaking, the term is not appropriately used to designate any system of doctrines. .62 CONGREGATIONALIST. One who adheres to Congregationalism;6 one who holds to the independence of each congregation or church of Christians, and the right of the assembled brethren to elect their own pastors and determine all ecclesiastical matters. Congregationalists are a denomination of Protestants, who maintain that each par 63 54. Hale v. Everett, 53 N. H. 9, 83, 16 AmR 82. 55. Hale v. Everett, 53 N. H. 9, 83. 16 AmR 82. 64 ticular church has authority from Christ for exercising church government, and enjoying the ordinances of worship within itself. They are divided into Calvinists of the old school, a large number of Hopkinsians, Arminians, Unitarians of different grades, etc., 65 CONGREGATIONAL PERSUASION. A term which has manifestly the same meaning as "Congregational denomination," and includes Unitarians as well as Trinitarians.66 CONGREGATIONAL SOCIETY. A voluntary association from which the members might secede at pleasure, and to which, in order to perpetuate the society, new members would of course from time to time be added, the society being associated with an organized church.67 CONGRESS.68 In international law. An assembly of envoys, commissioners, deputies, etc., from different sovereignties who meet to concert measures for their common good, or to adjust their mutual concern." In theory a congress may conclude a treaty, while a conference is for consultation, and its result, ordinarily a protocol, prepares the way for a treaty. But this is not always true.70 69 In American law. The name of the legislative assembly of the United States, composed of the senate and house of representatives."1 CONGRESSUS. The extreme practical test of the truth of a charge of impotence brought against a husband by a wife. It is now disused.72 is the basis or foundation of the whole. This is true in the Congregational societies in this country generally, whether orthodox or Unitarian." Hale v. Everett, 53 N. H. 9. 83, 16 AmR 82. See Congregational Church ante p 501. rights, and usages shall be respected, | covenant, is a complete church, with | creed or published religious opinions and that they shall be encouraged Christ for its only head, and deriv- distinct from the church; the church in the exercise and maintenance of ing from him the right to choose the same.' Weld v. May, 9 Cush. its own officers, to observe the sacra(Mass.) 181, 184. ment, to have public worship, and to discipline its own members. The Bible is the only standard by which to test heresy; the churches are not bound by any one creed, but each church makes its own, and alters it at pleasure. All that synods and churches have done has been to set forth the prevailing belief of the churches at the time when they were held." Encycl. Religious Knowledge [quot Atty.-Gen. v. Dublin, 38 N. H. 459, 542]. 56. Boston v. Doyle, 184 Mass. 373, 384. 68 NE 851. 57. Boston v. Doyle, 184 Mass. 373, 384, 68 NE 851. [a] As meaning church of a particular doctrine. "Doubtless many of the ministers and people of so-called Orthodox Congregational churches entertain doctrinal opinions very different from those most prevalent in the same churches one hundred years ago. We are of opinion that the testator, in using this word, did not have in mind any nice shades of distinction in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, or other kindred doctrines, but that he meant to include churches of a kind well known in Boston and elsewhere in Massachusetts, which were not exactly alike in their doctrines, but which, chiefly by reason of their polity, were called Congregational." Boston v. Doyle, 184 Mass. 373, 384, 68 NE 851. 58. Atty.-Gen. v. Dublin, 38 N. H. 459, 513, 514. 59. Worcester D. [quot in Atty.Gen. v. Dublin, 38 N. H. 459. 542]. See Congregational Church ante p 501. 60. Webster D. [quot Atty.-Gen. v. Dublin, 38 N. H. 459, 541]. 61. Atty.-Gen. v. Dublin, 38 N. H. 459, 542. But see Congregational Church ante p 501 note 52 [a]. 62. Worcester D. [quot Atty.-Gen. v. Dublin, 38 N. H. 459, 542]. 63. Webster D. [quot Atty.-Gen. v. Dublin, 38 N. H. 459, 541]. See Congregational Church ante p 501. 64. Adams D. All Religions 60 [quot Atty.-Gen. v. Dublin, 38 N. H. 459, 542]. 65. Adams D. All Religions 60 66. Atty.-Gen. v. Dublin, 38 N. H. gregational Church ante p 501. V. 67. Atty.-Gen, v. Dublin, 38 N. H. 459, 574. [a] As including church and congregation.-"A Congregational society is generally made up first of the church, and next of those who worship with the church, favor the same [a] "Congregationalists are a class views, and who assist in supporting of Protestants who hold that each the preaching and public worship of congregation of Christians, meeting that church. The society, as such, in one place, and uniting by a solemn often, perhaps generally, has no 68. Congress: Generally see United States [39 Cyc 696-701. Classification of second class mail matter by see Post Office [31 Cyc Compact between states without Territory see Territories [38 Cyc Of elections by see Elections [15 To prevent collision enacted by see Removal of cause by or against mem- [a] Illustration. "The Congress of Berlin in 1878 was composed of representatives of the great Powers of Europe and met to settle the terms of peace between Russia and Turkey." Bouvier L. D. 70. Bouvier L. D. (where as an illustration is cited the Berlin conference of 1889 which was composed of plenipotentiaries whose deliberations resulted in a treaty). 71. Black L. D. 72. Black L. D. [cit Causes Célèbres 6, 183]. |