of the General Conference was available to him. Appeals were made by other bishops similarly tried at said Conference, and consideration was given to such appeals by the Conference.
23. Following the extra session of the General Conference, the Bishops Council assigned the defendant to preside over the Philadelphia, Delaware and Maritime Conferences of the First Episcopal District and Bishop Wright to the remaining Conferences in said District.
In order to complete the record the following answers are made to the requests of the parties for findings of fact.
Plaintiff's requests are affirmed with the exception of Nos. 16, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 56 and 58 which are deemed to be immaterial; 25, 26, 39, 52, 57 and 59 are refused as stated and 41-49 are refused as being at variance with the forgoing findings.
Defendant's requests are affirmed with the exception of Nos. 27, 29, 30 and 31 which are refused.
For the reasons stated in our discussion, we reach the following
Conclusions of Law.
1. This court has jurisdiction of the issues presented in this case by reason of diversity of citizenship of the parties.
2. The call of the Extra Session of the General Conference of the Church has not been shown to be in violation of the requirements of the Discipline.
3. The meeting of communicants and officials of the Church at Little Rock, Arkansas on November 20-23, 1946, constituted an Extra Session of the General Conference of the Church.
4. The conduct of the Extra Session was in conformity with the laws of the church as interpreted and applied by the supreme church authorities, and was not in violation of the laws of Pennsylvania.
5. The actions adopted by said conference included the expulsion of the plaintiff as a bishop of the church, and the amendment of the Discipline to permit the election of a president of the Bishops Council in place of the senior bishop.
6. The conduct of the trial of the plaintiff by the Judiciary Committee and the subsequent approval and adoption of its recommendations by the Episcopal Committee and the General Conference was not in violation of any express provisions of the Discipline.
7. The plaintiff had ample notice and opportunity to appear for trial before the Judiciary Committee and to appeal to the General Conference.
8. The defendant was assigned to the Philadelphia, Delaware and Maritime Conferences of the First Episcopal District by the Bishops Council.
9. The Bill of complaint should be dismissed.
10. No necessity has been shown for the granting of the injunction prayed for by the defendant and the prayer is dismissed.
11. The costs of the respective parties to this proceeding should be borne by them.
12. A decree may be entered in accordance herewith.
The requests of the parties for conclusions of law are disposed of as follows:
Plaintiff's requests are refused. Defendant's requests are affirmed with the exception of Nos. 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 26, 27, 30, 31, 41, 42, which are refused as to the language used or as being at variance with the conclusions above stated.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.