Generich v. Swartzentruber et al. [Vol. 22 (N.S.) said order be revoked and the membership of said churches in structed that it is no longer their duty or privilege to observe or carry out said boycott. 2. The action of a body of bishops and preachers of a sect, imposing penalties upon a member of one of the churches of that sect for failure to believe and observe a certain doctrine of the sect under pain or penalty of dismissal, is violative of the personal right of religious liberty. 3. No religious view can justify infringement of a civil right; and where passages from the Bible are interpreted in a manner so crude and unnatural as to interfere with the family relation and prevent intercourse between parents and children, husband and wife or other relatives, and tend to destroy natural affection toward the one so placed under the ban, a situation is created of so serious a character as to clearly justify judicial action. Chas. R. Cary and Judge Frank Taggart, for plaintiff. KINKEAD, J. (sitting by designation of the Chief Justice.) This action is probably the first of its kind. It is brought by plaintiff, who was formerly a member of the David Miller Old Order Amish Mennonite Church, against seven preachers and bishops of the several churches located in eastern Holmes county. The Amishites constitute about onethird of the population of Holmes county; they have so improved that part of the county that it is a beautiful and most valuable and fertile part thereof. Their houses are substantially built alike, provision being made in all of them for a room large enough to accommodate church congregations of from a hundred and fifty to two hundred. Their church meetings are held in the houses in the winter, and in their commodious barns in the summer. Their churches are usually named after individuals, plaintiff herein having once been a member of David Miller church. Their name is derived from Jacob Amen, a native of Switzerland in the 17th century, who was a preacher of the Mennonite denomination. Amen opposed abuses of the church erected by the sainted Menno Simon, the founder of the sect that still bears his name. Menno was a contemporary of 1919.] Generich v. Swartzentruber et al. Luther. The Bible of Martin Luther, printed in the old German text, probably constitutes the library of each household. These people are still intensely devoted to the Confession of Faith, known as the Confession of Dortrecht, signed in the city of Dort, Holland, by the leading disciples of Menno Simon in the year 1622. They are religiously opposed to war which was the cause of their leaving their native land. They settled in what is now Holmes county in 1811, fourteen years before the county was organized. Their language is low German, the use of which they earnestly insist upon; it was with much difficulty that some of the witnesses were compelled to use English on the stand, even those who could speak it well. They were fearful that they might not properly express themselves in English, and that they might not be understood. The complaint in this case is made against the defendant preachers and bishops for enforcing a rule of the church called. "miting" or "meiden," which is boycotting under our civil law. This as practiced under their Confession of Faith is based upon its provisions and their religious belief. Several complaints were made against plaintiff; he was rather an obstreperous member according to old Amish conceptions. It is an ironclad rule that the orders and decrees of the preachers and bishops must be obeyed. The evidence shows that Ginerich had a mind of his own, and that he was altogether too independent to suit the clans. He did not believe in the doctrine of "miting" or "meiden" or boycotting; he thought it wrong, and he clearly manifested his adverse attitude to this doctrine of the church. He also broke over the rule of the sect concerning dress. "We have our rules, and they must be obeyed," said one of the defendants in his testimony. Such is the attitude of the defendants as disclosed by the evidence. However, their position. is one of sincerity and devotion. These people have lived lives of community recluses; they have not come in contact with the outer world or with the enlightenment and blessings of modern Christian civilization. They live among themselves and still Generich v. Swartzentruber et al. [Vol. 22 (N.S.) maintain their own peculiar customs; they do not take advantage of modern and enlightened educational advantages. They are allowed freedom and shelter under our constitutional liberty of conscience and religion, but cling to their mother tongue and their ancient customs. Their customs are such as to prevent their children from becoming educated like other American citizens; their purpose is to keep their children in the path of ancient Amishites. This retardment of education and enlightened civilization is probably due to the great liberality of our constitutional liberty and freedom, and our laxity in enforcing education according to American ideals. The petition alleges that plaintiff was a member of one of the old order Amish churches, and that the seven defendants are preachers and bishops thereof. Plaintiff complains that defendants attempted to make a rule that if any member left the church a ban was to be placed on such member forbidding all members to trade with, work for, employ, eat at the same table, live with or in any manner have any business dealings or associate with such member placed under such ban. Plaintiff alleges that such rule failed of adoption; that demand nevertheless was made upon plaintiff to abide by such rule which he refused to do; that on account of his refusal defendants and certain members of their churches refused to deal with, or to sell goods or merchandise to plaintiff, work for or employ him, or to eat at the same table with him, or to mingle socially with him; but boycoted him under thereat of expulsion from their churches, as well as to boycott members of the churches who failed also to boycott plaintiff according to the orders of defendants. On the contrary, plaintiff states that he severed his connection with the Miller church with the knowledge and consent of the defendants and the churches. The evidence sustains the claim that plaintiff obtained the consent of the former preacher of the Miller church (now deceased) to leave the church. Plaintiff thereupon joined the Martinscreek church, which the evidence shows to be a much more liberal and advanced church, there being greater freedom to depart from the old customs. 1919.] Generich v. Swartzentruber et al. Plaintiff began to wear suspenders, claiming it to be essential to his comfort, but he was called to account by the Old Amish preachers. He did not yield to their demand, so this was one of the complaints made against him. Plaintiff transferred his membership from the Martinscreek church to a newly organized one, called the Bunker's Hill church. The members of this church may own automobiles and indulge in other modern things without fear of condemnation. Plaintiff claims that the Martinscreek church gave its consent to his withdrawal therefrom, he with others having organized the Bunker's Hill church. But since the organization of this church and plaintiff's membership therein, it is claimed that defendants have unlawfully and maliciously conspired to place and continue plaintiff under the ban of their churches; by reason of such ban plaintiff complains that a portion of the members of their churches, under threat of expulsion and of being placed under the ban and boycott, have unlawfully and maliciously refused to trade with, work for, employ, sell to, eat at the same table with plaintiff, or in any way to mingle socially or in a business manner with plaintiff. Plaintiff complains that defendants have conspired to induce his wife to place him under the ban, to refuse to minister to, cohabit with, eat at the same family table with him, or to treat him as a dutiful and lawful wife. He charges also that they have caused his daughter to boycott him and refuse to visit and eat with him, or to mingle with him in a social, family or business way. The daughter evidently yielded to the orders and directions of defendants. She married since her father was placed under the ban; she could not have her wedding feast in her father's home because neither she nor her husband, nor the wedding guests were permitted to eat at the same table with her father. The daughter has observed the orders of the preachers and bishops. On the witness stand she stated in effect that it was her father's own fault, that he was thus in trouble, meaning his failure to comply with the orders of the preachers and bishops was the cause of his trouble. The father could not at Generich v. Swartzentruber et al. [Vol. 22 (N.S.) tend the wedding on account of the boycott; the daughter does not now go to her father's home and eat with him, nor does the father go to his daughter's home and eat with her. They have a few times visited each other; but now the daughter strictly complies with the church directions. None of the members of the other churches who are all farmers are permitted under the ban, or boycott, to help plaintiff thresh or do work for him. Plaintiff alleges that defendants placed his brother Menno Ginerich under the ban and boycotted him because he refused to observe the ban and assisted plaintiff and ate with him. Plaintiff is engaged in farm work in Berlin township, and is the owner of a farm of 131 acres and complains that by reason of the ban and boycott directed by defendants, his neighbors and friends have not assisted him on his farm as is usual and customary among farmers. Plaintiff claims that he has been caused much mental and physical strain, worry, disturbance, pain, anguish and distress, and has been damaged in the sum of $10,000. He asks that defendants be permanently enjoined from continuing the ban or boycott against him, and from inducing others to boycott him or from interfering with him in his business or his social affairs with his neighbors and the members of the Old Order of Amish Mennonite Churches. The pleading of defendants is a homespun answer, probably the product of defendants themselves. It is not signed by counsel. It sets forth the manner in which their members are taken into their church. It sets forth Article XVI of their Confession of Faith which is as follows: "We also believe in and acknowledge the ban, or excommunication, a separation or spiritual punishment by the church, for the amendment, and not for the destruction, of offenders; so that what is pure may be separated from that which is impure. That is, if a person, after having been enlightened, and received into the communion of the saints, does willfully or out of presumption, sin against God, or commit some other sin unto death; thereby falling into such unfruitful works of darkness that he |