Crowder v. Zion Baptist Church
| Decision Date | 03 January 1956 |
| Citation | 143 Conn. 90,119 A.2d 736 |
| Parties | Bonnie W. CROWDER v. The ZION BAPTIST CHURCH, Inc., et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
William B. Hennessy, Waterbury, with whom was Catherine P. Hanlon, Waterbury, for appellant (plaintiff).
William W. Gager, Waterbury, for appellees (defendants).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
In this action the complaint contained two counts, the first alleging breach by the defendant church of a contract employing the plaintiff as its pastor and the second alleging fraudulent transfer of property by it, acting through its agents, the individual defendants. The jury returned a verdict for the named defendant on the first count and for all defendants on the second count. The plaintiff has appealed.
From the finding, which cannot be altered to meet the plaintiff's criticisms, it appears that the plaintiff offered evidence to prove the following facts: He is a duly ordained Baptist minister. The defendant church is an ecclesiastical corporation organized under the laws of this state and having a church building for worship in the city of Waterbury. We shall herein refer to that defendant as the corporation. The individual defendants are members of the building fund committee of the church and trustees of the corporation. On November 14, 1928, the corporation issued to the plaintiff a call to become its pastor. He accepted the call, came to Waterbury and commenced his duties on the first Sunday of December, 1928. The contract of employment provided that the corporation would pay the plaintiff a monthly salary of $100 and, in addition, would pay for the rental of the parsonage to be occupied by him and his family and for the fuel used to heat the parsonage. The contract also provided that should the pastor or the corporation desire to sever their relationship a three months' notice should be given. The plaintiff performed his duties in a satisfactory manner for a considerable period of time, and the membership of the church increased from 100 more than fourfold. The contract of employment remained in full force and effect until December 31, 1950, when the plaintiff's employment terminated, except that his salary was raised as follows: in 1942 from $100 a month to $27 a week, in 1944 from $27 to $32 a week, in 1945 from $32 to $45 a week, and in 1949 from $45 to $50 a week. These raises were given as the church membership increased.
During the period from December 2, 1928, to and including March 31, 1942, the corporation was in arrears in the payment of salary in an aggregate amount of $4,037.80. During this period, it was in arrears in the payment of rent for the parsonage in an aggregate amount of $1,600. For the period from December 2, 1928, to and including December 31, 1941, it owed the plaintiff $2,191.43 for fuel used to heat the parsonage. It also owed him an additional sum, the amount of which was not proved for fuel used between January 1 and March 31, 1942. The total of salary, rent expense and fuel expense owing to the plaintiff by the corporation on March 31, 1942, without interest, was $7,829.23, plus fuel cost for three months. Interest upon the arrears of salary, rent and the known fuel bill amounted to $3,341.78 on March 31, 1942. As of the end of 1941, the total due the plaintiff from the corporation for salary, rent, fuel and interest was $11,335.01.
Prior to 1942, the plaintiff had, on numerous occasions, discussed the arrears with members of the congregation and had submitted several statements of the balance due him. On March 27, 1942, a church meeting was held and the matter of back salary, unpaid fuel bill and unpaid rent was taken up. At that meeting, the church, acting through its representatives, agreed to pay $2,200 on account on the total sum owed to the plaintiff by the corporation. On a few occasions, the plaintiff had been advanced small sums, totaling $150, from the church funds without the formality of a vote and for his convenience to meet emergencies. The balance due thereon to the corporation in March, 1942, was $90, and this balance was treated by the plaintiff as a payment of part of the sum of $2,200. Thereafter, the corporation paid the plaintiff the remaining $2,110. The exact amount due the plaintiff on March 27, 1942, for back salary, fuel, rent and interest was not then definitely fixed.
The paper which the corporation claimed was an agreement providing for the payment of $2,200 by it to the plaintiff in full settlement of its indebtedness to him was not signed by him or, if it was, was a blank piece of paper when he affixed his signature to it. A receipt dated August, 1943, and signed by the plaintiff did not contain the words 'in full on back salaries and other debts' at the time it was signed by him. Relations between the plaintiff and the corporation became increasingly strained, largely because of the repeated demands of the plaintiff for payment of the amounts which he claimed were owing to him.
At a church meeting in November, 1950, it was voted to ask the plaintiff for his resignation. He was not present and claimed that the meeting was not a legal one. About November 26, 1950, from the pulpit, he called a church meeting for December 9, 1950, for the purpose of settling the question of his resignation, stating that he would have to be governed by what was voted at that meeting. The meeting was held, and it was voted to require the plaintiff to resign. He wrote out his resignation, which was to become effective on December 31, 1950, and read it at a church meeting on December 17, 1950, at which time the members of the church accepted it. He was paid his salary to December 31, 1950. He did not waive any of the provisions of his contract of employment, including the one requiring that three months' notice should be given if either the pastor or the corporation desired to sever their relationship. The corporation then owed the plaintiff $2,316.18 as unpaid salary, $3,791 for the rental of the parsonage, and $4,192.33 for fuel. Interest of $7,397.63 should be added, bringing the total indebtedness of the corporation to $17,697.14.
The corporation offered evidence to prove the following facts: From the date of the plaintiff's original employment, the first Sunday of December, 1928, up to 1942, the corporation failed to make all of the payments required under the contract of November 14, 1928. It was not possible to determine from the church records exactly what payments had been made or the exact dates on which they were made, although admittedly a substantial sum was owing to the plaintiff. Over a period of several years prior to 1942, he had submitted statements of varying accounts which he claimed were owing to him. On March 18, 1942, an informal meeting was held and attended by the plaintiff and a group of members of the church. The entire matter was discussed, and it was orally agreed that the whole question would be settled by the corporation's paying the plaintiff $2,200 as a settlement on the back debt, by its paying him $27 a week thereafter, the plaintiff to be responsible for his own fuel and lights, and that no interest would be charged on the $2,200 if at least $100 or $150 was paid in reduction of the balance each year. At that meeting, the plaintiff claimed varying amounts to be due him, going as high as $4,000. The exact amount was never determined. Without interest charges, the plaintiff's statement of January 1, 1942, showed a balance of $2,390.57 for salary, rent espense and fuel expense.
At a business meeting of the corporation on March 27, 1942, the proposed settlement was approved, and it was voted that the agreement be reduced to writing and signed by the committee. At that time, the corporation had no funds with which to pay the sum of $2,200. A special drive was put on to raise the money, and a substantial sum was contributed for that purpose by the church members. From March 27, 1942, to December 31, 1950, the salary of the plaintiff was paid as required by the agreement which had been approved on March 27, 1942, except that certain increases in the salary figure were made. In December, 1942, a church meeting was had and a written agreement, embodying the terms which had been authorized at the informal meeting of March 18, 1942, and confirmed at the formal meeting of March 27, 1942, was signed by the plaintiff and by the committee of the corporation.
In December, 1942, $200 and, on January 9, 1943, $1,210 were paid under the new agreement. Before the last-named date, the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vennard
...claims of proof and correct in law, and when the court has not fairly covered the particular point raised. Crowder v. Zion Baptist Church, Inc., 143 Conn. 90, 100, 119 A.2d 736. Many of the defendant's requests, while not given literally, were adequately covered in the charge, so that the c......
-
County Fire Door Corp. v. C.F. Wooding Co.
...Co. v. American Cement Co., 108 Conn. 469, 473, 143 A. 566 (1928); W.H. McCune, Inc. v. Revzon, supra; Crowder v. Zion Baptist Church, Inc., 143 Conn. 90, 98-99, 119 A.2d 736 (1956); Perryman Burns Coal Co. v. Seaboard Coal Co., 128 Conn. 70, 73, 20 A.2d 404 (1941); Bull v. Bull, supra 3; s......
-
State v. Maisonet, 5465
...the judge's evidentiary ruling. Practice Book § 288. In fact, the defendant agreed with the ruling. See Crowder v. Zion Baptist Church, Inc., 143 Conn. 90, 97-98, 119 A.2d 736 (1956). In addition, the defendant does not seek review under State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 327 A.2d 576 (1973); se......
-
State v. Moffett
...the defendant cannot be made a ground of error. State v. Cobbs, 164 Conn. 402, 424, 324 A.2d 234 (1973); Crowder v. Zion Baptist Church, Inc., 143 Conn. 90, 98, 119 A.2d 736 (1956). Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the trial court's permitting out-of-state counsel to represent th......