Delzell v. Pope
| Decision Date | 20 July 1956 |
| Parties | E. N. DELZELL v. C. W. POPE and Executive Board of Tennessee Baptist Convention. 4 McCanless 641, 200 Tenn. 641, 294 S.W.2d 690 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
James P. Brown, Knoxville, J. L. Reynolds, Nashville, for complainant.
Jackson, Tanner & Leathers, Nashville, Egerton, McAfee, Armistead & Davis, Knoxville, for defendants.
The complainant, E. N. Delzell, filed his original bill in the Chancery Court at Nashville against C. W. Pope and the Executive Board of the Tennessee Baptist Convention, seeking damages for an alleged breach of contract of employment.
The bill charges the following: that the Executive Board of the Tennessee Baptist Convention is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Tennessee; that it acts as the representative of the said Convention pursuant to the constitution of the latter, in carrying on the work for which it is organized. In other words, by Article 6 it 'shall (during the interim between meetings of the Convention) have all the powers of the Convention except as limited by the Constitution.'
The complainant further charges that he was employed on January 1, 1942, by a committee representing the Executive Board to increase the circulation of the Baptist and Reflector, the State Baptist paper, and in 1945 was promoted to the office of business manager of said publication, and in 1949 was elected to the office of 'Brotherhood Secretary'; that he served as Brotherhood Secretary until March 1, 1955, when he was summarily dismissed from his position.
It is charged that the fiscal year of the State Baptist Convention is from November 1 to October 31 of the following year and a yearly budget is adopted for the 'Brotherhood Department', and among the numerous items was included his salary of $6,300; that he was paid the sum of $3,150 from the beginning of the fiscal year 1954 to the time of his dismissal from office. The bill further charges that he was 58 years of age and would have been subject to retirement at age of 60 and, by reason of his dismissal, he was deprived of retirement benefits.
It is further charged in the bill that no charges were filed and he was given no notice of his dismissal from office; that he had made engagements for carrying on a definite program on behalf of the Brotherhood which had been his custom for the years he had served as Brotherhood Secretary; that the Executive Board did not prior to March 1, 1955, 'give notice to the complainant that he would not serve as Brotherhood Secretary during the whole year, but in their every action indicated to the complainant that he would serve the whole year, all of which lead the complainant to believe that he would be able to perform his duties as State Secretary for the fiscal year as aforesaid, and that the aforementioned acts on the part of the defendants in this lawsuit amounts to an implied contract with the complainant for his service during the fiscal year of 1954 and 1955 of the Tennessee Baptist Convention.'
The charge is further made that the defendant, Pope, was largely responsible for the election of the present members of the Executive Board and that he dominates the Board and, in effect, influences their action. In paragraph V. (five) of the bill the complainant charges the following:
'Your complainant would show that the defendant C. W. Pope entered into a conspiracy with the members of the Administrative Committee, as aforesaid, and the Executive Board, as aforesaid, in which the complainant would be dismissed from the office of Secretary of the State Brotherhood without rhyme or reason, and without charges, the evidence of which is contained in the Preliminary Statement and Opinion of the Executive Committee, which is filed as an exhibit to this bill.'
The bill sets out in some detail the activities of the Committee in a meeting called by C. W. Pope to investigate certain rumors regarding the alleged misconduct of himself and his secretary. Finally it is charged that by reason of his wrongful and fraudulent dismissal from office and his dismissal from the Baptist Convention he is entitled to a judgment 'due to the fact that he entered into an implied contract for the whole year.'
The prayer of the bill is: (1) that he be awarded damages in the sum of $10,614; (2) that he be granted such other further and general relief as he may be entitled to upon the pleadings and proof in the case.
The defendants filed separate demurrers to the bill, but upon identical grounds, with only one exception. The one exception, filed by C. W. Pope, is as follows:
'The bill shows that Defendant, Pope is not a proper party, to this action, having no interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and not being in any way liable to Complainant.'
Considering now the several grounds of the demurrers, as common to both of the defendants, the principal complaint is that the bill shows on its face that complainant seeks a recovery for breach of an implied contract and that the facts alleged if true did not amount to an implied contract between the complainant and the Executive Board for services during the fiscal year referred to. Contention is made that complainant 'has alleged no facts from which an implied contract can be inferred, and therefore it was not necessary that the Executive Board have a cause or reason for Complainant's dismissal.' The second ground is in substance a repetition of the first, as above stated in detail. (3) There is no showing of any mutuality of agreement and that complainant bound himself to the Board for any fixed period of time. (4) There is no showing of any express contract and that complainant was engaged for a definite term. (5) That upon the facts alleged the complainant's claim 'would be void under the Statute of Frauds because not in writing.' (6) That the bill shows that any loss of alleged retirement benefits is not an element to recover for breach of the employment contract. (7) and (9) are repetitious and more or less argumentative of the aforegoing assignments.
The Chancellor sustained both of the demurrers and granted an appeal to this Court. While the Chancellor allowed the complainant 20 days in which to amend the bill it appears that he elected to stand on the original bill and the demurrers.
The assignments of error are: (1) The court erred in sustaining the demurrers and dismissing the bill as to the defendant C. W. Pope. (2) The Chancellor erred in sustaining the demurrer of the Executive Board because the original bill alleged in substance the following facts:
'a. The budget for the Brotherhood Department showing an annual amount payable to the Secretary.
'b. The Executive Board allowed complainant to plan the year's program 'c. The Executive Board permitted complainant to accept speaking engagements for the future.
Contention is made that proof of the foregoing facts and circumstances was sufficient to justify the conclusion that there was an implied contract which the defendants had breached. Other assignments purport to question the reasons upon which the demurrers were sustained, but they are based more or less upon assumptions of counsel.
When the case was orally argued before us one of the able counsel for the defendants made the frank statement that the determinative question for consideration on this appeal was whether or not the bill alleged sufficient facts which, if true, would justify a fair and reasonable inference that there was an implied contract of employment.
We are in full agreement with counsel that the suit cannot be maintained upon the allegation that there was an implied contract. This standing alone is simply the conclusion of the pleader.
Whether or not the bill is demurrable as to C. W. Pope we will deal with this question later on in this opinion.
At the outset we think the bill is demurrable insofar as the complainant seeks a recovery for alleged loss of retirement benefits, since he was not eligible for retirement when he was dismissed by the Board. It is not an element of damages to be recovered for breach of an implied contract.
The demurrer admits the truth of all relevant facts bearing upon the contractual relationship between the parties at the time of the alleged dismissal of the complainant and prior thereto.
The complainant had been officially connected with the Executive Board of the Tennessee Baptist Convention since 1942, and was continuously employed in some important capacity (not necessary here to specify) until 1949 when he was chosen as Brotherhood Secretary. The budget which was adopted for the Brotherhood Department shows that the complainant was considered as being competent and trustworthy to administer a program which called for an annual expenditure of $20,474.56. Provision was made for the annual salary of the complainant at $6,300. Other items of expense are:
'Travel, car bonus and promotion $2,000.00
Office secretary's salary 2,520.00
Field Workers 500.00
Office expense 250.00
Postage 1,000.00
Baptist and Reflector space 1,559.00
Printing and Literature 1,000.00
Telephone and Telegraph 160.00
Retirement dues 535.56
Miscellaneous 350.00
Royal Ambassador Secretary's salary 3,000.00
Royal Ambassador Secretary's travel 1,000.00
Royal Ambassador Committee expense 100.00
Royal Ambassador Congress 200.00'
The foregoing budget shows beyond question that the Board contemplated an intensive and expanding yearly program by the Brotherhood Department.
The complainant was paid his salary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc.
...A.L.R.3d 226 (1974).9 See Grauer v. Valve & Primer Corp., 47 Ill.App.3d 152, 5 Ill.Dec. 540, 361 N.E.2d 863 (1977); Delzell v. Pope, 200 Tenn. 641, 294 S.W.2d 690 (1956).10 See O'Neill v. ARA Services, Inc., 457 F.Supp. 182 (E.D.Pa.1978); Rowe v. Noren Pattern & Foundry Co., 91 Mich.App. 25......
-
Marchant v. Schenley Industries, Inc.
...defendants promised orally that if plaintiff performed satisfactorily he would have job security. Plaintiff cites Delzell v. Pope, 200 Tenn. 641, 294 S.W.2d 690 (1956), to support his breach of contract claim against defendants. The Tennessee Supreme Court in Delzell held that under certain......
-
Bonastia v. Berman Bros., Inc.
...contrary intention of the parties, "a hiring for so much per week, or month, or year is a hiring for that period." Delzell v. Pope, 200 Tenn. 641, 294 S.W.2d 690, 694 (1956); see also Ball v. Overton Square, Inc., 731 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987); Ward v. Berry & Assoc., Inc. 614 S.W.......
-
Kitchen v. Stockman Nat. Life Ins. Co.
...or at will, but rather for an initial period of one year. See Whatham v. Precision Boring Co., 220 N.Y.S.2d 134; Delzell v. Pope, 200 Tenn. 641, 294 S.W.2d 690, 694--695; 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, § 486; 1 Corbin on Contracts, § 70, at 293--296; 3A Corbin on Contracts, § 684; 1 Williston on ......