First Baptist Church of Willcox v. Connor, Civil 2473

• Court: Supreme Court of Arizona
• Writing for the Court: Lockwood, J.
• Citation: 245 P. 932,30 Ariz. 234
• Parties: FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF WILLCOX, a Corporation Sole, Appellant, v. HARDIE CONNOR, Appellee
• Docket Number: Civil 2473
• Decision Date: 13 May 1926

245 P. 932

30 Ariz. 234

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF WILLCOX, a Corporation Sole, Appellant,
v.
HARDIE CONNOR, Appellee

Civil No. 2473

Supreme Court of Arizona

May 13, 1926

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Cochise. Albert M. Sames, Judge.

Affirmed.

Mr. Lyman Hays, for Appellant.

Mr. John C. Gung'l, for Appellee.

Lockwood, J. McAlister, C. J., and Ross, J., concur.

OPINION

Lockwood, J.

[30 Ariz. 235] Hardie Connor, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against First Baptist Church of Willcox, a corporation sole, hereinafter called defendant, for a balance of salary he alleged was due him from defendant. In his complaint he alleged substantially that in December, 1922, he entered into a contract with defendant whereby he was to serve as pastor of said church at a yearly salary of fifteen hundred dollars, and that he had performed the duties of pastor under said contract, and there was due him at the time of filing a complaint a balance on his salary of $ 306.25. In defense defendant set up that [245 P. 933] plaintiff had never entered into any contract of employment with defendant, but that his contract, if any, was with the Arizona Baptist Convention, and that defendant had never agreed to pay plaintiff any salary except such as might be raised by voluntary contributions on the part of the members of the defendant church, and alleged that all such voluntary contributions had been turned over to plaintiff. The [30 Ariz. 236] case was tried before the court sitting without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $ 253.15 and costs, whereupon defendant appealed from the judgment.

There are some six assignments of error which we will consider as seems best. It is, of course, the rule in cases of this nature that we must presume the court made every material finding necessary to support its judgment, and we must further sustain such presumed findings if there is any substantial evidence in the record to support them. Blackford v. Neaves, 23 Ariz. 501, 205 P. 587; Thomas v. Newcomb, 26 Ariz. 47, 221 P. 226.

The first two assignments of error go to the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment. The first question is whether there is evidence to sustain the allegation that plaintiff's contract was with defendant rather than with the Arizona Baptist Convention. On examining the record we are of the opinion such was the only conclusion the trial court could...