First Baptist Church of Willcox v. Connor
| Citation | 245 P. 932,30 Ariz. 234 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | Civil 2473 |
| Parties | FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF WILLCOX, a Corporation Sole, Appellant, v. HARDIE CONNOR, Appellee |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
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.
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 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 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 have come to.
The next question is whether or not it appeared that plaintiff had been fully paid the agreed salary. This turns on the point of whether or not the contributions made by the branch church at Gleeson were to be applied entirely on salary, or partly on salary and partly on expenses. The evidence on this point is in conflict, and we are therefore bound to assume that the necessary finding of the trial court on this matter was correct. In our opinion there is sufficient evidence in the record, if believed by the trial judge, as we must assume it was, to sustain the judgment.
The third, fourth and fifth assignments of error go to the admission of certain exhibits in evidence. We do...
To continue reading
Request your trial