Friendship Baptist Church v. Hill

• Decision Date: 05 July 1922
• Docket Number: 10897.
• Citation: 112 S.E. 826,120 S.C. 145
• Parties: FRIENDSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH v. HILL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

112 S.E. 826

120 S.C. 145

FRIENDSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH v. HILL.

No. 10897.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 5, 1922

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Aiken County; H. F. Rice, Judge.

Action by the Friendship Baptist Church against Rev. A. W. Hill. From an order refusing to strike out allegations of complaint, and overruling demurrer, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Sawyer & Gyles, of Aiken, for appellant.

Wm. M. Smoak, of Aiken, for respondent.

FRASER, J.

This is an action to enjoin the defendant from exercising, or attempting to exercise, the duties of pastor of the plaintiff church.

I. There was a motion to strike out certain allegations of the complaint as irrelevant. The motion was granted in part and refused in part. The defendant appeals from so much of the order as refuses to strike out other allegations. Woodward v. Woodward, 87 S.C. 249, 69 S.E. 232:

"An order refusing to strike out allegations of the pleadings as irrelevant and redundant, is not appealable."

II. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Demurrer overruled. The defendant appealed from this order. The complaint alleged that the defendant was elected pastor of the plaintiff church on the 28th day of November, A. D. 1917, for a term of one year; that the defendant was deposed on the 27th June, 1921; that, in spite of such deposition, he continued, and threatened to continue, to exercise the duties of pastor of said church, to the great injury of the church. Those statements, if true, would entitle plaintiff to relief. The government of the Baptist Church, the regularity of the proceedings by which the defendant has been deposed, whether he has been deposed or not, the authority to bring this suit, etc., are matters of defense to be determined on the trial.

The orders appealed from are affirmed.

GARY, C.J., and COTHRAN and MARION, JJ., concur.