Simmons v. Allison
| Decision Date | 29 April 1896 |
| Citation | 24 S.E. 716,118 N.C. 763 |
| Parties | SIMMONS et al. v. ALLISON et al. [1] |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Mecklenburg county; Graham, Judge.
Action by R. H. Simmons and others, as trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church of Charlotte, N. C., against Alexander Allison and others, to restrain defendants from acting as trustees. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appealed. Affirmed.
Where the deed to the original trustees ran in the name of the "Trustees of the African Methodist Church," and it is shown that they were in fact members of the "African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church"; that there was no such organization as the "African Methodist Church"; and that the property conveyed by the deed had been used, known and recognized for 28 years by the bishop, conference, and congregation as the property of the "African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church,"--it will be presumed that the grant was so intended.
Maxwell & Keerans and Clarkson & Duls, for petitioners.
Burwell Walker & Cansler and Geo. E. Wilson, contra.
This is a petition to rehear a former decision [2] of this court in this case, which is a controversy between the trustees of a church; the plaintiffs complaining that they constitute the majority of the lawful trustees, the minority of the lawful trustees having illegally associated the other defendants with them. The defendants contend that they are the lawful trustees. Each board claims that its pastor should officiate. Some confusion of ideas has been brought about on the argument by an effort to treat this as an ordinary action of ejectment, and to give the parties who are accidentally defendants (made so for the purpose of having them restrained from interfering with the pastor and board of trustees previously officiating) the benefit of not having to prove title, and to throw that burden on the plaintiffs. A careful examination of the pleadings will show that there is not a single feature of an action of ejectment in the case. It is in every respect an injunction proceeding to restrain an unauthorized body from interfering in the discharge of certain duties. Both parties are admittedly members of the congregation. Neither pleads that it was in exclusive possession. Both admit that, at the time the action was brought, the church was in the exclusive possession of neither, but, by agreement, was in the hands of a stakeholder, "to hold as the agent of all the parties" until the rights of these contending parties to control and manage the property for the whole congregation, and to recognize the pastor, could be passed upon. An agreement was made on the 10th of September, 1894, and signed by both parties, as follows: "Whereas a difficulty has arisen between certain of the trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in regard to the possession of the property, now it is agreed that Z. T. Smith, as sheriff, as the agent of all parties concerned, shall take possession of the property, and hold the same, as the agent of all the parties, until Thursday, the 13th of September, 1894, and such other or further time as may be agreed upon hereafter, without prejudice to the rights of any of the parties contending therefor." On the 13th of September, all the parties again signed an agreement: "The above agreement, by consent, is continued in force until the matter is settled by civil courts." This action was begun on the 15th of September, 1894, five days after the signing of the first-named agreement. At that time both parties were in possession, through their common agent; neither side more than the other, and both sides agreeing that the controversy was between them as "Trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church," and that Z. T. Smith should hold it for all of them as such trustees. In the answer filed by the defendants on the 29th of September, they again recognize and reaffirm this agreement, asking in their prayer for relief that the property remain in the possession of Sheriff Smith, "according to the aforesaid agreement," which is set forth as Exhibit C; and in an exception taken to the order of the judge confirming a report of Sheriff Smith, who had been appointed receiver by the court, the defendants again refer to this agreement of September 10th, and rely on it. Nor do the plaintiffs, in their complaint, set out a cause of action in ejectment. The complaint alleges the organization of the church at Clinton Chapel, in 1866, and its membership in the organization known as the "African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church," which is divided into Episcopal districts, etc., and its receiving its pastors ever since its organization from said African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and its representation by delegates in all the church conferences of that church; that on the 8th of September, 1894, just before this action was brought, the defendants, claiming to be trustees, forcibly withheld the use of the church from the pastor previously recognized, R. H. Simmons, and that, by reason of such unlawful conduct of the plaintiffs, the lawful trustees cannot "perform their duties as trustees to said congregation in respect to said property, and to have it in proper condition and in readiness for religious worship"; that the defendants claim the possession of the church as trustees, and withhold its control from the plaintiffs, who are the lawful trustees; that the alleged election of the defendants as trustees was illegal, except as to two of them; and that the defendants are "interfering with the plaintiffs in their proper and regular discharge of their duties, to the great injury and scandal of the said church and its congregation." The prayer is that the plaintiffs, said lawful trustees be let into possession of the property of said congregation, and protected in their management of it, and that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs in the discharge of their official duties as trustees, and from attempting themselves to act as trustees, and for a receiver, if deemed necessary.
The nature of an action is not determined by the prayer, but by the body of the complaint. A party may demand the remedy which the allegata and probata entitle him to ask for. Judged by that criterion, this is not an action for possession notwithstanding the prayer for such relief. Harris v. Sneeden, 104 N.C. 369, 10 S.E. 477; Jones v. Mial, 82 N.C. 252. The answer denies that Clinton Chapel was ever an integral part of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and avers that on the 8th of September, 1894, the pastor, Simmons, with some others, undertook to take charge of the church, and prevent the defendants, the lawful trustees, from exercising their duties, they being in control as officers of said congregation; that, legal proceedings being imminent, the agreement of September 10th, above set out, was entered into by both parties, by which Z. T. Smith was put into possession; and the prayer is that the plaintiffs be restrained from interfering with the defendants in the discharge of their duties, or the congregation in its enjoyment of its rights and privileges. It will thus be seen, as has been said, that there is no element of the action of ejectment in the case, neither in fact nor technically. The controversy is, as the agreement between the parties sets it out, "a controversy between the trustees." The complaint does not allege possession in the defendants, nor ask that they be put out. The answer admits the agreement, set up in the complaint, that the possession of the property is in Z. T. Smith, holding for all parties. The plaintiffs and defendants all agree in their pleadings that the cestuis que trustent are the congregation of Clinton Chapel, and there is no dispute as to who are the congregation. It is one and the same body. The controversy is not over the title and possession, which are admittedly in the congregation, and no ejectment from the premises is sought. The trustees on both sides are admittedly members of the congregation. The true controversy is that the plaintiffs say they are the regularly elected trustees to act on behalf of the congregation, and to recognize the pastor sent them by the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, with which organization the church has been associated for 28 years, from its organization up to this difficulty; and they ask that the defendants be, not put out, but enjoined from interfering with the plaintiffs in the discharge of their functions as agents and trustees of the congregation. The defendants aver that they are the lawfully selected trustees and agents for said congregation; that, though Clinton Chapel has acted with the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church the years stated, it was not an obligatory and binding membership, but a voluntary connection, which could be discontinued at will; and, in their turn, they ask that the plaintiffs be restrained from interfering with them in the discharge of their official functions. It will thus be seen that possession of the property is not in controversy, as that is admitted to be in the congregation, and, by agreement, temporarily in the mutual agent of the two boards, to be held for such congregation. Nor is the title in controversy, as both sides claim under the same congregation, each board claiming to act as the agents or trustees of said congregation. The collateral question of title raised is not the title to the property, in either the plaintiffs or the defendants; but the plaintiffs claim that, Clinton Chapel being an integral part of the large connectional system, known as the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, they could not be deposed from their trusteeship in the irregular manner in which ...
To continue reading
Request your trial