Way v. Ramsey

• Decision Date: 17 November 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 387.)
• Parties: WAY v. RAMSEY et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

135 S.E. 454

(192 N.C. 549)

WAY

v.RAMSEY et al.

(No. 387.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 1926.

Appeal from Superior Court, Davidson County; Shaw, Judge.

Action by C. B. Way against J. T. Ramsey and others, individually and as trustees of the Methodist Protestant Church of Shelby, the Methodist Protestant Church of Shelby, and another. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint as to all defendants, except defendant last named, as to which defendant it was overruled, plaintiff and defendant Church appeal. Affirmed.

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants contracted with him for his services as pastor of the Methodist Protestant Church of Shelby for one year, beginning in November, 1924, at an agreed salary of $1,100; that he complied with his part of the contract: that the defendants have paid on the contract $771.94, leaving unpaid the sum of $328.06; that he has demanded the remainder alleged to be due; and that the defendants have refused to pay it. He alleges that the church by its agent, trustees, and stewards acquiesced in and ratified the acts of its agent, in securing his services and permitting him to remain as pastor for the year, without objection, and by paying a part of his salary; that Ramsey, Gantt, and Chapman are trustees; that Ramsey was a duly elected delegate to the conference held in November, 1924; that he is also treasurer of the church; that McFarland, Chapman, and Johnson are members of the church and of its board of stewards; and that the Methodist Protestant Church of Shelby is a corporation and the owner in fee of a lot and church building in Cleveland county. He sues to recover the remainder alleged to be due on his salary.

A demurrer was filed on behalf of all the defendants, and it was sustained as to all of them except the Methodist Protestant Church of Shelby, and as to this defendant it was overruled. The plaintiff and the church excepted and appealed.

A. J. Newton and Walser & Walser, all of Lexington, for plaintiff.

B. T. Falls, of Shelby, for defendants.

ADAMS, J. [1] By filing a demurrer, the defendants admit the plaintiff's allegations and such inferences as may reasonably be drawn therefrom and present the question whether, in law, the complaint states a cause of action against all the defendants, or against either of them. Sandlin v. Wilmington, 185 N. C. 257, 116 S. E. 733; Manning v. Railroad, 188 N. C. 648, 663. 125 S. E. 555.

Under our statute law, an organized body of men constituting a religious congregation is a quasi corporation, with power to appoint and remove its duly constituted officers and agents. The acts of such officers and agents, performed within the scope of delegated authority, are usually treated as the acts of the congregation or society. Lord v. Hardie, 82 N. C. 241, 33 Am. Rep. 682; St. James v. Bagley, 138 N. C. 384, 50 S. E. 811, 70 L. R. A. 160; C. S. 3568 et seq. This is in accord with the general doctrine that a contract make by a known agent, acting within the scope of his authority for a disclosed principal, nothing else appearing, is the contract of the principal alone (21 R. C. L. 846), although the agent of a disclosed principal may, by special agreement, bind himself to performance of the contract. Caldwell County v. George, 176 N. C. 602, 97 S. E. 507. The plaintiff alleges that the delegate, the trustees, and the stewards were the agents of the church; if, as alleged, they made the contract as agents of a disclosed principal, they are not thereby personally obligated to make good the deficiency in the salary. The result is that the judgment sustaining the demurrer as to all the defendants except the church, or quasi corporation, must be affirmed.

The other...