Wyche v. Alexander

• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BROCK; MALLARD, C.J., and CAMPBELL
• Citation: Wyche v. Alexander, 189 S.E.2d 608, 15 N.C.App. 130 (N.C. App. 1972)
• Decision Date: 28 June 1972
• Docket Number: No. 7219SC391,7219SC391
• Parties: Thomas WYCHE et al. v. Charles ALEXANDER, Sr., et al.

Page 608

189 S.E.2d 608

15 N.C.App. 130

Thomas WYCHE et al. v. Charles ALEXANDER, Sr., et al.

No. 7219SC391.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 28, 1972 Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court Aug. 31, 1972.

Grier, Parker, Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage & Preston, by Gaston H. Gage and Jos. W. Grier, Jr., Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellees.

Williams, Willeford & Boger, by John R. Boger, Jr., Concord, for defendant-appellants.

BROCK, Judge.

The first argument presented by defendants on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict without submitting to the jury any of the issues tendered by the defendants.

The defendants argue that there were issues raised for jury determination of whether the Book of Order was followed in attempting to dissolve Westminster, whether there was fair play and substantial justice done, or whether there was justification for the alleged resolution of the Catawba Presbytery. Therefore, defendants contend that the trial court erred, because Rule 50 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure does not confer upon the trial judge the power to direct a verdict in favor of the party having the burden of proof. They rely upon Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 180 S.E.2d 297. We do not agree.

The trial court found that 'there is no issue of fact for submission to the jury.' The evidence of plaintiffs and defendants is in agreement that the Presbytery of Catawba dissolved Westminster and that the judgment of the General Assembly, the highest judicatory of the United Presbyterian Church, dated 20 May 1970, affirmed the dissolution of Westminster by the Presbytery. The evidence of both parties is in agreement that Westminster is now extinct and the property formerly used by that church is now controlled by defendants as Westminster Presbyterian Church of Concord, North Carolina, for the use of a different denomination. The real contention of the defendants is not that Westminster is not extinct, but that no trust was imposed on Westminster's property in favor of the parent church organization. This is a question of law and not a question of fact.

The controlling documents necessary to decision were stipulated and admitted by agreement of the parties. The Constitution in the Book of Order created the office of trustee held by defendants and required these trustees to hold the property subject to that constitution. The church property was deeded to the Westminster trustees, defendants' predecessors in interest, in 1892 for a nominal consideration for the benefit of the parent church by a seminary (Scotia Seminary--the predecessor in interest to Barber-Scotia College) operated by the parent denomination. We hold that the construction of these stipulated documents is a question of law for the Court and not a question of fact for the jury.

In the present case, the trial court did not err in directing the verdict for the plaintiffs because the question had become one of law exclusively. The preliminary question for the judge was whether there was a 'genuine issue of fact.' Clearly the pleadings, evidence, and stipulations show that there was no 'genuine issue of fact' for jury consideration, and the trial judge correctly found this to be the case. Cutts v. Casey, Supra, is distinguishable because in Cutts the credibility of evidence was involved.

Defendants' second argument is as follows: the trial court erred in its judgment in holding that Westminster was dissolved and that upon its dissolution the title to the property of the church vested in the Catawba Presbytery of the United Presbyterian...