Court Opinion

ID: 9834085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:16:53.015341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:11.471000
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee so earnestly insists that we are in error in our opinion that we have concluded to review the case more fully. In his motion appellee inadvertently states that the petition alleges “that the church was an incorporated association.” The petition and the facts in the case reaching this court show that the church was and is an unincorporated association, and our opinion is based upon the fact that the church was unincorporated.
Appellee’s suit is brought against certain -parties, naming them; “being trustees of the said Second Baptist Church, an unincorporated association, defendants herein, transacting the affairs of the said Second Baptist Church * * * are being sued in their capacities herein stated.” The petition then states in substance that the church is acting by and through the defendants named, who are sued in such capacities stated. The petition then alleges that a contract was entered into between appellee and said church, by the terms of which appellee became the pastor of the church for the salary stated; that he was discharged as pastor, and that the church is indebted to him for his services as pastor in the sum for which he sues; he alleges a breach of the employment contract by defendants, and prays that he have judgment against the defendants for his debt. The petition shows that the debt sued for is a personal debt against defendants as trustees, and the judgment sought is a personal judgment against defendants as trustees. It is alleged that defendants sued are trustees in the charge of the secular affairs of the church. It is not alleged or shown that the trustees have or hold title to any property of the church. The judgment recovered was that appellee recover of and from defendants, naming *325them, trustees of the Second Baptist Church, the sum of money stated, with interest and costs; that no personal judgment be entered against defendants except in their capacity as trustees of the said Second Baptist Church, for which plaintiff is entitled to his execution.
The contention of appellee, as we understand it, is that under his judgment against the trustees of the church, as trustees, he can have an execution against the Second Baptist Church.
In our opinion we held, and still hold, that the judgment recovered in favor of appellee against the trustees of the church for a personal debt would not authorize the issuance of an execution against the church of which they are trustees simply of the business or secular affairs of the church. In the opinion we referred only to Realty Trust Co. v. First Baptist Church of Haskell (Tex.Civ.App.) 46 S.W.(2d) 1009, holding that the church, being an unincorporated body, could not be sued as such. We wish here to refer to American Ins. Co. v. Edwards (Tex.Civ.App.) 78 S.W.(2d) 1020, 1021, in which the court says that as a general principle the authorities there referred to supporting the contention made that the sheriff’s deed was void are predicated upon holdings to the effect “that an unincorporated religious society is not an entity in law, cannot sue or be sued in its association name, and cannot be held in judgment generally for a personal debt.”
There are exceptions to the above rule, but none of them are applicable here. ,
We think the judgment rendered cannot be enforced and is void.
The motion is overruled.