Dickson v. Wilson

21 S.W.2d 1072
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 15, 1929
DocketNo. 10537.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 S.W.2d 1072 (Dickson v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dickson v. Wilson, 21 S.W.2d 1072 (Tex. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

LOONEY, J.

The Baptist Missionary and Educational Convention of the State of Texas is a corporation organized to promote missionary effort and Christian education among the colored people, under the auspices of the Baptist churches of this state, and to co-operate financially and otherwise with the American Baptist Home Mission Society in its missionary and educational work for the colored people in the state of Texas.

The corporation is authorized to own, and does own, lands .upon which' are erected schools and an orphanage, and raises funds from voluntary gifts and from assessments paid by messengers to its annual meetings. It holds an annual meeting for the purpose, among other things, of electing officers, that is, a president, two vice presidents, a secretary, auditor, statistician, and four trustees, a majority vote of messengers being required for an election. The executive board of trustees consists of 12 members, chosen for a term of three years, 4 of whom are elected at each annual convention. The annual meeting is constituted of messengers from churches, pastors, licensed and ordained elders from regular Missionary Baptist churches, and messengers from associations and other regular Missionary Baptist organizations, auxiliaries, or co-operants, in accord with the objects of the contention. Ehch messenger, or accredited delegate to the annual meeting, before being enrolled and entitled to actually participate in the proceedings, is required to pay a certain fee; that is, pastors and ordained elders are required to pay $5 each, and other messengers ⅜2.50 each.

This suit resulted from a controversy between rival factions, that is, a group headed by E. L. Harrison, who claims to have been elected to certain offices of the convention at its meeting in the city of Sherman on October 17, 1928, and a group headed by E. Arlington Wilson, also claiming to have been the duly elected officers at said meeting, and each, conjuring in the name of the eorporation, sought an injunction, restraining the-other group from exercising the functions of said offices, and from interfering with the management of the affairs of the corporation by the other faction.

It will serve no useful purpose to detail at length the allegations of the different pleadings filed below; sufficient to say that the different causes growing out of the controversy were consolidated and the .material issues joined are as just stated.

The ease was tried to the court, without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of Wilson and his associates, from which the Harrison group have appealed.

The gravamen of the charge of appellants against appellees is that A. L. Boone, who now resides in Cleveland, Ohio, b,ut who, for a number of years prior to the convention held at Paris in October, 1927, held the office of president of the convention and had gathered around him a coterie of men, including appellees, organized them into a clique or conspiracy, for the purpose of dominating the affairs of the corporation, and by illegal and arbitrary conduct had, from time to time, thwarted and overridden the will of the majority of the messengers at the conventions, notably at the annual convention held in the city of Paris, in October, 1927, and the one at Sherman in October, 1928; that, notwithstanding a large majority of the delegates in each of these conventions favored Harrison and his associates for said offices, the Wilson faction Was, as the result of arbitrary, unjust, and unfair methods, declared elected.

The record discloses that at the convention in Paris in October, 1927, and, also at the convention held at Sherman in October, 1928— the proceedings of the latter only being under review — a majority of the accredited delegates were in favor of the Harrison group, and they would have prevailed over the Wilson group in the contest for the offices, b,ut for the arbitrary rulings of the presiding officers, and. the unfair and irregular method practiced by other officers of the Wilson group, in conducting the proceedings. In view of these facts, which we think stand out prominently in the record, if the claim .of the Harrison group is based 'on a substantial compliance with the laws of the corporation, they ought to prevail in this controversy.

The proceedings at Paris are not now under review, and are considered only as evidence bearing upon the alleged conspiracy to-dominate the affairs of the convention by Boone, Wilson, and others. The following facts bear on this issue. Prior to the opening ■of the convention in Paris, Wilson stated, as testified to by B. N. Gilbert (in the hearing of Wilson, and not contradicted or denied by him) to this effect: “Don’t you know my opponents cannot beat me? I am Boone’s candidate and Brother Boone is going to preside. When we get in the house if we see we have *1074 a majority of the people there, we are going to have a standing vote, and if we see we have not a majority, we will demand a roll call, and don’t forget we will have the roll. If they had the most votes, do you think we would allow them to use them?”

A. L. Boone did in fact preside, as predicted by Wilson, and arbitrarily ruled* out of order, several motions having for their purpose the correct enrollment of qualified messengers. A large number of accredited messengers paid their dues, were entitled to be enrolled* but tvere not, and, when the ballot was taken on the election of president, their names, not being upon the roll, were not called, and thus they were afforded no opportunity to vote. This ballot, as declared by the presiding officers1, resulted in 276 votes for Wilson and, 21 for Harrison, but its correctness was immediately challenged by T. E. George, a Harrison adherent, and a division demanded, which was arbitrarily refused by the chair; thereupon, George called for all who favored, Harrison to stand, and 398 arose and were counted.

The record, in our opinion, discloses that the Harrison faction really predominated in numbers over the Wilson faction at the Paris meeting, and would have prevailed but for the failure to properly enroll the messengers who favored Harrison, and the arbitrary rulings of Boone, the presiding officer.

With reference to the proceedings of the Sherman convention, now under review, the trial court found that: “While a .majority of the people in the convention favored the election of Harrison for president, they had not complied with the constitutional requirement in regard, to the payment of the assessment ; that 220 delegates, being 59 ministers and 161 messengers, had complied and voted for Wilson, and therefore, that he was shown to have been elected president.”

The court further found, that, while the program (or order of business) adopted by the convention was not carried out as originally presented, it was amended by a majority vote of the qualified delegates present, meaning, of course, the 220 delegates above referred to, and that, under the changed, order of procedure, Wilson was elected.

The pertinent provisions of the constitution are these:

“Sec. 2: The members of this organization shall be divided into three classes as to enrollment, A-B-C, (a) messengers, laymen and licensed ministers, $2.50; (b) pastors and ordained elders, $5.00; and (c) annual members, $2.50.
“Sec.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Romero v. Grande Lands, Inc.
288 S.W.2d 907 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Wilson v. Dickson
35 S.W.2d 701 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 S.W.2d 1072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickson-v-wilson-texapp-1929.