By filing a demurrer tbe defendants admit tbe plaintiff’s allegations and such inferences as may reasonably be drawn therefrom and present tbe question whether in law tbe complаint states a cause of action against all tbe defendants or against either оf them.
Sandlin v. Wilmington,
*551
Under our statute law an organized body of men constituting a religious congregatiоn is a
quasi
corporation witb power to appoint and remove its duly constituted officers and agents. Tbe acts of such officers and agents performed witbin tbe scоpe of delegated authority are usually treated as tbe acts of tbe cоngregation or society.
Lord v. Hardie,
Tbe other question is whether tbe complaint sets out a cause of aсtion against tbe Methodist Protestant Church of Shelby. As to tbis tbe defendant impeaches tbе sufficiency of tbe complaint on tbe ground that tbe plaintiff was an appointee of tbe Conference; that as no fund is set apart for tbe payment of tbe plaintiff’s salary be must depend upon voluntary contributions; that tbis defendant bad no voicе in procuring tbe plaintiff’s services; and finally that tbe maintenance of tbe action is incompatible witb tbe plaintiff’s commission.
Some of these objections we cannot consider. They are in tbe nature of a “speaking demurrer” in that they invoke tbe аid of matters not appearing in tbe preceding pleading — matters which can bе pleaded as a defense only by filing an answer to tbe complaint. Sandlin v. Wilmington, supra.
For tbe prеsent purpose we may admit, without deciding, that tbe pastor of a religious congregation who relies entirely upon voluntary contributions for bis salary cannot maintain an action therefor. 23 R. C. L., 465. Still, tbe question of liability for tbe salary of a minister or pastor is governed by tbe principles which prevail in tbe law of contracts, and it is generally held that a valid contract for tbe payment of such a salary will be enforced. Tbe salary to be paid and tbe terms upon which tbe pastoral relation shall be fоrmed ordinarily are to be determined by tbe parties themselves or by some apрropriate tribunal created by tbe church. Tbis defendant contends that its rela *552 tion to tbe plaintiff grew out of a system of ecclesiastical control to which the рlaintiff was subject, and that disregard of the exercise of such control by a proрer church tribunal would tend to the subversion of the organization. In reality this is possible; but this defеnse is not pleaded by the demurrer. The substance of the complaint is, not that the рlaintiff was appointed by the Conference or by any other supervising authority, but that the plaintiff and the Methodist Protestant Church of Shelby without any intervening agency made an еxpress contract, the terms of which are stated; the demurrer admits that the contrаct was made as alleged; it thereby admits that a cause of action exists. In the fifth paragraph of the complaint there is a reference to the Methodist Prоtestant Conference held in November, 1924 — -but a reference only. The defense relied on here is similar to that which was sustained in Baldwin v. First Church, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.), 171; but in that case an answer was filed setting forth all the facts. Whether the defense proposed in the present case is valid we need not consider, because, as indicated, it cannot be interposed by demurrer. St. Luke’s Church v. Matthews, 6 A. D., 619; Presbyterian Church v. Myers, 38 L. R. A., 687, and annotation; 34 Cyc., 1144; 24 A. & E., 334. We find no error in the judgment overruling the demurrer of the Methodist Protestant Church of Shelby. The judgment is therefore affirmed on both appeals.
Affirmed.