Andrus v. Church
| Decision Date | 29 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | 16732. |
| Citation | 117 Wash. 627,201 P. 917 |
| Parties | ANDRUS v. CHURCH et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Grays Harbor County; Ben Sheeks, judge.
Proceedings by Laurena T. Andrus against R. O. Church and others, as Directors of School District No. 70, Grays Harbor County, and Geneva Johnson, as County Superintendent of Schools, to review an action of the Directors in discharging plaintiff as school-teacher. From a judgment setting aside the order of discharge, the Directors appeal. Reversed, and action dismissed.
Geo. Acret, of Aberdeen, and R. A. Lathrop, of Montesano, for appellants.
Vance & Christensen, of Olympia, for respondent.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the superior court rendered upon a writ of review in an action wherein the respondent Laurena T. Andrus, a school-teacher, sued the appellants Church and others, as directors of the school district, and the defendant Geneva Johnson, as county superintendent of schools, seeking to review the action of the appellants in discharging the respondent when her term of school was only partly completed.
After issuing the writ and upon return thereto the superior court heard evidence on behalf of the appellants, and at the conclusion thereof entered a judgment holding that, because no notice had been given of the hearing upon the charges preferred against the respondent, the action of the directors was void, and that judgment set aside that orders which had been made.
Although the county superintendent had been made a party, she was dismissed from the proceeding with her costs.
The evidence introduced at the hearing showed that the respondent had been employed by the appellants for the school year commencing on the first Monday in September, 1920. The school in which the respondent was to teach employed two teachers the respondent being the principal. Shortly after she commenced her work the respondent got into a controversy with her fellow teacher, and a pronounced feud was inaugurated which extended to the pupils in general. The directors were drawn into the controversy and called in the defendant superintendent for advice. The respondent was called before the board and the trouble discussed with her and with the other teacher, who was also present. Matters got no better, and a second meeting was held about a month later and at this meeting the respondent agreed that if she could not handle the matter, she would resign. It appeared quite clearly from the testimony that the respondent was incapable of handling the situation that she then had to deal with although she may have been successful in teaching elsewhere, that the discipline of the school was very bad, and that a situation had developed which made further operation of the school impracticable under the then conditions.
After this last meeting matters got no better, and in the month of January the directors met and came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to discharge both teachers. They therefore saw each teacher in turn. The other teacher agreed to resign, and the respondent agreed to resign and started to write her resignation, but pleaded that she was too much upset to do it at that time and she would do it in the evening. Thereafter respondent changed her mind and refused to resign, and all parties came to Olympia and laid the matter before the state superintendent where they were advised their proceedings were irregular. Thereafter the appellants entered a formal order discharging the respondent.
At this time the performance of the contract has been rendered impossible by the lapse of time, and we assume that the only question to be settled is the legal position of the parties whereby the right of the respondent to recover for the damages, if any, which she may have suffered by reason of the breach of her contract, if such breach be found to be unlawful, may be established.
Our statute reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Francisco v. Board of Directors of Bellevue Public Schools, Dist. No. 405
...District, 23 Wash. 520, 528--9, 63 P. 213 (1900); Van Dyke v. School District, 43 Wash. 235, 86 P. 402 (1906); Andrus v. Church, 117 Wash. 627, 631--2, 201 P. 917 (1921); State ex rel. Board of Directors v. Preston, 120 Wash. 569, 571, 208 P. 47 (1922). In the Preston case, at page 571, 208......
-
Murphy v. Berlin Bd. of Ed.
...with which he is charged.' Jaffe v. State Department of Health, 135 Conn. 339, 352, 64 A.2d 330, 337. See, generally, Andrus v. Church, 117 Wash. 627, 201 P. 917; 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, § 360; 78 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 204c. It has been noted that the function of su......
-
State ex rel. Mary M. Knight School Dist. No. 311, Mason County v. Wanamaker, 32969
...the order of the board of directors, and determine whether the order was made with or without cause.' See, also, Andrus v. Church, 1921, 117 Wash. 627, 631, 201 P. 917. The attempted appeals to the state superintendent of public instruction in the case at bar were entire nullities. There wa......
- Wisner v. Carter