Board of School Com'rs of City of Indianapolis v. State ex rel. Wolfolk

• Citation: 199 N.E. 569,209 Ind. 498
• Decision Date: 05 February 1936
• Docket Number: 26474
• Parties: BOARD OF SCHOOL COM'RS OF CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al. v. STATE ex rel. WOLFOLK
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

199 N.E. 569

209 Ind. 498

BOARD OF SCHOOL COM'RS OF CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al. v. STATE ex rel. WOLFOLK

No. 26474

Supreme Court of Indiana

February 5, 1936

1. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS---Teachers---Contracts---Form and Terms---Statute.---In determining statutory requirements as to the nature and terms of a contract to be executed by a teacher and a school corporation, the acts of 1899, 1921, and 1933 must be construed together as one law. p. 503.

2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS---Teachers---Teachers' Tenure Law---Requirements as to Previous Contracts---Meaning of Statute.---Provision of the Teachers' Tenure Law requiring 5 years' service "under contract as a teacher" means a contract containing the terms and conditions and executed in the manner prescribed by statute for teachers' contracts. p. 505.

3. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS---Teachers---Teachers' Tenure Law---Requirements as to Previous Contracts---Part-Time Contract.---Where a teacher's contract for one of the five years upon which she based her claim for tenure was an informal contract for part-time teaching and did not comply with the statutory requisites of a teacher's contract, she had not taught that year "under contract as a teacher" as contemplated by the tenure law, and, hence, was not qualified to become a tenure teacher. p. 505.

Appeal from Marion Circuit Court; Earl R. Cox, Judge.

Albert Baker, Joseph M. Daniels, and G. R. Redding, all of Indianapolis, for appellants.

John L. Niblack, of Indianapolis, for appellee.

OPINION

TREMAIN, Judge.

The relator filed a verified complaint in the Marion circuit court against the respondents, in mandamus, in which she alleged facts showing that she was a permanent teacher under an indefinite contract to teach in the public schools of the respondents. She specifically alleged that she had served as a teacher for respondents for five successive years, to wit, 1927-28, 1928-29, 1929-30, 1930-31, and 1931-32, and did thereafter on June 10, 1932, enter into a teacher's contract for further services with the schools of the corporation, and taught all of said sixth school year which ended June 30, 1933; that on May 23, 1933, the respondents held an informal meeting and discharged relatrix without notice and without her knowledge or a hearing of any nature as provided by statute; that she was not charged with incompetency, insubordination, neglect, or immorality; that no legal steps were taken to rescind her indefinite contract that her pretended ouster was null and void; and that she demanded to be restored to her rights as a teacher and assigned to a school. The prayer was that respondents reinstate her in her indefinite contract as a permanent teacher.

To this complaint the respondents answered: That the relatrix was not and never had been a 'permanent teacher' of the school corporation. That she is not and never has been the possessor of an 'indefinite contract' as defined by statute. That in September, 1927, the superintendent of the school corporation appointed relatrix as a part-time teacher of sewing in the schools for the school year of 1927-28, at a compensation of $ 2 for each period during which she taught. That a few years before her appointment as a part-time teacher she filed an application in writing for a teaching position in said schools. That October 11, 1927, the appointment of the relatrix as such part-time teacher was approved by the board of school commissioners by a notice in writing as follows: 'You are appointed to the position of part-time teacher of sewing at School No. 42, for the school year of 1927-1928, at a salary at the rate of $ 2.00 per period taught. Please show this to your principal.' That no other rights existed between the parties in respect to the school year 1927-28. That she taught intermittently during that school year and for such services received the sum of $ 678. That thereafter she served as a teacher in said schools under a regular written contract, which services expired June 30, 1933. That no contract was entered into thereafter. That, by reason of the foregoing facts, relatrix is not and never has been a 'permanent teacher,' and never held an 'indefinite contract' as a teacher in said schools.

Relatrix demurred to the answer on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of defense to the complaint, for the reason that, under the Teachers Tenure Law (Acts 1927, c. 97, p. 259, as amended) any person who has served or who shall serve under a contract as a teacher in any of the school corporations in the state of Indiana for five or more successive years, and who shall thereafter enter into a teacher's contract for further service with such corporation, shall thereupon become a permanent teacher. Burns' 1933, § 28-4307, Baldwin 1934, § 6003.

As a further objection to the sufficiency of the answer, the relatrix says that it shows affirmatively that she taught in the schools of the corporation in the school year of 1927-28 under a written contract, being the written application dated September 2, 1924, for a teaching position, to which application the school corporation, in writing on October 11, 1927, appointed her as a part-time teacher. She contends that this contract meets the requirements of the law applicable to such cases; that, whether or not she was a 'regular' or a 'part-time' teacher is immaterial so long as she has taught five or more successive years and has entered into a contract for further service; that the law must be construed liberally in her favor.

The court sustained the demurrer of relatrix to said answer, to which ruling the respondents objected and excepted and refused to plead further. The court rendered judgment against them, and mandated them to reinstate relatrix as a permanent teacher and that she recover costs. Respondents excepted to the judgment and appealed to this court.

Respondents agree that the complaint states a cause of action, but say that the answer states facts sufficient to avoid it. It is vitally material, in determining whether or not relatrix is a permanent teacher, to decide the status of the parties and the alleged contract for the school year of 1927-28. If her employment that year conformed to the requirements of the law, she became a permanent teacher under an indefinite contract, as defined by the Teachers Tenure Law, and there was no error in sustaining the demurrer to the answer.

Prior to 1899 there was no law in this state requiring written contracts to teach in the public schools of the state. The General Assembly (Acts 1899, p. 173, being section 28-4302, Burns' 1933, Baldwin 1934, § 5995) enacted a law providing that all contracts between teachers and school corporations of the state 'shall be in writing, signed by the parties to be charged thereby, and no action shall be brought upon any contract not made in conformity to the provisions of this act.' The act required the trustees of the school corporation to provide a public record of uniform blank contracts carefully prepared and worded by the superintendent of public instruction and cause the contracts to be signed in said public record. This statute was upheld in Taylor v. School Town of Petersburg (1904) 33 Ind.App. 675, 72 N.E. 159, 161. The contract therein involved was construed and held not to meet the requirements of the statute.

The General Assembly of 1921 (Acts 1921, c. 91, p. 195, being sections 28-4304, 28-4305, and 28-4306, Burns' 1933 Baldwin 1934, §§ 5990, 5991, 5992) enacted a law prescribing further terms and conditions to be contained in a teacher's written contract. It provided that it shall state the date of the beginning of the...