Board of School Com'rs of Prince George's County v. Manning
Decision Date | 19 March 1914 |
Docket Number | 39. |
Citation | 90 A. 839,123 Md. 169 |
Parties | BOARD OF SCHOOL COM'S OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY et al. v. MANNING. [*] |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Prince George's County; Fillmore Beall, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Petition for mandamus by Roger I. Manning against the Board of School Commissioners of Prince George's County and others. Writ of mandamus issued, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, URNER STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.
James G. Boss, Jr., and Redmond C. Stewart, both of Baltimore, for appellants. Ogle Marbury, of Baltimore, and Edgar Allen Poe Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appeal is from an order of the circuit court for Prince George's county directing a mandamus to issue commanding the board of county school commissioners and the county superintendent of said county to reinstate the appellee as principal of the Laurel High School, and commanding Kirtley J. Morris, one of the appellants, to surrender said office to the appellee.
The petition filed in the court below by the appellee alleges That he had been a duly qualified teacher of the public schools of Prince George's county for 30 years. That he held a life certificate from the state board of education (hereinafter referred to as the state board), and for the last 14 years has been principal of the Laurel High School, a county high school located in the town of Laurel in said county. That during the summer of 1912 certain citizens of Laurel, and certain other citizens of Laurel who had been named by the board of county school commissioners (hereinafter referred to as school commissioners) as a "local advisory board for the Laurel High School," filed with the school commissioners and the county superintendent a petition asking for an investigation of said school. That he filed an answer to said petition, and that the matter was set for a hearing on August 6, 1912, and after a hearing was disposed of by an order of the school commissioners to the effect that it did not appear, after a hearing, of which all parties concerned had due notice, "that a further investigation of the condition of the Laurel High School is feasible or necessary at this time." That, after said order was passed by the school commissioners, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties as principal of said school, and that on the 16th of June, 1913, he received from the superintendent a letter dated June 13, 1913, notifying him that the school commissioners had, on the 10th of June, 1913, passed an order as follows:
That the petitioner, relying upon the public school laws of the state and the decision of the state board, within 10 days after the receipt of the above notice, requested the school commissioners to furnish him a statement in writing of the reasons for his dismissal, and that on or about the 1st of July, 1913, the school commissioners, in compliance with his said request, sent his counsel the following letter:
The petition further alleges that the petitioner, within 10 days after the receipt of said letter, filed with the school commissioners an order to enter an appeal to the state board, and within the same time filed his petition with the state board, alleging that the reasons assigned by the school commissioners for his dismissal were insufficient and untrue, and praying for an opportunity to present his case and evidence in support thereof to the state board; that, immediately after furnishing the written statement of the reasons for his dismissal, the school commissioners, "without considering his right to appeal to the state board, passed certain orders declaring the principalship of Laurel High School vacant, and attempting to appoint Kirtley J. Morris, defendant herein, principal of said high school;" that on or about the 27th day of August, 1913, the state board, "at a duly called and organized meeting in Annapolis, Md., took up, at a public hearing, the matter of the above-mentioned appeal of your petitioner, and after giving the same full and due consideration, and after hearing considerable evidence presented by both sides, your petitioner and the said commissioners being present in person and by counsel," sustained the petitioner's appeal, and held the action of the school commissioners in dismissing the petitioner to be void in the following order:
"The petition of Roger I. Manning is hereby sustained; the board holding that the four reasons contained in a letter dated July 1, 1913, to Ogle Marbury, Esq., counsel for the said Manning, *** are insufficient in law, except No. 3; the board holding that the proof submitted does not sustain the charge set out in said reason No. 3."
The petition then alleges: That, notwithstanding the passage of said order of the state board, the school commissioners refused and still refuse to recognize the petitioner as the principal of said high school, and continue to recognize the said Kirtley J. Morris as principal of said school. That on the 9th of September, 1913, the school commissioners petitioned the state board to reopen said case, and at a meeting of the state board on the 24th of September, 1914, the state board heard said petition, at which hearing the petitioner and the school commissioners were represented by counsel, and passed the following order, refusing to reopen the case:
"Whereas, no reasons for a reopening of the case have been submitted to this board justifying such reopening, the petition therefor is hereby refused."
That, notwithstanding said orders of the state board, the school commissioners, the superintendent, and the said Kirtley J. Morris refuse to recognize the petitioner as principal of said school, and refuse to permit him to perform the duties of principal thereof, or to enter the school building, and that the said Morris is now in possession of said office.
The answer of the school commissioners, the superintendent, and Kirtley J. Morris admits all the material facts alleged in the petition; but they deny that the order passed by the school commissioners on the 6th of August, 1912 "completely exonerated the petitioner of the charges made against him," and alleges that, notwithstanding the school commissioners permitted the petitioner to continue to discharge the duties of principal of said school, they were satisfied from the evidence produced at said hearing that the petitioner should not be allowed to continue as principal of said school, and that the school commissioners instructed the superintendent to inform the petitioner that, while he would be permitted to act as principal during that year, his resignation would be expected at the end of that year, that the superintendent did so notify the petitioner some months before the expiration of the year, and that, as the resignation of the petitioner was not sent to the school commissioners, they passed the order referred to notifying him of his removal. The answer further alleges that the place of the hearing by the state board was changed, and that they did not get notice, of such change in time to secure the attendance of all of their witnesses; that at said hearing their counsel earnestly urged that the state board had no jurisdiction to interfere with the school commissioners in the exercise of their discretion in dismissing the petitioner; that, after the order of the state board sustaining the appeal of the petitioner, they, the defendants, petitioned the state board to reopen the...
To continue reading
Request your trial