Coleman v. District of Columbia

• Decision Date: 03 April 1922
• Docket Number: 3696.
• Citation: 279 F. 990
• Parties: COLEMAN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

279 F. 990

COLEMAN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 3696.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

April 3, 1922

Submitted March 8, 1922.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

W. C Clephane, J. W. Latimer, and G. L. Hall, all of Washington D.C., for appellant.

F. H Stephens and George P. Borse, both of Washington, D.C., for the District of Columbia.

SMYTH Chief Justice.

Grace Coleman filed her declaration against the District of Columbia, in which she averred that the District had breached a contract with her as a teacher in one of the public schools, and she asked for damages. The District denied that it made the contract.

On September 14, 1920, Miss Coleman was advised by the assistant superintendent of schools that he had recommended her for a probationary appointment to a high school teachership, subject to a special examination by the health department of the District to determine physical fitness. On the next day, the board of education, acting on the recommendation, appointed the plaintiff to a probationary teachership in class 6-A, subject to the condition just mentioned. On the 17th of the same month the secretary of the board notified her of her appointment, and that she should appear and take the oath of office, but made no mention of the physical examination. Miss Coleman submitted herself to the examination. The school medical inspectors found that she was suffering from curvature of the spine, with resulting deformity of the chest, and other infirmities, but said that in their judgment she was capable of performing the duties of a probationary teacher, but not those of a permanent teacher. This report was laid before the health officer, who said that in his opinion Miss Coleman was not qualified to perform the duties of a teacher, because she would not be 'able to stand the physical strain to which teachers are frequently subjected. ' He added that, if she was appointed, she would be entitled to share in the benefits of the Teacher's Retirement Act, which, he thought, in view of her physical condition, would be unfair to the District. In consequence the superintendent of schools, on September 21, same year, issued an order rescinding Miss Coleman's appointment as a probationary teacher, and on October 6 following the board of education ratified the superintendent's action. From a judgment against her, Miss Coleman brings the case here for review.

The board of education is not estopped by the secretary's letter to deny that she was appointed without condition. Before receiving the letter, she had been advised by the assistant superintendent of schools that her selection was upon the condition that she pass a satisfactory physical examination. This at least put her upon inquiry, when she received the secretary's letter, as to whether or not her appointment was subject to the condition named. That she understood the appointment was conditional is established by the fact that she submitted to the examination.

Besides, no representation of the secretary could effectuate her appointment. He had no authority to employ teachers. That authority was vested solely in the board of education by section 2 of the Act of June 20, 1906 (34 Stat. 316), which says:

'That the control of the public schools of the District of Columbia is hereby vested in a board of education. * * * No appointment * * * of any * * * teacher * * * shall be made by the board of education, except upon the written recommendation of the superintendent of schools. The board shall determine all questions of general policy relating to the schools. * * * The board shall appoint all teachers in the manner hereinafter prescribed.'

This power of appointment requires an exercise of judgment, and could not be delegated to the secretary or anybody else. The maxim 'delegate potestas non potest delegari' applies. Taggart v. School District No. 1, 96 Or 422, 430, 188 P. 908, 1119; Birdsall v. Clark et al., 73 N.Y. 73, 29 Am.Rep. 105, and cases cited in note; Franklin Bridge Co. v. Young Wood, 14 Ga. 80. Miss Coleman was charged with knowledge of this. 'Parties dealing with a...