County Bd. of Educ. for Wash. County v. Cearfoss
Decision Date | 21 June 1933 |
Docket Number | Nos. 29-31.,s. 29-31. |
Citation | 166 A. 732 |
Parties | COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY v. CEARFOSS. SAME v. JONES. SAME v. HINO. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; Frank G. Wagaman, Judge.
Separate suits by Grace A. Cearfoss, by Valeria Jones, and by Julia A. Hino, against the County Board of Education for Washington County. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in each case, the defendant appeals.
Judgments affirmed.
Argued before BOND, C. J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
Joseph D. Mish and Robert H. McCauley, both of Hagerstown, for appellant.
John E. Wagaman and E. Stuart Bushong, both of Hagerstown, for appellees.
In the three cases, argued together, which are now to be determined, a highly important question is presented. It concerns the contractual rights of the appellees as teachers, and the authority of the administrative boards and officials as affecting such rights, under the laws of Maryland relating to public education.
The question is raised in each of the cases by demurrer to the declaration, which, in the first case, alleges, in effect, that the plaintiff was the holder, since July 1, 1921, of an elementary school teacher's certificate of the second grade, issued by the state superintendent of schools, and that on the date mentioned she entered into the employ of the defendant county board of education of Washington county for an undetermined number of years, at a salary of $1,050 per annum, under a contract which stipulated that the plaintiff was to be employed to teach in the public schools of the county, "subject to assignment by the County Superintendent or transfer to some other teaching position within the County, provided that if the transfer be made during the school year or after the opening of school for any year, the salary shall not be reduced for the remainder of the year," the salary to be fixed by the county board of education and to be not less than the minimum salary specified by law. The alleged contract contained further provisions as follows:
After reciting the contract which we have quoted, the declaration proceeds:
The contract set forth in the declaration specifically refers to sections 83 and 86 of article 77 of the Code. The first of those sections relates to the issuance of certificates for teaching and for other service under the educational system. Section 86 provides as follows:
By section 11 of article 77 of the Code, it is provided:
One of the by-laws adopted by the state board of education prescribes the form of contract which has been quoted, with an additional provision, not alleged in two of the declarations, that the contracting teacher should be a member of the Maryland Teachers' Retirement System. It appears from the record in all of the cases that the plaintiffs became members of the retirement system during the periods of teaching service to which the declarations respectively refer.
The averments in the three declarations are substantially similar except for differences in description of the certificates held by the plaintiffs, the periods of their service, the amounts of their salaries, and as to the provision for membership in the retirement system, which one of the contracts included.
In support of the demurrers it is argued that the cause of action asserted in each of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Md.
...(if requested), pursuant to the provisions of secs. 64 and 102. This view is supported by County Board of Education for Washington County v. Cearfoss, 165 Md. 178, 187, 166 A. 732 (1933). The standard teachers' contract, which permits termination without cause at the end of the first and se......
-
Spacesaver Sys., Inc. v. Adam
...is not an appointment at will, but is, on the contrary, for a definite term[.]” Id. at 239, 53 A. 923. In County Board of Education v. Cearfoss, 165 Md. 178, 166 A. 732 (1933), a teacher entered into a contract with the Board of Education of Washington County “for an undetermined number of ......
-
Monarch Acad. Balt. Campus, Inc. v. Balt. City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs
...Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners v. Koba Institute, Inc. , 194 Md. App. 400, 5 A.3d 60 (2010) and County Board of Education v. Cearfoss , 165 Md. 178, 166 A. 732 (1933) in support of their position. Charter School Operators argue that the present matter does not need to be refer......
-
Board of Community College Trustees for Baltimore County-Essex Community College v. Adams
...difficulties? The parties have not directed us to any Maryland cases directly on point. We have found only one, County Bd. of Educ. v. Cearfoss, 165 Md. 178, 166 A. 732 (1933), that suggests, in well reasoned dicta, that the answer is yes. We shall address Cearfoss later. Our review of the ......