Downs v. Board of Education of Dist. of Hoboken

• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Per Curiam.
• Citation: Downs v. Board of Education of Dist. of Hoboken, 13 N.J.Misc. 853, 181 A. 688 (N.J. 1935)
• Decision Date: 05 December 1935
• Docket Number: 234
• Parties: ANGELINA KOCH DOWNS ET AL., RELATORS, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DISTRICT OF HOBOKEN, RESPONDENT

181 A. 688

DOWNS et al.

v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOBOKEN DIST.

No. 234.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 5, 1935.

Mandamus proceeding by Angelina Koch Downs and others against the Board of Education of the District of Hoboken. On rule to show cause.

Writ granted.

Argued October term, 1935, before CASE and BODINE, JJ.

Arthur T. Vanderbilt, of Newark, for relators.

Horace L. Allen and Otmar J. Pellet, both of Hoboken, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The relators are teachers of Hoboken having tenure. Seven of their number were restored to their positions November 19, 1934, pursuant to litigation terminating in the decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals reported in 113 N.J.Law, 401, 174 A. 529. It appears that Hoboken had employed seven teachers not protected by tenure of office in the guise of economy in the place of teachers having tenure. The minutes show that the seven nontenure teachers discharged, to comply with the order of the court, were kept in their positions and formally re-employed December 1, 1934, as special substitute teachers. The relators now seek to have seven more of their number reinstated to take the place of the seven special substitute teachers so employed.

The Teachers' Tenure Act (4 Comp.St. 1910, p. 4763, § 106b; N.J.St. Annual 1935, §§ 185—106a, 185—106c) is not a gesture, but a provision of law to protect teachers in their positions by reason of years of service. While in the interest of economy reduction in number may be made, those having tenure should have a preference in reappointment where vacancies occur. It is immaterial...