Doyle v. City of St. Paul
| Decision Date | 16 March 1939 |
| Citation | 284 N.W. 291,204 Minn. 558 |
| Parties | DOYLE v. CITY OF ST. PAUL et al.* |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Feb. 24, 1939.
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Gustavus Loevinger, Judge.
Action by Mary C. Doyle against the City of St. Paul and others to recover a balance of salary allegedly unpaid. From an adverse order, the plaintiff appeals, and from an adverse order the defendants appeal.
Order appealed from by plaintiff affirmed, and order appealed from by defendants reversed with directions to render judgment for defendants.
Syllabus by the Court.
The yearly salaries of the permanent teachers in the public schools of the city of St. Paul for the calendar year may not be fixed in such amounts as to exceed the budget item appropriated therefor under the provisions of the city's charter. All teaching in such schools must be under express contract fixed by ordinance as to salary; and no recovery can be had on the theory of quasi contract. By whatever method the yearly salary is fixed the charter provisions become a part of the agreement.
Oscar Hallam, Richard A. Golling, and Herbert E. Wolner, all of St. Paul, for plaintiff.
John W. McConneloug and H. J. Flynn, both of St. Paul, for defendants.
In this action by a teacher in the public schools of the city of St. Paul against the city, its mayor, councilmen and comptroller to recover a balance of salary claimed unpaid for the fiscal or calendar year of 1934, and also for a balance claimed unpaid for the year 1937, the trial court disallowed the $10.57 claimed for 1934, but awarded judgment for $188 for the amount claimed for 1937. Plaintiff appeals from the order refusing her a new trial as to the $10.57; and defendants appeal from the order denying their motion for amended findings or a new trial as to the amount awarded for 1937.
The facts were stipulated, or admitted by the pleadings except as to certain matters upon which testimony was adduced and not controverted materially. The city of St. Paul is governed by a home rule charter. The public schools are in a special school district coterminous with the city limits, and constitute a department of the city government. The mayor assigns one of the councilmen, designated as the commissioner of education, who is empowered to prepare in the form of an ordinance rules and regulations for conducting the schools, including salaries of employes, which ordinance so presented the city council may adopt. The mayor and the six councilmen form the city council. The city comptroller is elective and is the budget commissioner.
Plaintiff prior to 1929 had become a permanent teacher in the city schools in virtue of the teachers' tenure act (§§ 2935-1 to 2935-14, Mason Minn.St.1927). In 1929 the city council adopted an ordinance-No. 7034, referred to as the standing ordinance, fixing the salaries of teachers in the public schools of the city. It is graduated according to the years of teaching in the city schools, specifying a minimum for beginners and a maximum after a certain number of years of service. According to the schedule of this ordinance plaintiff's salary was $2,350 during each of the years in question. The city enters into no written contract with the teachers in respect to service or salary for the year. But in each of the years 1932 to 1935, inclusive, an ordinance amending ordinance No. 7034 was adopted reducing the salaries therein specified ten per cent for the next calendar year. The 1935 amending ordinance, reducing the salaries specified in ordinance No. 7034 ten per cent, also provided that ordinance No. 7034 should be in force for 1937. Whether it was lawful for the city council of 1935 to so ordain one year ahead of time need not be determined. When it appeared that there would not be enough money to pay the teachers' salaries in full for the year 1934, the city council and commissioner of education cut out one school day in the month of November, 1934, and deducted one day's pay therefor.
Plaintiff's appeal challenges the right of the commissioner of education to close the school for one day and deduct a proportional part of the salary, viz., $10.57. The testimony of the accountant in the department of education shows that it was apparent from the time the budget for 1934 was adopted that, with the 10 per cent cut in the salary schedule fixed by ordinance No. 7034, the budget did not cover the salaries so fixed. And the trial court concluded that since there was no service rendered on that one school day, when the schools were closed, there could be no recovery quasi contract, as held in respect to the claim for the year 1937. The trial court concluded that there was a valid enforceable contract as to salary until the budget item for salaries was exhausted. For reasons stated on defendants' appeal there can be no recovery for salary beyond what may be equitably apportioned to each teacher from the item budgeted as teachers' salaries for the calendar year.
The learned trial court predicated recovery of the $188 upon this finding of fact: ‘The plaintiff, and the teachers on whose behalf this action is brought, the members of the city council, the comptroller and many citizens of St. Paul had actual notice that the appropriations in the budget for the year 1937 fro teachers' salaries for that year was insufficient to pay in full the salaries provided for in ordinance No. 7034. All of them knew or were informed on or about and prior to November 26, 1937, that the salary item for teachers' salaries in the budget was exhausted prior to the first of December, 1937. On or about November 17, 1937, the city of St. Paul by a resolution adopted by the city council, and thereafter through the action of the commissioner of education, elected to keep the schools of said city in session as usual during the month of December, 1937. On and after November 26, 1937, the plaintiff and said other teachers were ...
To continue reading
Request your trial