Hart v. Britton

• Decision Date: 02 June 1917
• Docket Number: (No. 7876.)
• Citation: 197 S.W. 592
• Parties: HART et al. v. BRITTON.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

197 S.W. 592

HART et al. v. BRITTON.

(No. 7876.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

June 2, 1917.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1917.

Retaxation of Costs Denied October 6, 1917.

Appeal from District Court, Wood County; R. M. Smith, Judge.

Suit by R. C. Britton against L. B. Hart and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Case dismissed.

Campbell & Mansell, of Alba, for appellants. Jones & Jones, of Mineola, for appellee.

RASBURY, J.

Appellee, R. C. Britton, sued appellants, L. B. Hart and the trustees of Bellefont school district, of Wood county, to determine whether appellee, Britton, or appellant Hart was entitled to teach the public school in said district. There was a trial before the court, resulting in judgment in favor of appellee, from which this appeal is prosecuted. Upon demand of appellants the court filed conclusions of fact, the sufficiency of the testimony to sustain which is not challenged, those facts essential to a disposition of the appeal being in substance the following:

On April 26, 1916, the trustees of Bellefont common school district in writing employed appellee at a monthly salary of $75 to teach said school for a term of six consecutive months, commencing October 9, 1916, unless otherwise agreed between appellee and said trustees. August 3, 1916, the trustees rescinded their action and canceled the contract with appellee, because of appellee's "record at Quitman," and of objections by the patrons, notifying appellee of their action the following day. August 5, 1916, appellee notified the county superintendent of public instruction of the action of the trustees and of his desire to appeal therefrom. The county superintendent informed appellee that he would hear said matter on appeal, after first attempting to adjust the matter by securing an exchange of schools for appellee. The county superintendent was unable to effect the suggested exchange, and on September 2, 1916, in response to prior notice from the county superintendent, the school trustees assembled at the former's office for the purpose of "investigating the validity" of appellee's contract with the trustees. There was a hearing, at which all interested were afforded ample opportunity to be heard on the question, and at which time it was shown that the trustees had discharged appellee because of immoral conduct, and because appellee had pleaded guilty to a charge of slander in the county court of Wood county. At the conclusion of the hearing the county superintendent ruled that appellee's contract was in force and effect. The county superintendent also advised the trustees that his action was final, unless revised on appeal to the county board of education, and that he would, if the trustees wished, convene that board. Action was deferred at request of the trustees for a few days, at which time one of the trustees advised the county superintendent not to convene the board. On September 5, 1916, the trustees employed appellant Hart to teach Bellefont school. The county superintendent refused to approve the contract. When the school convened on October 2, 1916, appellee appeared and tendered his services as teacher, which were declined, and the trustees placed said Hart in charge of the school, notwithstanding appellee protested, and declared his willingness to teach same. On October 3, 1916, on application of appellee, the district judge in chambers, on ex parte hearing, enjoined appellant Hart from teaching said school, and enjoined the trustees from interfering with appellee in teaching said school. On November 7, 1916, the injunction on full hearing was dissolved on conditions now unimportant. On November 14, 1916, there was a trial of the case, at...