Holcombe v. County Board of Education of Marion County
| Decision Date | 06 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 905-A. |
| Parties | HOLCOMBE v. COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MARION COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Arthur Fite, of Jasper, and Fred Fite, of Birmingham, and Kelly Fite, Ernest Fite, and Rankin Fite, all of Hamilton, for appellant.
Curtis & Maddox, of Jasper, for appellees.
Complainant was employed as a teacher in the public schools of Marion County, Alabama, for the scholastic year 1939-40, and filed this bill seeking specific performance of his employment contract for the scholastic year 1940-41, a remedy specifically provided in what is known as the Teachers Tenure Act. Gen.Acts, Regular & Special Session 1939, p. 759. Title 52, §§ 351- 361, inclusive, Code 1940. Board of Education v. Baugh, 240 Ala. 391, 199 So. 822.
Upon consideration of the cause for final decree, on pleadings and proof the chancellor denied relief and dismissed the bill. From the decree rendered complainant prosecutes this appeal.
Omitting unessential details of proof, the following facts, which we here consider of controlling importance, are so clearly established as to call for no discussion:
First the four members of the County Board of Education present at the regular meeting of the Board on March, 22, 1940, and considering the matter of re-employment of teachers for another year, signed at said meeting an order or direction for notice to be given those teachers who were not to be re-employed, giving the name and address of each complainant's name being among them. Omitting these names as immaterial, the order thus signed reads as follows:
The testimony of Burleson, the principal of the school in which Holcombe had been employed, shows that he delivered to Holcombe in person the following notice which had been sent him for that purpose.
This was in March, 1940, and the next day after its receipt by Burleson, and of course within the time required by the above noted statute.
In this order, it is to be observed, the members of the Board had directed the County Superintendent to write each of these teachers "in his own name" concerning contemplated vacancies and that their names would be considered when these vacancies are filled. Complying therewith the Superintendent wrote Holcombe a letter dated March 28, 1940, receipt of which he acknowledged. This letter is as follows:
As Holcombe had received the previous notice that he was not re-employed under his former contract, we are unable to see wherein this letter has any material bearing on the case. It was merely intended to inform him of the possibility of employment in some position to fill an expected vacancy, and nothing more.
It therefore, appears as clearly established that the Board in regular session, at which the question of re-employment of teachers was discussed and determined, directed in writing that the secretary give written notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baugh v. Board of Education of Marshall County
... ... 8 Div. 218.Supreme Court of AlabamaJune 5, 1943 ... Rehearing ... Denied June 30, 1943 ... [14 So.2d 509] ... Marion ... F. Lusk, of Guntersville, and Richard T. Rives, of ... Montgomery, for appellants ... [244 ... Ala. 523] Oliver D. Street, of ... a consideration of the main issue ... While ... the questions of fact were being tried the case of ... Holcombe v. County Board of Education of Marion ... County, 242 Ala. 20, 22, 4 So.2d 503, was on appeal. The ... decision rendered held that a written order ... ...
-
State ex rel. Steele v. Board of Ed. of Fairfield
... ... 254 STATE ex rel. STEELE v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FAIRFIELD et al. 6 Div. 732.Supreme Court of ... filed in the county where said school system is located. No ... action at law ... consideration to the case of Holcombe v. County Board of ... Education of Marion County et al., ... ...
-
Johnson v. Selma Bd. of Educ.
...appellee insists that Yelder's letter represented substantial compliance with the statute, citing Holcombe v. County Board of Education of Marion County, 242 Ala. 20, 4 So.2d 503 (1941) for that proposition. The Holcombe case held that the board of education's written order not reviewing a ......
-
Bd. of Sch. Commissioners of Mobile County v. Glenn
...... should be construed in such manner as to give effect to the manifest intention of the members.” Holcombe v. County Bd. of Educ. of Marion County, 242 Ala. 20, 23, 4 So.2d 503, 506 (1941). Nonetheless, that the Board elected (although erroneously) to treat the RIF as it applied to the te......