Hopkins v. Inhabitants of Bucksport
Decision Date | 18 December 1920 |
Citation | 111 A. 734 |
Parties | HOPKINS v. INHABITANTS OF BUCKSPORT. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Hancock County, at Law.
Action by Lucinia Heath Hopkins against Inhabitants of Bucksport. Case reported. Judgment for plaintiff.
Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, PHILBROOK, MORRILL, and WILSON, JJ.
Fellows & Fellows, of Bangor, for plaintiff.
W. C. Conary, of Bucksport, for defendant.
It appears in this case that the plaintiff, a teacher of 17 years experience, was duly employed to teach the West Side intermediate school in the defendant town for the year beginning in September, 1918, and that before the school opened in September she was dismissed by the superintending school committee. That she had the necessary certificate for teaching and was qualified to teach is admitted. In justification of the action of the committee, the defendant relies upon R. S. c. 16, § 38, par. 3, which reads as follows:
The certificate given by the committee to the plaintiff, a copy of which they retained, is as follows:
Counsel for the defendant contends that the "committee had judicial authority given them by the Legislature," and that their proceedings constituted "a judicial deliberation and decision of that committee," which is binding upon the plaintiff.
We think that the defense cannot be sustained. We have not been furnished with the record of the proceedings before the committee, except the certificate above copied. It appears from the testimony of the plaintiff, who was the only witness at the trial below, that in the summer of 1918 she purchased an automobile to enable her to teach in Bucksport, and to return to her home in Verona each night on account of her mother's illness. Her husband secured the services of one Margraf to teach her to run the automobile, and in company with him she drove to Bucksport several times and about Verona. Margraf was a German alien, a near neighbor of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. Superintending School Committee, City of Portland
...the requisite certificate, who proves unfit to teach or whose service they deem unprofitable to the school; . . ..' In Hopkins v. Bucksport, 119 Me. 437, 111 A. 734 (1920), this Court had occasion to discuss the meaning of the above-quoted words in the statute. The Hopkins Court began its d......
-
Churchill v. S. A. D. No. 49 Teachers Ass'n
...Such interpretation was in accord with our strict construction rule as applied to educational legislation. See Hopkins v. Bucksport, 1920, 119 Me. 437, 440, 111 A. 734; Searsmont v. Farwell, 1825, 3 Me. We concluded in Superintending School Committee of the Town of Winslow, supra, that, wit......
-
Mottram v. State
...was neither present nor represented by counsel. Thus, our Court in Benson, as it had previously adjudicated in Hopkins v. Inhabitants of Bucksport, 1920, 119 Me. 437, 111 A. 734, construed the legislative terminology of due notice and investigation in teacher dismissals to mean a quasi judi......
-
Lyons v. Board of Directors of School Administrative Dist. No. 43
...Comm., 385 A.2d 53 (Me.1978); Wright v. Superintending School Comm., City of Portland, 331 A.2d 640 (Me.1975); Hopkins v. Inhabitants of Bucksport, 119 Me. 437, 111 A. 734 (1920); Andrews v. King, 77 Me. 224 (1885). Nor has the plaintiff claimed that a constitutional right restricted the Bo......