Jeffers v. Stanley
| Decision Date | 06 November 1972 |
| Citation | 486 S.W.2d 737 |
| Parties | Segal JEFFERS, Chairman, et al., Appellant, v. Carmel STANLEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Clifton Sexton, Scott County Atty., Oneida, for appellants.
Charles B. Sexton, Sexton, Sexton & Beaty, Oneida, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the Scott County Board of Education from the action of the Chancellor in modifying, upon a bill of review, a decree previously entered against the Board and in favor of the appellee, Carmel Stanley. For the purposes of this appeal, the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the court below, Carmel Stanley as plaintiff, and the Scott County Board of Education as defendant.
Plaintiff filed his original bill on November 7, 1964, alleging that the defendant had contracted to employ him as a teacher of the seventh grade in the Burchfield Elementary School in Oneida at a salary of $4,600.00; that on October 8, 1964, notwithstanding the terms of that contract the defendant undertook to transfer him to another school; and that in so doing the defendant arbitrarily and capriciously breached its contract, causing plaintiff to suffer damages of $3,833.34, a sum equal to the remainder of his yearly salary under the contract.
The defendant School Board filed an answer on July 8, 1965, admitting the contract and its attempt to transfer the plaintiff, but denying any liability for breach of contract.
On June 19, 1970, the Chancery Court entered the following decree:
'This cause came on to be held on the _ _ of _ _ upon the bill of the complainant, the answer of defendants, testimony of witnesses in open court, and upon the entire record and the Court finds the following:
'1. That the complainant, Carmel D. Stanley, is entitled to one month's salary that the court makes no ruling as to whether or not he would be entitled to further compensation in view of the fact that his suit was filed before the completion of the school year for which he was hired.
'2. That the costs be assessed equally between complainant and defendant.
'IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the complainant have and recover of the defendant an amount equal to his monthly salary based on his contract of $4,600.00 per year.
'IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the complainant is not entitled to additional compensation upon the bill now before the Court.
'IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the cost of this cause be assessed equally between the complainant and defendant.
'Enter this 19 day of June, 1970.
/s/ A. G. SCHUMATE,
Chancellor'
On January 6, 1971, plaintiff filed the bill of review now before the Court, reciting the above matters and contending that the damages awarded him by the decree of June 19, 1970, were legally insufficient because under the law and the pleadings of the case the damages awarded should have been the full amount of unpaid yearly salary under the contract.
After the defendant's answer, and arguments of counsel before the court, the Chancellor held the previous decree to be 'erroneous on its face as a matter of law, in that the court did not apply the correct rule of law pertaining to damages for a breach of contract.' He gave judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $3,833.34, less all sums paid the plaintiff since the original decree, and granted the defendant leave to appeal.
The principal question before the Court, raised by the defendant's first two assignments of error, is whether there is in the record of the original case a proper basis for relief by way of bill of review for errors of law apparent on the face of the record. In order for such a bill to lie there must be errors of law patent on the face of the pleadings and decree; that is, the facts must be taken to be as shown by the pleadings and decree, and it must appear that the court erred in its application of the law to those facts. Verdanatti v. Sexton, 2 Tenn.Chan. 699 (1877); Orrick v. Orrick, 200 Tenn. 696, 296 S.W.2d 825 (1956); Todd v. Daugh, 197 Tenn. 306, 273 S.W.2d 2 (1954). If 'the pleadings and decree do not contain a statement of the material facts on which the decree proceeds, it is plain that there can be no relief byu a bill a review.' Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 1296 (5th Ed.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Locey By and Through Locey v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 17000
...St.3d 360, 513 N.E.2d 1324 (1987); Parsons v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 335 Pa.Super. 394, 484 A.2d 192 (1984); Jeffers v. Stanley, 486 S.W.2d 737 (Tenn.1972); Kay v. Kay, 30 Utah 2d 94, 513 P.2d 1372 (1973) (overruled as to liability-related household exclusion, Farmers Ins. Exchange......
-
Hampton v. Macon Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...during the unexpired contract term. See State ex rel. Chapdelaine v. Torrence, 532 S.W.2d 542, 550 (Tenn.1975); Jeffers v. Stanley, 486 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tenn. 1972); Akers v. J.B. Sedberry, Inc., 39 Tenn. App. 633, 286 S.W.2d, 617, 622 (1955); Godson v. MacFadden, 162 Tenn. 528, 39 S.W.2d 2......
- Hill v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
-
Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, M2005-00938-SC-R11-CV.
...pay." Chapdelaine, 532 S.W.2d at 550; see also Wagner v. Elizabethton City Bd. of Educ., 496 S.W.2d 468 (Tenn.1973); Jeffers v. Stanley, 486 S.W.2d 737 (Tenn. 1972). While the State relied upon the defense of sovereign immunity in Chapdelaine, this Court awarded back pay, observing that the......