Leete v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 14 June 1910
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LEETE v. ANDERSON.

76 A. 466

83 Conn. 227

LEETE

v. ANDERSON.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 14, 1910.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.

Action by William S. Leete against Philip Anderson, claiming a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant and the teachers employed by him from interfering with the teachers employed by the plaintiff, or disturbing them in the performance of their duties and a permanent injunction to the same effect The parties were at issue as on file. The court found the issue for the defendant, and rendered judgment for the defendant to recover his costs, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The plaintiff was duly elected a committeeman of the Leete's Island school district for the term of one year, beginning July 15, 1908. On June 22, 1909, at a district meeting of said district, the defendant, Anderson, was duly elected a district committeeman for the term to begin July 15, 1909, and ending July 15. 1910, and on June 30, 1909, at another meeting held by this district, the plaintiff was authorized to appoint teachers for said district for the ensuing school year, and, pursuant to said vote, he hired the teachers. The defendant, Anderson, with full knowledge of this vote of authority to the plaintiff, also employed teachers for said district for the ensuing school year. The meeting, under authority of which the plaintiff acted, is, in effect, found to have been in all respects a legally warned meeting, except that a duplicate of the notice of said meeting was not, as required by the statute, left by the plaintiff with the clerk of the district or with the selectmen of the town at the time of posting such notice. The provision referred to is in section 2190 of the General Statutes of 1902, as amended by Pub. Acts 1907, p. 688, c. 128. It further appeared that, if the temporary injunction issued had not been served upon the defendant and upon the teachers employed by him, the defendant would have attempted to install the teachers hired by him, and that his conduct would have provoked disturbance and controversy at the schoolhouse. The court of common pleas held that the district meeting of June 30, 1909, was not legally warned because of the failure to leave a duplicate of the notice with the clerk of the district or with the selectmen, and consequently that the meeting was not legally assembled, and the vote of authority to the plaintiff to hire teachers for the coming year was invalid, and conferred no legal authority upon the plaintiff to act in the premises. Error.

Zacher & Ely, for plaintiff.

ROBINSON, J. (after stating the facts as above). The court below held that the particular provision of the statute which the plaintiff failed to comply with was mandatory. In other words, that such compliance was essential to the validity of the warning of the meeting and the legality of the meeting itself, and to the vote of authority to the plaintiff. If this provision of the statute were...