McDonnell v. City of New Haven
| Decision Date | 27 July 1923 |
| Citation | 99 Conn. 484,121 A. 824 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | MCDONNELL v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN ET AL. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Ernest C Simpson, Judge.
Action by Bernard J. McDonnell, a principal of a public school against the city of New Haven, and the New Haven City School District, to recover salary, brought to the court of common pleas in New Haven County. The New Haven City School District made default of appearance. The City of New Haven filed a demurrer to the complaint which was sustained. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a motion for a judgment against the school district accompanied by an affidavit of indebtedness. This motion the court denied, and rendered judgment in favor of the city. Plaintiff appealed. No error in judgment rendered for city. Error in denying plaintiff's motion. Case remanded, with directions.
Charles E. Clark, of New Haven, for appellant.
William L. Bennett and Thomas R. Robinson, both of New Haven, for appellee City of New Haven.
The plaintiff claims that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer of the city, and in denying his motion for judgment against the school district.
The demurrer of the city is based fundamentally on the claim that under the charter the city is not liable for contracts alleged to have been made by or in behalf of the defendant district and the city by the board of education.
The motion for a judgment against the defendant district was denied upon two grounds:
(1) That the defendant district has ceased to function.
(2) That it is not alleged that an appropriation has been made to pay the plaintiff's demand.
It thus appears that we are confronted with the necessity of considering the situation created by the charter in reference to the obligations of the defendant district and the city, if any, in regard to school affairs in the territory of the district.
The present charter of the city of New Haven was enacted in 1897 and revised and amended in 1899. It contains provisions relating to the defendant school district, the effects of which are in controversy. The city claims that the charter abolished the defendant school district as a corporation functioning in the administration of school affairs in the territory of the district, and provided for the control and management of school affairs in that territory by the city.
The plaintiff claims that under the charter the defendant district continues to exist and function in the management of school affairs in the district and is liable for lawful expenditures in such affairs, and that the charter makes the city also liable for such expenditures.
The terms of the charter disclose that in 1897 there were within the limits of the city, and embracing its entire territory three school districts each functioning independently and having the control and management of school affairs in their respective districts. They were the New Haven City, the Westville City, and the South School districts. The two latter districts were specifically excepted from the provisions of the charter, but authorized to become annexed to the New Haven City school district, if they desired, by following certain procedure specified in the charter (section 116 of Charter). The terms of the charter also disclose that in enacting the charter the State was dealing with the school affairs of the major portion of the city, and that in 1897 a consolidation of districts and city management of the schools and school affairs of the whole city were not immediately contemplated. The problem for the state was how to meet this situation for the best interests of educational matters in the city. The two minor and outlying school districts were left in independent control of their school affairs.
The state had the power to provide in any way that it chose for the selection of the administrators of the school affairs in any district, town, or city. State ex rel. v. Huntington, 82 Conn. 566, 74 A. 882; State ex rel. v. Hine, 59 Conn. 58, 21 A. 1024, 10 L.R.A. 83.
the charter must be construed in the light of the situation as to school affairs in the city and defendant district in so far as it is disclosed by the complaint and the terms of the charter. From the situation as so disclosed, and from the terms of various provisions of the charter to some of which we shall later specifically refer, we are of the opinion that the state in enacting this charter did not abolish the defendant district, but left it in operation in the management of the schools and school affairs of the district, and provided and selected for such management administrative officials, by what was in legal effect attaching to certain boards and officers of the city ex officio duties in relation to the district.
The state thus provided a continuous body of officials for the district and imposed on the city the responsibility for the character and quality of its administrators by the method of their selection, and also gave the city an indirect oversight over and full knowledge of the educational and financial affairs of the district, besides an obvious ultimate control of the district's general educational and financial policy.
The State had full power to so provide administrators for the school affairs of the district.
In State ex rel. v. Hine, 59 Conn. 50, 21 A. 1024, 10 L.R.A. 83, we upheld legislation making the " secretary of the state board of education" ex officio a member of the school committee in certain towns and districts. Therefore the selection of ex officio administrators of a school district from officials not necessarily living in or connected with the district is not anomalous, and does not raise a controlling inference that the state did not intend, by the provisions in this charter, to attach ex officio duties to certain boards and officials of the city.
The fact that section 104 of the charter provides that " After this act takes effect no meeting of the New Haven City school district shall be held for any purpose whatever" does not conclusively establish that such district ceased to exist when the charter was enacted. the charter had provided for all the requisite officials of the district and for the levying of taxes and the custody of the funds of the district.
Under the general law a school district had considerable authority over its school administrators. State ex rel. v. Huntington, etc., 82 Conn. 566, 74 A. 882; Gilman v. Bassett, 33 Conn. 298.
To prevent any possible conflicts arising between the new administrators of the school affairs of the district and the district itself, section 104 was admirably adapted.
Section 116 provides that the two outlying districts of the city, the Westville and the South, may become annexed to the New Haven City school district if they desire by following certain procedure specified in the charter. This provision clearly implies the continued existence of the defendant school district as a body corporate performing its statutory duties in the management and control of the schools and school affairs of the district. If the term " New Haven City school district," when used in the charter, is used merely as a convenient designation of the territory included in the district in 1897, as the city urges, why should the charter, while abolishing the district, provide elaborate steps for the two minor districts to become annexed to a defunct body?
There are numerous provisions in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial