People ex rel. Steinson v. Bd. of Educ. of New York
| Decision Date | 24 January 1899 |
| Citation | 158 N.Y. 125,52 N.E. 722 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. STEINSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, First department.
Mandamus by the people, on the relation of George Steinson, against the board of education of the city of New York. From a judgment of the appellate division (46 N. Y. Supp. 782) affirming an order of the special term denying the writ, relator appeals. Affirmed.
Tompkins McIlvaine, for appellant.
Theodore Connoly, for respondent.
The relator applied to the special term for a peremptory writ of mandamus, commanding the respondent to reinstate him in his position as teacher in the public schools in the city of New York. The application was denied, and the order thereupon entered was affirmed at the appellate division.
It appears that in 1886 the relator received a certificate from the state superintendent of public instruction authorizing him to teach in any public school within this state. Subsequently there was issued to him by the city superintendent of schools in the city of New York a provisional license to teach in the public schools of that city for a period of six months, and thereafter he was appointed to be an assistant teacher in one of the grammar schools of the city. Renewals of the license were granted to him from time to time for periods of six months, until March, 1890, at which time a further renewal was refused. An appeal being taken by the relator to the state superintendent of public instruction, he obtained a decision from that officer declaring the action of the city superintendent, in refusing a renewal, to be unlawful. Thereupon, and in January, 1891, he applied for a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the defendant to pay to him the amount of his salary. The application was denied, and the denial was affirmed at the general term (15 N. Y. Supp. 308); the latter court pointing out in its opinion that mandamus was not the proper remedy, as the relator had an adequate remedy at law to recover his salary, if legally entitled to it. This latter decision was made in June, 1891. An appeal was taken to the court of appeals, but the same was not brought on for hearing until 1896, when the order appealed from was affirmed upon the opinion of the general term. 43 N. E. 989. A few months later the present proceeding was begun to secure the relator's reinstatement in his former position of teacher.
Upon these facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Rodgers v. Coler
...of discretion, and, having granted it, the action of the court in that respect is not reviewable here. People v. Board of Education of City of New York, 158 N. Y. 125, 52 N. E. 722; Same v. Van Wyck, 157 N. Y. 495, 52 N. E. 559. The court below had power to grant the writ, and, having the p......
-
State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes
... ... Brooklyn, 126 N.Y. 643; ... State v. Finley, 74 Mo.App. 213; People v ... Seneca Common Pleas, 2 Wend. 264; People v. Board of ... ...
-
People ex rel. Staples v. Sohmer
...properly denied for the laches of the relators. People ex rel. Millard v . Chapin, 104 N. Y. 96, 10 N. E. 141;People ex rel. Steinson v. Bd. Education, 158 N. Y. 125, 52 N. E. 722. Fifteen years elapsed between the statute of 1896, which authorized an application to the comptroller, and the......
-
Gunnison v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York
...including the obligation to pay the wages of teachers. Steinson v. Board of Education of N. Y., 165 N. Y. 431, 59 N. E. 300;Id., 158 N. Y. 125, 52 N. E. 722;Coulter v. Bd. of Education of N. Y., 63 N. Y. 365;O'Leary v. Bd. of Education of N. Y., 93 N. Y. 1, 45 Am. Rep. 156;Gildersleeve v. B......