Putnam v. City of St. Paul
| Decision Date | 02 February 1899 |
| Docket Number | 11,449 - (243) |
| Citation | 78 N.W. 90,75 Minn. 514 |
| Parties | CATHERINE E. PUTNAM v. CITY OF ST. PAUL |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Ramsey county in favor of defendant, entered pursuant to the order of Kelly, J. Affirmed.
City of St. Paul -- Annual Expenditure for Schools -- Sp. Laws 1891 c. 36 -- Title of Act.
The provisions in Sp. Laws 1891, c. 36, which take away from the governing body of the independent school district of the city of St. Paul the right to determine the amount of its annual expenditures, and vest that power in the city council, are not invalid upon the ground that the subject of the legislative act was not expressed in its title, as required by Const. art. 4, § 27.
City of St. Paul -- Powers of Board of School Inspectors.
Under the provisions of said chapter, the board of school inspectors have no power or authority to create any indebtedness against the city, or to pledge its faith or credit, for the ensuing school year, until the annual appropriation is made by the council. All persons dealing with the board are bound by these restrictive provisions including teachers appointed by the board.
City of St. Paul -- Annual Appropriation for Salaries of Teachers.
Such part of the amount annually appropriated and set apart by the council for the compensation of teachers is so appropriated and set apart for the entire teaching force, and not for a part. If, at or prior to the end of the school year, the amount appropriated is found to be insufficient to pay full salaries to teachers, it is the duty, and it is within the power, of the board to discharge teachers, and thus curtail expenses.
City of St. Paul -- Payment of Salaries Monthly -- Deficiency.
The amount appropriated by the council, in 1894, for teachers' salaries, was believed by the board to be insufficient to pay full salaries for the entire year, and therefore it was resolved that all salaries should be paid monthly in full, and, if there should be a deficiency, each teacher should be paid pro rata for the last month. Of this resolution the teachers were notified before commencing work, at the opening of the schools, and they were also notified that such as were dissatisfied with this condition could decline to enter upon their duties. Those whose interests are in issue here commenced to teach, were paid in full and for each month up to June 1, taught through that month, and were then paid pro rata and equitably for that month, which payments were accepted; all of the amount appropriated by the council being thus distributed and paid. Held, that an action to recover the difference between what was paid and what would have been paid if the appropriation had been sufficient to meet all demands cannot be maintained by a teacher.
Stiles W. Burr, for appellant.
Upon the proposition that the provisions of Sp. Laws 1891, c. 36, which take away from the governing body of the school district the right to determine the amount of its expenditures and vest that power in the city council, are void under Const. art. 4, § 27, because as to them the title of the act is defective and misleading, counsel cited the following authorities: Simard v. Sullivan, 71 Minn. 517; State v. Sullivan, 72 Minn. 126; State ex rel. Bazille v. Sullivan, 73 Minn. 378; State ex rel. Wagener v. Sullivan, 73 Minn. 382; Palmer v. Bank of Zumbrota, 72 Minn. 266; State v. Oftedal, 72 Minn. 498; Winona & St. P.R. Co. v. Waldron, 11 Minn. 392 (515); State v. Kinsella, 14 Minn. 395 (524); Mississippi & R.R. Boom Co. v. Prince, 34 Minn. 79; Falkner v. Dorland, 54 N.J.L. 409; Town v. Fishkill, 22 Barb. 634; State v. Bankers, 23 Kan. 499; Adams v. San Angelo, 86 Tex. 485; Dorsey's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 192; In re Breene, 14 Colo. 401; Montgomery v. State, 88 Ala. 141; Witzmann v. Southern, 131 Mo. 612; State v. Board, 22 Nev. 399; Ryno v. State, 58 N.J.L. 238; People v. Allen, 42 N.Y. 404; Philadelphia v. Market, 161 Pa. St. 522; Percival v. Cowychee, 15 Wash. 480.
James E. Markham and Carl Taylor, for respondent.
Action by plaintiff, a teacher in the public schools of the city of St. Paul during the year preceding June 30, 1895, to recover for herself and for four other teachers whose claims have been assigned to her, alleged unpaid portions of their salaries. We are clearly of the opinion that plaintiff cannot recover, and that the conclusion of the trial court to that effect must be sustained.
The law which governs the board of inspectors of the school district in question, upon which board the detail of management is devolved, is somewhat novel. Sp. Laws 1891, c. 36. The city is created an independent district, and the duty and power of providing funds for the expenses incident to the maintenance of all city schools is placed in the hands of the city council. This is practically the limit of the authority conferred upon the council, but as to this it seems to have been made supreme. By section 6, it is expressly provided that the expense of such schools shall not in any year exceed the amount of money appropriated and set apart therefor by such council, and its right to appropriate and set apart money for school purposes is made to depend upon the amount which will be derived by an annual tax levy, not exceeding 2 1/2 mills on the dollar. And in the same section it is enacted that the board of inspectors shall have no power or authority to create any indebtedness against the city, or to pledge its faith or credit, until after the council shall have acted, and shall have fixed and set apart the amount to be expended in the school year, and then only to the extent of the amount so fixed and set apart. To impress this provision upon the members of the board, a violation of it is made a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail. If plaintiff's claim could be enforced she would, unwittingly perhaps, subject all members of the board who participated in the excessive expenditure to the unpleasant penalty above mentioned.
It is obvious that, under these provisions, it is the duty of the board to make its report to the mayor as early as June 1 in each year, and in this report to state facts which will indicate what amount of money is needed, in the opinion of the board, properly to equip and conduct the schools for the school year commencing September 1 following. The facts detailed inform the mayor and the members of the council why this amount is needed and how it is to be expended. The duty is then on the mayor to transmit this report, approved or disapproved, or with recommendations, to the council, which is to be convened for the purpose of acting upon the same within 10 days; that is, on or before June 10. The plan is to have the council act, determine and set apart the amount to be expended for school purposes as early as June 10. This is evident from the provision last above quoted, which makes it the duty of the inspectors, "as far as practicable," to appoint teachers not later than June 15, when read in connection with that part of section 6 which prohibits the board of inspectors from binding the city on any contract until after the amount to be expended has been set apart by ordinance, and of which all parties dealing with the board must take notice.
On June 15, 1894, the board appointed a large number of teachers, including all but one of those whose claims are in issue here, and that one seems to have been appointed August 28. The yearly salary of one of these persons was fixed by the board at $750. As to the others, the salaries were declared to be according to previously prepared schedules. The appointees were notified in writing of their selection and each accepted in the same manner, agreeing to report to the superintendent at a teachers' meeting to be held on September 4. A rule of the board, known to the appointees, also required all teachers to report at, and be present at, this meeting. The plaintiff and two of her assignors were at this meeting; the others were not. At the time of the appointments made June 15, the board had...
To continue reading
Request your trial