School City of Brazil v. Rupp
| Decision Date | 03 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | 15672. |
| Parties | SCHOOL CITY OF BRAZIL v. RUPP. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Miller & Miller and Louis B. Ewbank, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Hottel Mote & Smith, of Indianapolis (Rawley & Stewart, of Brazil, of counsel), for appellee.
Appellee brought this action by a complaint in one paragraph against the appellant school city to recover damages for a breach of her contract as a "tenure teacher" in the school year of 1933 and 1934. To this complaint the appellant filed a general denial and a second paragraph alleging that the appellee's contract had been canceled by the appellant in conformity with the statute, to which appellee replied in general denial. Trial was had on these issues, and there was a finding for the appellee in the sum of $1,100 and costs and a judgment was entered accordingly.
The errors assigned are the overruling of the motion for new trial and the refusal of the court to permit an additional paragraph of answer to be filed during the trial. The grounds of the motion for new trial were that the decision of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence, that it was contrary to law, and that the damages were excessive in that the assessment of the amount of the recovery was too large and that it was error to refuse to permit said additional paragraph of answer to be filed.
The evidence most favorable to appellee was that she had been a teacher in the schools of appellant since 1902, teaching every year until the time the contract was breached; that she taught under contract each and every year, and that she held a life license to teach the primary grades, which she had taught during all of these years; that on April 6, 1933, the school board at their meeting unanimously agreed, according to the minutes, that because of the economic conditions certain teachers would not be offered positions for the next year and directed the superintendent to notify them that they would not be offered positions. The superintendent did notify the appellee in the following manner:
Following this, the appellee immediately consulted a lawyer and gave him the letter which she had received from the superintendent, whereupon the lawyer caused the records of the school board to be inspected, and these records at that time disclosed that the board was not offering certain teachers positions because of the economic conditions. The lawyer was then told by the superintendent that the minutes were complete and contained all the action of the board. Thereupon the lawyer advised her by letter that under a recent case (Barnes v. Mendenhall [1932] 98 Ind.App. 229, 183 N.E. 556) that removal of a tenure teacher could not be effected in this manner. Upon May 1, 1933, the appellee wrote to the superintendent asking that she be appointed to a position in the schools for the next school year and inclosed a copy of the letter received from her attorney.
It further appears from the duly recorded minutes that on April 6, 1933, the board met and on recommendation of the superintendent it discussed the teachers and salaries for the next school year and unanimously agreed again that because of the economic conditions certain teachers would not be offered positions, among whom was the appellee. On April 11, 1933, the board met in special session and certain teachers were chosen and their salaries fixed and no further business was transacted at that meeting. It also appears that on May 10, 1933, the board met in special session, the minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved, and a resolution was unanimously passed confirming the nonappointment of certain teachers as of the action taken on April 6 and the appointment of the teachers as of April 11.
On the day after receiving the letter from the school superintendent the appellee talked to the president of the board and asked why she was singled out as one to whom the board would not offer a contract for the next year and reminded him that she was a tenure teacher. He replied that they had to reduce the force, and because she did not live in Brazil she was one of those omitted. She specifically asked him if there had been any complaint concerning her work and attitude and he told her that there was none. In the following September the board caused to be entered upon its records what they denominated a nunc pro tunc entry which they said was being entered for the purpose of correcting and amending the minutes of the meeting held on May 10, 1933. Such entry set out the letter sent by the superintendent to the appellee and also set out a purported...
To continue reading
Request your trial