School Committee of Salem v. Gavin

• Decision Date: 02 March 1956
• Parties: SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF SALEM v. David R. GAVIN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 396

132 N.E.2d 396

333 Mass. 632

SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF SALEM v. David R. GAVIN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Argued Dec. 8, 1955.

Decided March 2, 1956.

A. Kenneth Carey, Danvers, for defendant.

Before QUA, C. J., and WILKINS, SPALDING, WILLIAMS and WHITTEMORE, JJ.

SPALDING, Justice.

The plaintiffs are the duly elected school committee of the city of Salem. On January 15, 1953, the committee, by a four to three vote, elected the defendant to the position of coach of football at the Salem Classical and High School. On February 10, 1953, a majority of the committee voted that the defendant be given a three-year contract as coach at a salary of $2,500 a season with the right, at the defendant's option, of renewing the contract for an additional year at the same salary. In accordance with this vote a contract was executed between the committee and the defendant in April, 1953. The mayor of Salem did not concur in the committee's action and the contract did not bear his approval. On December 13, 1954, the committee voted to declare the position of football coach at the Classical High School vacant. If the above mentioned contract is valid the parties are ready, able, and willing to perform. The city operates under 'a standard Plan B form of charter.'

The committee, alleging that a controversy exists between it and the defendant concerning the validity of the contract, brought this bill for declaratory relief under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 231A. The case was heard on the facts above stated, which were agreed to by the parties. The judge entered a decree declaring that the contract was invalid because it did not bear the approval of the mayor. The defendant appealed.

For the general principles relating to the powers and duties of school committees and to the obligations of municipalities in connection therewith, a reference to Leonard v. School Committee of City of Springfield, 241 Mass. 325, 135 N.E. 459, Callahan v. City of Woburn, 306 Mass. 265, 28 N.E.2d 9, Ring v. City of Woburn, 311 Mass. 679, 43 N.E.2d 8, and Hayes v. City of Brockton, 313 Mass. 641, 48 N.E.2d 683, is sufficient.

General Laws (Ter.Ed.) c. 43, § 29, as appearing in St.1949, c. 723, § 2, as amended by St.1951, c. 25, § 2, provides that 'All contracts made by any department, board or commission where the amount involved is one thousand dollars or more shall be an writing, and no such contract shall be deemed to have been made or executed until the approval of the mayor under Plan A, B or C, or of the city manager under Plan D or E, and also of the officer or the head of the department or of the chairman of the board, as the case may be, making the contract is affixed thereto. * * *' The contract here involves more than $1,000 and there was no approval of it by the mayor of Salem which, as stated above, is operating under Plan B. And previously we have held that in a city having one of the standard forms of charter set forth in c. 43 the school committee is a 'department' or a 'board' within the meaning of c. 43, § 29, with respect to a contract providing for the transportation of school children, and that such a contract negotiated and adopted by the committee was not valid without the approval of the mayor. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Co. v. Mayor of Fall River, 308 Mass. 232, 233, 31 N.E.2d 543. See Hayes v. City of Brockton, 313 Mass. 641, 648, 48 N.E.2d 683. Thus, if the contract here was of the sort under consideration in the Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway case, it would not be valid because of lack of approval by the mayor. But the court in that case was careful to confine its decision to the type of contract there involved, namely, one of a...