Sorensen v. Echternacht
| Decision Date | 01 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | 10489. |
| Citation | 74 Colo. 91,218 P. 1046 |
| Parties | SORENSEN et al., Board of Directors of School Dist. No. 11 in Lincoln County, v. ECHTERNACHT. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Error to District Court, Lincoln County; Arthur Cornforth, Judge.
Mandamus by Gladys Echternacht against S.C. Sorensen and others, as the Board of Directors of School District No. 11 of Lincoln County. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants bring error and plaintiff assigns cross-error.
Judgment reversed, with directions.
Henry Trowbridge, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
John G Reid, of Hugo, for defendant in error.
Gladys Echternacht, defendant in error, brought mandamus against Sorensen, Miller, and Jackett, 'as the board of directors of school district No. 11 in Lincoln county,' to compel the issue of warrants to her, and a peremptory writ was granted. They bring the case here for review.
Her causes of action were a balance of salary as teacher and a claim for $35 promised her as a bonus. The defendants disputed both claims, and set up a counterclaim for money had and received by her for the use of the district, which she disputed. The district was not a party to the proceeding, and no judgment upon either of her claims had ever been rendered nor suit brought, nor upon the claim of the district against her. The court allowed the balance of salary and disallowed the counterclaim. It also disallowed the bonus, for which defendant in error assigns cross-error.
The chief question is whether, under such facts, mandamus will lie. That it would not at common law is elementary. We think that under the Codes the great weight of authority is against it. It is claimed, however, that in this state the decisions support it. We do not think so. It is the duty of the school board to disallow invalid claims according to its judgment and courts cannot control that judgment by mandamus. People v. Auditor, etc., 2 Colo. 97; Keefe Mfg. & Inv. Co. v. School Dist., 33 Colo. 513, 515, 81 P. 257, and cases therein cited.
The cases cited to the contrary from this state are not in point. Civil Service Com. of Denver v. Casey, 67 Colo. 398, 181 P 193, does not present the case of a disputed claim, but the question of the right of a wrongfully discharged officer to a certification of his salary by the civil service commission. In Board of Capitol Managers v. Rusan, 72 Colo. 197, 210 P 328, the relator was an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ebke v. Julesburg School Dist. No. RE-1, in Sedgwick County, RE--1
...such a requirement for relief in the nature of mandamus. Potter v. Anderson, 155 Colo. 25, 392 P.2d 650. And in Sorensen v. Echternacht, 74 Colo. 91, 218 P. 1046, a suit for breach of contract by a teacher against the school board was held to constitute a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. ......
-
Julesburg School Dist. No. RE-1, In Sedgwick County v. Ebke
...(1964). A suit for breach of contract by a teacher against the school board has been held to be an adequate remedy. Sorensen v. Echternacht, 74 Colo. 91, 218 P. 1046 (1923). Even assuming, however, that an action in the nature of mandamus under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2) is the exclusive remedy ava......
- Felger v. Walcher