State ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 26560.

CourtSupreme Court of Indiana
Citation214 Ind. 347,7 N.E.2d 777
Docket NumberNo. 26560.,26560.
PartiesSTATE ex rel. ANDERSON v. BRAND.
Decision Date27 April 1937

214 Ind. 347
7 N.E.2d 777


No. 26560.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 27, 1937.

On petition for rehearing.

Petition denied.

For former opinion, see 5 N.E.(2d) 531.

TREANOR, J., dissenting.

[7 N.E.2d 777]

Appeal from Wabash Circuit Court; Frank O. Switzer, Judge.
Plummer & Plummer, of Wabash, and Paul R. Shafer and Thomas F. O'Mara, both of Terre Haute, for appellant.

Raymond Brooks, of North Manchester, for appellee.


On petition for rehearing, appellant earnestly contends that the decision of this case gives a retroactive effect to a statute, and permits the impairment of the obligation of a binding contract. The original opinion was intended to be

[7 N.E.2d 778]

understood as expressing the view that no contractual right to be continued as a teacher from year to year is involved. The teachers' contracts are made for one year, and the terms may be changed annually. The tenure statute (Burns' Ann.St.1933, § 28-4307), in effect, grants a privilege to the teacher who has served five years, and signed a new additional contract to continue as a teacher, under certain conditions, by limiting the power of the local school officers to employ any one in the place of a tenure teacher. The teacher had no contractual right to continue in employment. The statute merely deprived the local school officers of power to employ any other teacher in place of the tenure teacher, and required that the tenure teacher be re-employed unless there was a necessary reduction in the number of teachers. Schools are under the control of the Legislature, and local governmental units act only as legislative agencies in the operation of the schools. The statutes, the Constitution, and the law, must be deemed to be a part of every teacher's contract. If appellant's contention could be sustained, it would mean that the statute, as it existed at the time a teacher acquired tenure status, could not be changed, even in respect to the grounds of cancelation or removal.

As pointed out in the original opinion, the Legislature, in enacting school laws, exercises one of the functions of sovereignty. The right to control public policy, in respect to the management and operation of schools, cannot be contracted away by one Legislature so as to fix a permanent public policy, unchangeable by succeeding Legislatures.

But, if the relationship were considered as controlled by the rules of private contract, the provision for re- employment from year to year is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Smigel v. Southgate Community School Dist., 50
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 29 Noviembre 1972
    ...... Federation of Teachers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Michigan Employment ... State ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 214 Ind. 347, 5 N.E.2d 531, 913, 110 ......
  • Walsh v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 24 Noviembre 1941 employment, which was denied, and this judgment was sustained by the Supreme Court of Indiana. 214 Ind. 347, 5 N.E.2d 531, 913, 7 N.E.2d 777, 13 N.E.2d 955, 110 A.L.R. 778. The United States Supreme Court, however, found the Act of 1933 unconstitutional as impairing the obligation of app......
  • Teachers' Tenure Act Cases
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 31 Enero 1938
    ...... the school boards throughout the State gave to many teachers. the sixty days' notice required by ... et al., School Directors, v. Commonwealth ex rel. Manaway, 101 Pa. 490; Commonwealth. [197 A. 352] . ex ...611, 22. P.2d 31; State ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 5 N.E.2d. 531, 7 N.E.2d 777; Phelps v. Board of ......
  • Hawk v. Olson, 31841.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 8 Marzo 1946
    ...L.Ed. 925;Georgia Power Co. v. City of Decatur, 181 Ga. 187, 182 S.E. 32;State ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 214 Ind. 347, 5 N.E.2d 531, 913,7 N.E.2d 777,13 N.E.2d 955,110 A.L.R. 778;Pauline Oil & Gas Co. v. Fischer, 191 Okl. 346, 130 P.2d 305. Were we to issue the mandate, in compliance with ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT