State ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 26560.

CourtSupreme Court of Indiana
Citation5 N.E.2d 531,214 Ind. 347
Docket NumberNo. 26560.,26560.
PartiesSTATE ex rel. ANDERSON v. BRAND.
Decision Date14 January 1937

214 Ind. 347
5 N.E.2d 531


No. 26560.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 14, 1937.

Mandamus action by the State, on the relation of Dorothy Anderson, against Harry Brand, trustee of Chester School Township of Wabash County. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, the relatrix appeals.


TREANOR, J., dissenting.

For dissenting opinion, see 5 N.E.2d 913.

[5 N.E.2d 531]

Appeal from Wabash Circuit Court; Frank O. Switzer, Judge.
Franklin W. Plummer and Howard E. Plummer, both of Wabash, for appellant.

Raymond Brooks, of North Manchester, for appellee.

[5 N.E.2d 532]


By this action it is sought to mandate appellee to continue relatrix in the employ of the township as a school teacher under the act of 1927 (Acts 1927, c. 97, p. 259), which provides that a person who has served for five or more successive years as a teacher, and shall thereafter enter into a contract for further service, shall become a permanent teacher. The act was amended in 1933 (Acts 1933, c. 116, § 1, p. 716, Burns' Ann.St.1933, § 28-4307 section 6003, Baldwin's Ind.St.1934), and made to apply to city and town school corporations only. Townships, to which the act originally applied, were omitted in the amendment, which had the effect of repealing the law so far as townships, schools, and the teachers therein are concerned.

A demurrer to the complaint was sustained. The relatrix contends that this was error; that, having become a permanent teacher under the Teachers' Tenure Law before the amendment, she had a vested property right in her indefinite contract, which may not be impaired under the Constitution. The question is whether there is a vested right in a permanent teacher's contract; whether, under the tenure law, there is a grant which cannot lawfully be impaired by a repeal of the statute.

The establishment and maintenance of public schools is a governmental function, jurisdiction over which vests in the General Assembly, whose power, subject to constitutional limitation, is plenary, and whose discretion is not reviewable. This legislative power is not exhausted by exercise, and schools may be continued or discontinued, and the school system changed, or one system substituted for another, as often as the Legislature may deem it necessary or advisable in the public interest. Follett v. Sheldon, Treas. (1924) 195 Ind. 510, 144 N.E. 867. In establishing schools and enacting laws for their regulation, and in licensing teachers and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Smigel v. Southgate Community School Dist., 50
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 29 Noviembre 1972
    ...of capable and experienced teachers at the personal whims of changing office holders. State ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 214 Ind. 347, 5 N.E.2d 531, 913, 110 A.L.R. 778, 781. Also, same on rehearing, 214 Ind. 347, 7 N.E.2d 777; 303 U.S. 95, 58 S.Ct. 443, 82 L.Ed. 685, 113 A.L.R. 1482; and Los......
  • Walsh v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 24 Noviembre 1941
    ...mandamus to compel her being continued in 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 unconstituti......
  • Teachers' Tenure Act Cases, 179
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 31 Enero 1938
    ...ex rel. O'Neil v. Blied, 188 Wis. 442, 206 N.W. 213; Gastineau v. Meyer, 131 Cal.App. 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 Education of West New York, 300 U.S. 319. [9a] It is useless to say that the schoolteachers do not have [329......
  • Hawk v. Olson, 31841.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 8 Marzo 1946
    ...56 S.Ct. 606, 80 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......
  • 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