State ex rel. Anderson v. Brand

• Decision Date: 14 January 1937
• Docket Number: 26560.
• Citation: 5 N.E.2d 531,214 Ind. 347
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ANDERSON v. BRAND.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

5 N.E.2d 531

214 Ind. 347

STATE ex rel. ANDERSON v. BRAND.

No. 26560.

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 14, 1937

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.

FANSLER Judge.

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 providing for their tenure, the General Assembly acts for the benefit of the public, and not for the benefit of the teachers. In a case in which it was contended that a provision of the statute, providing for the revocation of teachers' licenses by the county superintendent, was unconstitutional, for the reason that there was a vested property right in the license, this court said:

'It must be remembered that the establishment and regulation of public schools rests primarily with the legislative department, and the constitutional provisions invoked by appellee were not designed to trammel the state in the exercise of its general political powers, or to impose upon the courts the duty of interposing between the Legislature and the citizen in matters of pure governmental concern. * * * A license has none of the elements of a contract, and does not confer an absolute right, but only a personal privilege to be exercised under existing restrictions, and such as may thereafter be reasonably imposed. Statutes authorizing the issuance of such licenses are enacted to promote the good order and welfare of the state, and may ordinarily be repealed at the pleasure of the Legislature. [Authoriti...