State ex rel. Black v. Bd. of Sch. Com'rs of Indianapolis
| Decision Date | 03 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 26174.,26174. |
| Citation | 205 Ind. 582,187 N.E. 392 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. BLACK v. BOARD OF SCHOOL COM'RS OF CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Marion County; Jos. R. Williams, Judge.
Action for writ of mandate by the State, on the relation of Nina Black, against the Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis. From an adverse judgment, relatrix appeals.
Judgment reversed, with instructions.
Oswald Ryan, of Washington, D. C., and Remy, Harrison & Remy, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Baker & Daniels, of Indianapolis, for appellee.
This was an action by appellant to mandate appellee to reinstate her as teacher in Indianapolis schools.
Appellant's amended complaint was in one paragraph, to which appellee filed a demurrer. The trial court sustained the demurrer and, appellant refusing to plead further, elected to stand on her amended complaint, and the court thereupon rendered judgment for appellee. The only error assigned is the sustaining of appellee's demurrer to appellant's amended complaint.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendant is, and was at all times referred to herein, a school corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Indiana, and operating the public school system in the city of Indianapolis, said county and state; that the plaintiff is now, and has been for more than eight years last past, without interruption or intermission, a teacher, in said school corporation, in the public schools of said city of Indianapolis, and for more than three years last past has been a permanent teacher in said school corporation under and by virtue of the Teachers' Tenure Law, Acts of 1927, chapter 97; and that this plaintiff, as a permanent teacher in said school corporation, is the possessor of an indefinite contract with the defendant to teach in the public schools of said city, which said indefinite contract is evidenced by a written contract fixing and regulating certain provisions for the determination of the date of the beginning and end of school terms and similar matters authorized by and in harmony with section one of the Teachers' Tenure Law.
Relatrix avers that at the end of the school year 1930-1931, her indefinite contract as a permanent teacher, above referred to, by intendment of law and by virtue of the Teachers' Tenure Law, was in full force and effect; that said indefinite contract was never succeeded by a new contract within the meaning of the Teachers' Tenure Law, and had never been canceled within the meaning of said law; that her said indefinite contract is now in full force and effect under said law; that on the 16th day of June, 1931, the defendantunlawfully, unreasonably, wrongfully, and arbitrarily attempted to cancel, terminate, and repudiate said indefinite contract of the relatrix by unlawfully, unreasonably, wrongfully, and arbitrarily adopting an order to the effect that its relation with the relatrix be terminated; that said order and said attempted repudiation of said indefinite contract of the relatrix were done and made without any knowledge of, or notice to the relatrix, and without any warning or intimation whatsoever, although it was the duty of said defendant not less than thirty nor more than forty days before the consideration of the attempted cancellation of said indefinite contract to notify the relatrix of the exact date, time, and place when and where said cancellation should be considered, and to give said relatrix the opportunity, as by law required, for a hearing and to give opportunity to her to present testimony as to the proposed attempted cancellation of said indefinite contract; and the relatrix avers that there was not then, and never was, any legal cause whatsoever for the attempted cancellation of said indefinite contract, as the defendant well knew, but that said action of the defendant was arbitrarily and unlawfully taken in violation of the provisions of the Teachers' Tenure Law.
The relatrix avers that said action of the defendant, described as aforesaid, has deprived her of her right to continued employment as a permanent teacher with an indefinite contract under and by virtue of the provisions of the Teachers' Tenure Law; that as her said right to employment has been invaded by the defendant, said right being a continuing one, no adequate provision and no sufficient relief exists or is available under the law to compensate her for the cancellation of her said indefinite contract as a permanent teacher, as above alleged; that it is the duty of the defendant to reinstate her in her right as a permanent teacher in said school corporation, but that the defendant refused so to reinstate and restore said teacher to her said right and to her teaching position in said school corporation, and defendant still fails and refuses and denies to this plaintiff the right to teach in said schools in accordance with her rights in her said indefinite contract under the Teachers' Tenure Law.
A copy of relatrix' contract with appellee is attached to and made a part of her amended complaint.
Appellee's first proposition to sustain the judgment is that relatrix does not bring herself within the provisions of section 2 of the Teachers' Tenure Act, Acts 1927, p. 259, c. 97 for the reason the complaint shows on its face that the relatrix and the appellee entered into a new contract before the beginning of the school year, September 1, 1930 to June 30, 1931, and that by reason of having signed a new contract she forfeited her rights as a permanent teacher with an indefinite contract, and became a permanent teacher with a definite contract. Section 2 purports to govern the procedure in canceling the contract of permanent teacher with an indefinite contract and not the contract of a permanent teacher with a definite contract. Appellee bases his contention on the latter...
To continue reading
Request your trial