State ex rel. Gebhardt v. Superior Court for King County, 28765.

• Decision Date: 18 December 1942
• Docket Number: 28765.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. GEBHARDT et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

131 P.2d 943

15 Wn.2d 673

STATE ex rel. GEBHARDT et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY.

No. 28765.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 18, 1942

Certiorari by the State, on the relation of Ray F. Gebhardt, Marvel Morris and Cora Fenton to review a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, State of Washington, Hon. Roger Meakim, Judge thereof, dismissing an action by relators against Eustis H. Loomis, Elwin H. Scheyer and Earl G. Rice as directors of Bothell School District No. 46, William H Beardsley and Nina O. Buchanan, King County Superintendent of Schools, to enjoin such superintendent from approving and recording a contract entered into between the school district and William H. Beardsley, and to enjoin directors of the school district from further attempts at execution of a contract for the employment of a superintendent of Bothell schools, and praying that such injunction remain in force until such time as the appeal of Maurice J. Thomas from the action of such directors terminating his employment as superintendent of Bothell schools should be finally determined.

Judgment affirmed.

ROBINSON C.J., and MILLARD, J., dissenting.

Edwards Merges, of Seattle, for relators.

Weter, Roberts & Shefelman, of Seattle, amici curiae.

B. Gray Warner, Wm. Hickman Moore, Solie M. Ringold, and Arthur G. Barnett, all of Seattle, for respondent.

JEFFERS Justice.

Ray F. Gebhardt, Marvel Morris and Cora Fenton instituted an action in the superior court for King county, against Eustis H. Loomis, Elwin H. Scheyer and Earl G. Rice, as directors of Bothell School District No. 46, William H. Beardsley, and Nina O. Buchanan, King county superintendent of schools, to enjoin the latter, as such superintendent, from approving and recording a contract entered into between the school district and defendant Beardsley, and further to enjoin the directors of the school district from further attempts at execution of a contract for the employment of a superintendent of Bothell schools, asking that such injunction remain in force until such time as the appeal of Maurice J. Thomas from the action of the above-named directors in terminating his employment as superintendent of Bothell schools be finally determined.

In so far as material to the questions presented, the complaint, as supplemented by stipulation, in substance alleges: That plaintiffs are residents and taxpayers in Bothell District No. 46, and that defendants Loomis, Scheyer and Rice are the directors of the district, and Nina O. Buchanan is the duly elected and qualified King county superintendent of schools; that in July, 1937, Maurice J. Thomas was duly and regularly appointed to the position of superintendent of Bothell schools, and thereafter assumed his duties as such superintendent, and has since continued in this capacity at a salary of $3,800 per year; that on March 30, 1942, at a meeting called for that purpose, defendants Loomis and Scheyer, as directors of the district, voted to terminate the employment of Mr. Thomas on June 30, 1942; that on the evening of April 7, 1942, defendants Loomis and Scheyer called a meeting of the directors for the purpose of hiring defendant William H. Beardsley as superintendent of Bothell schools, to succeed Mr. Thomas; that at this meeting it was voted to employ Mr. Beardsley as superintendent for the years 1942-1943 and 1943-1944, and the board, over the objections of defendant Rice, immediately executed a contract for such employment.

It is further alleged that no reasons were given by defendants Loomis and Scheyer for their action in terminating Mr. Thomas' employment, and that Mr. Thomas and Mr. Rice have appealed to the county superintendent of schools from the action of the board in discharging Thomas, which appeals are now pending. Copies of the notice of appeal and Mr. Rice's affidavit on appeal are attached to and by reference made a part of the complaint.

It is also alleged that the attempted hiring of Beardsley by defendants Loomis and Scheyer is about to be approved by Nina O. Buchanan, and that if the contract is so approved, and if the appeal of Thomas is sustained, the school district may be liable for the salaries of both Thomas and Beardsley for the year 1942-1943, which salaries would aggregate $7,000, and plaintiffs, as taxpayers of the district, and all other taxpayers of the district would be greatly damaged thereby.

It may be stated that there are other allegations in the complaint relative to the desire of the people within the district to retain Mr. Thomas as superintendent, and in regard to his general qualifications and the manner in which he has performed his duties while superintendent. These allegations are not material herein.

It is not claimed on this appeal that the action of Loomis and Scheyer was not the action of the board, nor is any question raised as to the legality of the meetings at which it was attempted to terminate the employment of Mr. Thomas and employ Mr. Beardsley. Both of the appeals from the board's action to the King county superintendent of schools were primarily based upon the alleged failure of the board to give sufficient and adequate reasons for the dismissal, is required by chapter 42, Laws of 1941. It is specifically set out in the appeal notices that chapter 42, Laws of 1941, was not repealed or superseded by chapter 179, Laws of 1941, and argument is made on this question.

To the complaint, as supplemented by the stipulation, defendants demurred on three grounds:

'1. That the court has no jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants or of the subject matter of the action;

'2. That the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue;

'3. That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.'

On May 1, 1942, after argument by counsel for the respective parties, the court entered an order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action. The material part of this order is as follows:

'It is now, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the demurrer of the defendants to the complaint of the plaintiffs herein, as amended by stipulation of counsel, be and the same is hereby sustained, and the plaintiffs refusing to plead further and resting upon the allegations of their complaint, it is further

'Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the above entitled action be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice; for the reason that chap. 42, Laws of 1941, is not in effect.'

On the same day, Ray F. Gebhardt, Marvel Morris and Cora Fenton, as relators, filed in this court their application wherein they petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the trial court. Upon the filing of this application and an accompanying affidavit of Ray F. Gebhardt, a show cause order was issued by this court, directed to Honorable Roger Meakim, commanding him to certify to this court on May 22, 1942, a full and complete transcript of the proceedings in cause No. 334717, or in the alternative to show cause why he should not do so. Judge Meakim has certified the record to this court, and it is now Before us.

Petitioners state that there are five questions to be answered:

'1. Does the court have jurisdiction of the defendants?

'2. Have the plaintiffs legal capacity to sue?

'3. Is the appeal of Thomas properly taken?

'4. Is the Thomas appeal supported by law?

5. If the Thomas appeal is sustained, would the district be liable for the salaries of both Thomas and Beardsley?'

The questions in this case, as we see them, may be answered by a determination of whether or not chapter 42, Laws of 1941, is a valid and existing law. We make this statement for the reason that relators sought to enjoin the county superintendent from approving the Beardsley contract on the theory that the board of directors had unlawfully terminated the Thomas contract, because the board had failed to state reasons for such termination, as required by chapter 42, Laws of 1941; that Thomas has appealed from the action of the board, and if his appeal is sustained and the Beardsley contract approved, the district will be liable to pay the salaries of two superintendents, and relators, as taxpayers, will be damaged thereby. We again call attention to the fact that the only unlawful action which it is alleged the board committed is a claimed failure to comply with chapter 42, Laws of 1941. It would seem to follow, then, that at least in the first instance, whether or not relators had shown a sufficient interest to entitle them to bring this action, and whether or not the complaint states facts entitling them to any relief, depend upon the validity of chapter 42, supra.

The question as to the validity and effectiveness of chapter 42, Laws of 1941, arose from the following circumstances: During the 1941 session of the legislature, chapters 42 and 179 were passed, both acts purporting to amend § 1, chapter 131, Laws of 1939, but neither act in any way referring to the other.

Relators contend that chapter 42 was not repealed or affected by the subsequent passage of chapter 179, while respondents' argument is that chapter 42 never became effective, because of chapter 179.

Permission was given for a brief to be filed by amici curiae. This brief deals entirely with the question of whether or not chapter 42 was repealed or in any way affected by chapter 179. Frankly, it is apparent that the action sought to be reviewed is in reality a suit to compel the board of directors to retain Mr. Thomas as superintendent.

It is a well-established general rule that courts will not by injunction interfere with the exercise of discretionary powers conferred by the state upon municipal corporations, acting through their duly appointed officers merely because such...