State ex rel. Gorman v. Offutt
| Decision Date | 02 October 1928 |
| Docket Number | 29176 |
| Citation | 9 S.W.2d 595 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. and to Use of GORMAN v. OFFUTT, Superintendent of Public Schools |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
James P. Boyd and W. W. Barnes, both of Paris, and Clarence A Barnes, of Mexico, Mo., for relator.
W. W Botts, of Mexico, Mo., for respondent.
In Banc.
Mandamus.
Original proceeding in this court by the State at the Relation of Edna Gorman v. Ed. C. Offutt. Respondent waived the issuance and service of our writ and demurred to the petition, 'for the reason it fails to state facts which would justify the issuance of the writ.' Oral argument waived, and the cause submitted on briefs.
The facts from the petition are as follows: Relator since 1903 has been a teacher in the public schools of Boone, Monroe, and Audrain counties. On June 8, 1926, she was granted a second-grade teacher's certificate by the superintendent of schools of Monroe county. The superintendent of schools of Audrain county indorsed the certificate, and she taught two terms of school in said county. Before the certificate expired, and on June 2, 1928, she was granted a renewal by the superintendent of schools of Monroe county. On presentation of the certificate, with the fee of $ 1.50, to the superintendent of schools of Audrain county, he refused to indorse the certificate. Thereupon she applied to Hon. Emil Roehrig, judge of the circuit court of Audrain county, for a writ of mandamus to compel him to indorse the certificate. The superintendent entered his appearance, waived the issuance and service of the writ, and demurred to the petition, 'for the reason it fails to state facts which would justify the issuance of the writ.'
On a hearing the circuit court of Audrain county quashed its alternative writ and denied the peremptory writ. Relator was granted an appeal to this court, where the cause is now pending. Thus it appears the parties and issues are identical in both proceedings.
The relator, in appealing from the judgment of the circuit court to this court, must have thought the county superintendent of schools was a state officer within the meaning of section 12 art. 6, of the Constitution. In this she was mistaken. State ex rel. Rucker v. Hoffman, 313 Mo. 667, 288 S.W. 16.
We have no jurisdiction of the appeal and the cause, in due course, must be transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. However, the fact that we do not have jurisdiction does...
To continue reading
Request your trial