State ex rel. Keeney v. Ayers
Decision Date | 17 June 1939 |
Docket Number | 7814. |
Citation | 92 P.2d 306,108 Mont. 547 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. KEENEY v. AYERS, Governor, et al. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 8, 1939.
Appeal from District Court, First District, Lewis and Clark County G. W. Padbury, Jr., Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by the State of Montana, on the relation of Philip O. Keeney, against Roy E. Ayers, Governor of the State of Montana, and others, to compel reinstatement of petitioner as librarian and professor of library economy at the Montana State University. From a judgment granting a writ of mandate the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Howard Toole, of Missoula, and Booth & Booth, of Glasgow, for appellants.
W. D. Rankin and Arthur P. Acher, both of Helena, for respondent.
Petitioner was granted a writ of mandate by the district court of Lewis and Clark county, requiring the State Board of Education and the president of the University to reinstate him as librarian and professor of library economy at the Montana State University. The State Board of Education and the president of the University have appealed from the judgment.
The facts alleged and proven are that the petitioner's employment began on September 1, 1931, and that his initial employment was for the year ending September 1, 1932. Thereafter, by action of the appellant board, he was given new annual contracts for the periods ending September 1 of the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937. Each of these contracts consisted only of a "notice of appointment" signed by the chancellor or executive secretary, and an "acceptance of appointment" signed by the petitioner. However, the notice of appointment bore the statement, "This appointment is subject to the regulations governing tenure printed on the reverse side of this sheet." These regulations consisted of ten paragraphs designated: "(University Act No. 673, Adopted by the State Board of Education June 22, 1918, and Amended April 8, 1919, April 26, 1921, and April 3, 1922.)"
The pertinent paragraphs of the regulations are as follows:
Substantially the only difference in these six contracts, except as to dates of commencement and termination, was the striking out, on the back of the last contract, of regulation 2.
Petitioner completed each of these contracts by signing the acceptance of appointment thereon and returning it to the president of the University. His acceptances were uniform, except that in the last one, from the back of which regulation 2 had been stricken, he added the following paragraph before his signature: "In signing this acceptance I do not mean to accept in any way a temporary appointment in lieu of my regular status as a professor on permanent tenure but to indicate my willingness to continue to serve in my present capacity."
Upon receipt of it, the president wrote petitioner a letter reading:
Montana State University.
My Dear Professor Keeney:
We had delayed accepting and transmitting to Helena your modified acceptance of the contract issued you after the April meeting of the State Board of Education. The reason for this is that neither this office nor that of Dr. Swain at Helena is authorized to enter into subcontracts or side agreements other than the specified contract.
On my last visit to Helena I discussed the matter with Dr. Swain, and he and I both looked up your contract tenure status and found that you had been issued nothing but the one year contract form year after year and that this was done on special instructions from Dr. Clapp. The paragraph with reference to tenure of professors on the back of the contracts is a general statement only and does not apply where a specific one year contract is offered. Mr. Clapp had indicated that he was not so completely satisfied with your cooperation and with the general effect of your influence on the students from the standpoint of the parents of this state that he was willing to recommend you for permanent status.
Certainly, as a result of happenings during the past academic year, I have had nothing which would encourage me to feel more strongly either one way or the other than Dr. Clapp had felt during the whole of your tenure here. What I proposed to do was to let the status quo continue through the coming year until we could find more definitely whether the library is running efficiently and effectively, whether you and I can cooperate freely and fully, and whether you are happy in the work you are doing here. Naturally, if any of these conditions are not true, then I would not wish to urge you to remain and be unhappy and make the rest of us unhappy, too.
This time you have been offered exactly the same sort of contract that you have had in the past, and any writing on your acceptance blank naturally does not affect your standing one way or the other. However, as I have already told you, I am very anxious to work out our mutual problems to our joint best advantage, and I shall certainly see that you are protected in every way in your interests as long as things are going as nicely as they have been recently.
Apparently without further discussion or correspondence petitioner executed the oath of office which had been required of him each year, and proceeded to fill his position as librarian and professor during the school year of 1936-1937.
On April 6, 1937, the president wrote petitioner a letter reading as follows:
Montana State University.
Dear Professor Keeney:
As I told you a year ago, and reiterated in my letter of July 8th of last year, I had hopes that our library and general personnel problems would solve themselves so well during this year that the matter of your continuing on this campus would be beyond question. In that letter of July 8th I pointed out that on special instructions from Dr. Clapp you had been continued from year to year on one-year contracts only, that Dr. Clapp had indicated himself not completely satisfied with your services and influence, and that I had been similarly disturbed. I should like to quote further...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eastman v. School Dist. No. 1 of Lewis and Clark County
... ... in any school in the state of Montana. Plaintiff first ... started teaching in school district No. 1 ... same effect is the Nevada case of State ex rel. Walton v ... Roberts, 55 Nev. 415, 36 P.2d 517, 518. There the ... Keeney v ... Ayers, 108 Mont. 547, 92 P.2d 306, that gives support to ... the ... ...
-
State ex rel. Phillips v. Ford
... ... regulations of the board he held his position under what is ... known in scholastic parlance as permanent tenure. State ... ex rel. Keeney v. Ayers, 108 Mont. 547, 92 P.2d 306 ... Under a provision of the rules and regulations of the board ... in force on the 2d day of October, 1937, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Dunn v. Ayers
... ... effect suggested by respondents ... There ... can be no question but that mandamus will lie for the relief ... sought. This court has recently passed on the question and no ... discussion of the point should be necessary. State ex ... rel. Keeney v. Ayers, 108 Mont. 547, 92 P.2d 306 ... The ... judgment of the district court dismissing the petition is ... ...