Stiver v. State ex rel. Kent

• Decision Date: 20 May 1936
• Docket Number: 26617.
• Citation: 1 N.E.2d 1006,211 Ind. 380
• Parties: STIVER et al. v. STATE ex rel. KENT.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

1 N.E.2d 1006

211 Ind. 380

STIVER et al. v. STATE ex rel. KENT.

No. 26617.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 20, 1936

Mandamus action by the State, on the relation of John J Kent, against William F. Stiver, trustee, and others, wherein defendants filed demurrers. From a judgment for relator defendants appeal.

Reversed, with directions.

Appeal from Elkhart Circuit Court; Lemuel W. Royse, Judge.

Harman & Wider, of Elkhart, for appellant.

Ray Deahl, of Goshen, and Robert E. Proctor, of Elkhart, for appellee.

TREANOR, Judge.

Relator brought an action for mandate to compel appellants to reinstate him as a teacher in the public schools of Clinton school township, Elkhart county, claiming to be a tenure teacher under the terms of the Teachers' Tenure Law (Acts 1927, c. 97) and to have been discharged in violation of such tenure law.

Appellants' demurrers to the complaint on the grounds of insufficient facts were overruled and an answer in general denial was filed. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury and the court found for and rendered judgment in favor of the relator. Appellants' motion for new trial was overruled. The errors assigned are that the court erred (1) in overruling the demurrers and (2) in overruling the motion for a new trial.

The first assigned error presents the same questions which were presented under the first error assigned by these appellants in the appeal taken in the case of Stiver et al. v. State ex rel. Kent, 1 N.E.(2d) 592, decided by this court on May 1, 1936. Upon the authority of that case we hold that the trial court did not err in overruling the demurrers to the complaint.

The grounds contained in appellants' motion for new trial and stated under ‘ Propositions and Authorities' of appellants' brief, present the following points upon appeal:

1. No evidence was introduced in the trial below tending to show that the hearing held by the trustee was not in fact a fair hearing; and

2. Substantial evidence was introduced at the hearing before the township trustee to support the trustee's finding of the existence of one or more of the assigned causes for cancellation for relator's contract; therefore

3. The trial court's decision was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.

It is agreed that the hearing before the township trustee which resulted in the cancellation of relator's indefinite contract conformed to the procedural requirements of the Teachers' Tenure Law; and the record shows that evidence was heard upon that hearing and that relator was present at the hearing, in person and by counsel; that he cross-examined adverse witnesses and testified upon the hearing and examined witnesses in his own behalf. The causes for dismissal specified in the notice given relator were: (1) Incompetency, (2) insubordination, (3) neglect of duty, (4) lack of co-operation, and (5) general public sentiment.

The transcript of the evidence introduced at the hearing before the trustee was made a part of the evidence in the trial of the action for mandate in the Elkhart circuit court. From the transcript it appears that the evidence which was introduced to support cancellation of relator's contract tended to establish substantially the following facts:

Relator was principal of the Clinton township school located at Millersburg, Elkhart county. In 1927 the high school received a continuous commission. The school was inspected in the school year of 1928-1929 and because of crowded conditions its commission was reduced to an annual commission. At about Christmas, 1928, the township trustee, county superintendent of schools, and relator reorganized the school under the platoon plan, which provided for the teaching of pupils of the seventh and eighth grades by the high school faculty, thus reducing the number of pupils taught by the grade school teachers and relieving the crowded conditions which existed in the lower grades. This system remained in effect during the remainder of the school year and was intended to remain in effect during the next school year. Relator opposed the adoption of the plan, but it worked out successfully. The next fall the relator, without consulting the county superintendent or the township trustee, discontinued the platoon plan and restored the school to the organization in effect prior to the adoption of the platoon plan, although the crowded conditions in the lower grades again resulted. Relator opposed the making of an inventory of laboratory equipment, although he was informed that an inspector from the State Department of Public Instruction had directed that more equipment should be purchased. More equipment was thereafter purchased, but relator caused it to remain unopened and unused. Relator failed to fill out papers, which came to him as principal of the school, for the purpose of enabling the township to obtain refunds from the state on account of vocational courses given in the school. The relator referred to such matters as ‘ red tape’ and sent them to the trustee, saying that the trustee could take care of them if he wanted to. The trustee did so and secured the refunds for the school township. Relator also opposed a plan of the trustee which was suggested by a state inspector and which was designed to reduce

...