Sullivan v. State
| Decision Date | 05 December 1933 |
| Citation | 251 N.W. 251,213 Wis. 185 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Original action by Marie A. Sullivan (née Van Ermen) against the State. On plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Motion denied, and action dismissed.
Original action in the Supreme Court to recover the sum of $4,583.31, alleged balance due on plaintiff's teaching contract, and for the further sum of $1,000 as the reasonable value of plaintiff's services as cafeteria manager of the Milwaukee Normal School for the year 1926-27.
The action was brought under section 285.01, Stats., the claim having been presented to the Legislature at the 1933 session, and, after passing the Senate and Assembly, having been vetoed by the Governor.
Plaintiff originally brought action in the circuit court for Dane county against the Board of Regents of Normal Schools, and, upon appeal to this court, it held that plaintiff could not sue the board, but must follow the procedure prescribed by section 285.01 for bringing actions against the state of Wisconsin. Sullivan v. Board of Regents of Normal Schools, 209 Wis. 242, 244 N. W. 563.Sullivan & Taugher, of Milwaukee (John J. Sullivan, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for plaintiff.
James E. Finnegan, Atty. Gen., and Herbert H. Naujoks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff has complied with section 14.38, of the Wisconsin Statutes, and brings this action pursuant to the terms of section 285.01, Stats. After alleging the legal make-up of the Board of Regents of Normal Schools, and the fact that the Milwaukee Normal School is one of the institutions under its jurisdiction, plaintiff alleges that the defendant, by its agent, the Board of Regents of Normal Schools, and Frank E. Baker, president of the Milwaukee Normal School, on or about September 5, 1926, employed plaintiff as a full-time instructor at a salary of $2,000 a year; that on the 11th day of October, 1926, Frank E. Baker, president of the Milwaukee Normal School, requested this plaintiff to take temporary charge of the school cafeteria, for the reason that it was losing money and that it had a very large deficit; that plaintiff agreed to take over the management of the cafeteria; and that plaintiff supplanted a manager who was receiving a salary of $1,800 a year for full-time work in managing the cafeteria. It is alleged that plaintiff continued to teach a full schedule of class work and also to manage the cafeteria; that a short time after undertaking to manage the cafeteria plaintiff learned that her position had become permanent, and asked for compensation from President Baker; that plaintiff was informed that she would get her first check after Chirstmas of 1926; that later she was informed that no funds were available, although it was stated that she would be paid; that in October, 1927, Baker stated to plaintiff that he was short of funds and asked her to accept her pay from two separate funds; that from that time up to February 1, 1932, plaintiff received two separate checks, which varied in amounts but approximated plaintiff's total teaching salary; that plaintiff believed that these checks were for teaching and that no part was compensation for cafeteria services; that plaintiff carried a full teaching load in addition to her work as manager; that by the end of November, 1931, plaintiff paid off the $6,000 deficit, purchased new equipment in addition, and developed a small surplus; that in December, 1931, plaintiff asked to be relieved of the cafeteria responsibility; that in response to this letter, on the 23d of December, 1931, plaintiff received a letter dismissing her both as cafeteria manager and as instructor in household arts; that on the same day plaintiff demanded a hearing before the Board of Regents, pursuant to section 37.31, to determine the ground of her dismissal; that Baker then wrote to plaintiff informing her that she could continue as half-time instructor but again dismissed her from the cafeteria position; that thereafter plaintiff examined the records of the Board of Regents and discovered that she received her full teaching salary up to November, 1927, but that, when she had agreed to accept her teaching pay from two separate funds, the records of the Board of Regents showed that one check was credited as teaching pay in the total sum of $1,100 yearly, and the records of the Board of Regents failed to disclose the payment of the other check; that in September, 1927, plaintiff's teaching salary was increased from $2,000 to $2,100, and that the records failed to disclose any resolution altering plaintiff's status as a full-time teacher; that plaintiff also examined the records of the civil service commission, and learned that the other check she had been receiving was for cafeteria salary at $1,000 a year, and that the records of the civil service commission further showed that plaintiff was receiving $125 a month from October 11, 1926, to the end of October, 1927, but that she never received such sums of money; that, after learning the facts, plaintiff refused to accept any other than a single check for her teaching compensation; that plaintiff repeated her demand for a hearing before the Board of Regentsto determine her status; that no written charges were ever filed against plaintiff stating the ground upon which her dismissal was based; that upon the hearing the Board of Regents admitted that plaintiff had received no notice that her status as a full-time teacher had been altered, and directed that plaintiff be considered a full-time teacher, but that her position would be discontinued as of July 1, 1932; that at this hearing plaintiff again demanded the compensation for managing the cafeteria, and was informed that she had received $1,000 yearly as cafeteria pay. Plaintiff further alleges that the printed records disclose that there is still due plaintiff the sum of $1,000 a year over a period of approximately four and one-half years, in the total sum of $4,583.31.
For a second and separate cause of action plaintiff realleges all the facts heretofore set out, and further alleges that in October, 1926, the Board of Regents and Frank E. Baker, president of the Milwaukee Normal School, employed this plaintiff as cafeteria manager, and agreed to pay her for her services as such cafeteria manager; that the records of the civil service commission show that plaintiff was paid the sum of $125 per month for the school year of 1926-27, but that she never received any sum of money whatever during this period in payment of her regular cafeteria services. Plaintiff therefore demands judgment for $1,000.
The answer admits the appointment of plaintiff as a teacher and admits the subsequent designation to her of the duty to manage the cafeteria, but alleges that these services were a part of her duties as teacher. It is denied that plaintiff continued to carry a full teaching load and to manage the cafeteria, or that plaintiff demanded extra compensation; it being alleged that her first demand for extra compensation followed her dismissal. It is admitted that, due to a shortage in the funds available for payment of teachers, Baker asked plaintiff to accept her teaching pay from two separate funds, and that she thereafter did receive checks approximating her total salary from two separate funds, one paid out of cafeteria receipts. It is denied that plaintiff had more than a half teaching load, admitted that under her management the cafeteria paid off its debt and developed a surplus, and admitted that plaintiff, in December, 1931, asked to be relieved of the cafeteria responsibility. It is denied that the letter dismissing plaintiff was in response to her demand for compensation, but alleged that it had its origin in complaints as to her efficiency as a teacher and as a manager. It is alleged that in the interview following this letter the reasons for plaintiff's dismissal were fully disclosed to her. It is admitted that plaintiff demanded a hearing; admitted that a hearing was had and plaintiff's position as instructor in household arts discontinued as of July 1, 1932; alleged that plaintiff was fully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norwood Morris Plan Co. v. McCarthy
... ... 230 N.W. 170, 69 A.L.R. 1024; Fisher v. Sun Underwriters ... Ins. Co., 55 R.I. 175, 180, 181, 179 A. 702, 103 A.L.R ... 1097; Sullivan v. State, 213 Wis. 185, 191, 192, 251 ... N.W. 251, 91 A.L.R. 877. Questions of credibility of ... affidavits or evidence do not concern the trial ... ...
-
Commercial Discount Corp. v. Milwaukee Western Bank, 192
...229.6 Capt. Soma Boat Line, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dells, supra, footnote 2, 56 Wis.2d at page 842, 203 N.W.2d at page 371.7 (1933), 213 Wis. 185, 195, 251 N.W. 251, 255.8 Supra, footnote 4.9 Clark v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. (1963), 21 Wis.2d 268, 275, 124 N.W.2d 29, 33; Kanios v. Fred......
-
Hanson v. Halvorson
...296 N.W. 66;City of Milwaukee v. Heyer, 241 Wis. 56, 4 N.W.2d 126;Frank v. Schroeder, 239 Wis. 159, 300 N.W. 254;Sullivan v. State, 213 Wis. 185, 251 N.W. 251, 91 A.L.R. 877;Prime Mfg. Co. v. A. F. Gallun & Sons Corp., 229 Wis. 348, 281 N.W. 697;Fuller v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur.......
-
Juergens v. Ritter
...the allegation, upon which the defendant relies, does not amount to an arguable defense to the plaintiff's claim. Sullivan v. State, 213 Wis. 185, 251 N.W. 251, 91 A.L.R. 877. Proof of facts tending to substantiate that allegation would certainly vary the terms of the written contract enter......