Underwood v. Board of County School Com'rs of Prince George's County
| Decision Date | 15 February 1906 |
| Citation | 63 A. 221,103 Md. 181 |
| Parties | UNDERWOOD et al. v. BOARD OF COUNTY SCHOOL COM'RS OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY et al. NALLEY v. UNDERWOOD et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Prince George's County, in Equity George C. Merrick, Judge.
Suit by Thomas M. Underwood and others against the board of county school commissioners of Prince George's county and others. An order was entered overruling demurrers to the bill and modifying an injunction in so far as it restrained the board and the secretary and treasurer thereof from paying salary to Ella M. Queen Nalley between certain dates. From the order modifying the injunction, plaintiffs appeal; and from the order overruling the demurrer, Mrs. Nalley appeals. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRISCOE, BOYD, PAGE, PEARCE SCHMUCKER, JONES, and BURKE, JJ.
T. Van Clagett and F. Snowden Hill, for appellants.
Charles H. Stanley and James C. Rogers, for appellee.
The appellants, as taxpayers of Prince George's county, filed a bill in equity against the board of county school commissioners of that county, the secretary and treasurer of the board, and Mrs. Nalley, to enjoin the board and the secretary and treasurer from paying Mrs. Nalley any salary as principal teacher of a public school in that county, from October 10, 1904, to January 10, 1905, and from January 18th to February 1, 1905, and to enjoin Mrs. Nalley from receiving the same. The court granted a preliminary injunction, and the board and Mrs. Nalley each filed a demurrer to the bill. The demurrers were overruled. but in the same order the injunction was modified and rescinded, in so far as it restrained and forbade the board and the secretary and treasurer from paying any salary to Mrs. Nalley from January 18, 1905, to February 1 1905. From the order modifying and rescinding the injunction as stated above, this appeal was taken by the plaintiffs; and from the order overruling the demurrer, an appeal has since been taken by Mrs. Nalley.
The bill alleges that Messrs. Underwood and Johnson, two of the appellants, and Leroy C. Towles, were appointed trustees of that school in May, 1900, and were reappointed for the years 1901 and 1902; that the three complainants were appointed trustees in May, 1903. and again in May, 1904. The bill states that the trustees did not take any oath of office after May, 1900, but they organized and continued in discharge of their duties as trustees. In August, 1900, the trustees appointed Ella M. Queen principal of said school, and her appointment was duly confirmed by the commissioners. A "Teachers' Appointment Blank" is made part of the bill, and it is alleged that such form was used and properly executed. It contains a provision that: "This contract is to continue from term to term, and from year to year, subject to revocation at any time by either of the parties thereto, giving the other 30 days' notice, in writing, to that effect, of which revocation due written notice must also be given to the county school board." That contract was made prior to the change in the statute hereinafter referred to. Miss Queen continued as such teacher from year to year, and entered upon the discharge of her duties for the scholastic year 1903-04, and while so acting, to wit, on the 23d of December, 1903, sent a letter to each of the three trustees telling them she was to be married on the 26th of that month, and on that date did marry Henry Nalley. In her letter to the trustees she said: "I will continue to teach until the end of this scholastic year, June 15, 1904." On June 9, 1904, she wrote to each of the trustees: On August 13, 1904, the trustees notified her in writing that her "resignation was accepted," and on the same day appointed Luella R. Polhemus principal of the school. Mrs. Nalley appealed to the county board, and it passed an order that "the board does not consider that she had resigned her school, and consequently the appointment of a new teacher cannot be confirmed." The trustees then, acting for themselves and also upon the advice of two of the commissioners, undertook to remove Mrs. Nalley by a written notice, which she received on or before September 9th, which said: She then required them to furnish her with the reasons for her removal, and on September 10th they wrote to her: "We, the undersigned trustees of above-named school, believe it for the best interest of the school that we notify you that your services as teacher of the aforesaid school will not be required after the 10th day of October, 1904." She appealed to the county board, and on September 29, 1904, it passed an order that the trustees be sustained, and another order that the appointment of Miss Polhemus be confirmed. Mrs. Nalley then asumed charge of the school from the beginning of the scholastic year until October 10th, inclusive, when she relinquished it, and it was taken charge of by Miss Polhemus. Mrs. Nalley, in the presence of the district school trustees, entered an appeal to the state board of education, and the county board forwarded to the state board copies of the two letters sent to Mrs. Nalley by the trustees. The state board, without notice to the trustees or Miss Polhemus of a hearing, passed a resolution as follows: "Resolved, that the words, 'We, the undersigned trustees of above-named school, believe it for the best interest of the school,' does not constitute reasons, as provided for by section 49 of article 77 of the Code, and that the alleged notice was not in conformity with law." That was sent to the county board by the state board, and, on January 3d the county board ordered that, in view of the action of the state board, the question be referred back to the trustees for a more specific reason for removal, and fixed January 17th for a hearing. On that date the county board passed an order that, in view of the decision of the state board, no further reason for the removal having been submitted by the trustees, the former action of the trustees in removing Mrs. Nalley and appointing Miss Polhemus "be and the same is hereby rescinded, and Mrs. Nalley is recognized as the teacher of said school." The bill then alleges that Mrs. Nalley forcibly took possession of the school on January 18th, against the protest of Miss Polhemus, and had retained possession up to the time the bill was filed, which was January 31, 1905. Miss Polhemus notified the county board of Mrs. Nalley's action, stated her readiness to perform the duties, and said she would take legal measures to recover the amounts due her.
The appellants contend that they are entitled to relief because: (1) The letter of Mrs. Nalley of December 23, 1903, was a resignation, that said resignation was duly accepted by the trustees, and she was never afterwards appointed or recognized by them. (2) That, if that be not correct, she ceased to be the teacher after October 10, 1904, and that Miss Polhemus became the principal on October 11th, and they claim that the action of the state board and that of the county board subsequent thereto were beyond their powers.
First. It seems perfectly clear to us that the letter of December 23, 1903, was not a resignation. It only said: "I will continue to teach until the end of this scholastic year, June 15, 1904." It was very proper to give notice to the trustees, not only of her contemplated marriage, but of her intention to continue teaching until the end of the year, as otherwise they might have been in doubt on that subject. But before any action was taken on what the trustees treated as a resignation she wrote the letter of June 9th, which should have removed any question about it. The county board, by its order of August 23d, expressly said that it did not consider that Mrs. Nalley had resigned, and refused to confirm the new appointment. So there can be no question that Miss Polhemus acquired no rights by reason of the supposed resignation by Mrs. Nalley, as principal teachers appointed by the trustees must be confirmed. Section 53, art. 77, Code Pub. Gen. Laws 1904; School Board...
To continue reading
Request your trial