University of Mississippi v. Deister
| Decision Date | 08 October 1917 |
| Docket Number | 19621 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI v. DEISTER |
APPEAL from the circuit court of LaFayette county, HON. J. L. BATES Judge.
Suit by J. L. Deister against the University of Mississippi. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed.
Edgar Webster, for appellant.
W. E Stone and L. C. Andrews, for appellee.
The appellee and cross-appellant, plaintiff in the court below, filed suit in the circuit court of Lafayette county against the University of Mississippi for a part of four years' salary alleged to be due him under his contract with the chancellor of the University, for services as a full professor of Romance languages. The lower court peremptorily instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for five hundred and twenty-five dollars as salary due him for the months of June, July, August, and half of September, 1913, at the rate of one hundred and fifty dollars per month. From this judgment the University of Mississippi prosecutes an appeal, and Dr. Deister a cross-appeal.
It is claimed by the appellee and cross-appellant that there was a written contract entered into between the University and Dr. Deister, based upon a letter from Dr. Brown, a professor of the University, written to Dr. Deister, reading as follows:
University of Miss.
[115 Miss. 471] --and a telegram sent by Chancellor Kincannon the then chancellor of the University, to Dr. Deister, reading as follows. "8/21/1908. Received at 2 p. m. Dated, Oxford, Miss. To Prof. J. L. Deister, R. F. D. 3, Parkville, Mo.
I hereby tender you Assistant Professorship Modern Languages Miss--University, salary thousand dollars per annum. Professorship Romanic Languages probably year hence. Wire answer. A. A. Kincannon."
In response to the letter above quoted, Dr. Deister made a trip to the University of Mississippi and discussed with Dr. Brown and Chancellor Kincannon the duties of the office. Shortly after returning to his home in Missouri he received the telegram from Chancellor Kincannon. He accepted the position tendered him in the telegram, served the first year as assistant professor of modern languages, and was paid for his services in accordance with the telegram. The next scholastic year at the University which began in September, 1909, he was promoted to a full professorship, and was thereafter paid during the balance of the time he was at the University at the rate of one thousand and eight hundred dollars a year--or one thousand and five hundred dollars a year and was given three hundred dollars for commutation money. Commutation money is allowed professors when they are not furnished with residences by the University. This amount of one thousand and eight hundred dollars a year is paid in twelve monthly installments of one hundred and fifty dollars at the end of each month.
The testimony in the case is practically uncontradicted, and we shall consider that of Dr. Deister himself. This witness testified that at the end of his first year's service he was made a full professor, but that the chancellor told him that owing to the fact that there was a shortage of funds and that the University was in debt, and there were other men making claims, that he could not pay him the full salary of two thousand dollars, but that he agreed to pay him one thousand and five hundred dollars and three hundred dollars for his rent. That for the next scholastic year, beginning September, 1910, and ending September, 1911, the chancellor again made the same excuse as above set out, and held out the hope that the following year, after the meeting of the legislature, he would be able to pay him a full salary of two thousand dollars. In response to a question of his attorney as to whether or not he consented to work for the year 1910-11 for one thousand and eight hundred dollars, he answered, "Yes, I went ahead and worked for that salary," for which work he was paid. For the scholastic year 1911-12, he states he talked with the chancellor several times about this salary, but could not get any definite answer from him. That summer he went to Europe, and on his return he had another talk with the chancellor along the same lines, and was told that the chancellor had recommended the increase in salary, but the board of trustees had declined to give it to him. With this information he worked that year for the salary of one thousand and eight hundred dollars, which was paid him. He states that he did not accept it in full settlement of his salary, but that he accepted the money. It is also shown in the record that some time in the year 1911 he took up with members of the board of trustees the question of raising his salary to two thousand dollars a year. He wrote letters to members of this board, and also wrote a letter to the Governor about the same matter in the year 1912. In other words he had ascertained some time in 1911 that the board of trustees were the final arbiters as to the amount of salary to be paid professors and instructors at the University. At the end of the scholastic year 1911-12, all of the professors were re-elected for the ensuing scholastic year at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Broom v. Southern Railway in Mississippi
-
Campbell v. Warwick
...with a broad discretion in respect to the selection of a superintendent for their schools. Lander v. Tolbert, 121 Miss. 592; University v. Deister, 115 Miss. 469. This case, therefore, presents a plain attempt upon the part of the complainant to restrain the defendant in the exercise of the......