Wardell v. Town of Killingly

• Decision Date: 30 November 1921
• Citation: 96 Conn. 718,115 A. 539
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WARDELL v. TOWN OF KILLINGLY.

115 A. 539

96 Conn. 718

WARDELL v. TOWN OF KILLINGLY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

November 30, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, Windham County; George E. Hinman, Judge.

Elbert L. Darbie, of Danielson, Charles E. Searls, of Putnam, and Sabin S. Russell, of Danielson, for the motion to erase.

Arthur T. Keefe, of New London, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

This action is to secure damages for the breach of a contract employing plaintiff as a school-teacher. Upon the trial plaintiff offered to prove the contents of a letter from the superintendent of schools for the purpose of proving that she held a certificate to teach, as required by General Statutes 1918, § 1007. The offer was objected to upon the ground that the letter was not a certificate within the meaning of the statute, and the court sustained the objection. Whereupon, on plaintiff's motion, a continuance was granted in order to allow her to bring an application in the nature of mandamus under General Statutes 1918, § 6065. Subsequently plaintiff brought an application, praying for an order in the nature of a mandamus against the school committee of Killingly, and requiring them, as such school committee, or a committee of them, to issue a certificate, authorizing her to teach music in the schools of Killingly as long as she desired, in accordance with General Statutes 1918, § 1007. At the same time plaintiff brought an application praying for an order in the nature of a mandamus against the secretary of the school committee of Killingly to correct the records of the committee in certain named particulars. Upon these applications orders to show cause were entered, and thereafter defendant moved to quash each application, and the plaintiff then moved to strike out the motion to quash. These motions were denied upon the ground that the rules to show cause stood in place of the alternative writ of mandamus. The motions to quash were overruled, and defendants then made answer to each application, the court heard the cases and rendered judgment in each case, and adjudged that each application be denied and dismissed. The plaintiff appealed and in overruling defendants' request that the court deny plaintiff's request for a finding, Judge Hinman said:

" While these applications for orders in the nature of mandamus are brought under section 6065 of the General Statutes, and have been and are to be regarded as, in effect independent proceedings, and the orders dismissing said applications are final rather than interlocutory; furthermore it appears that, unless plaintiff obtains the certificate prayed for against Grey et al further proceedings in said original action would serve no useful purpose. A finding is therefore made in each case."

In this court defendants in each case filed a plea to the jurisdiction and in abatement, and also a motion to erase from the docket because the appeals were not taken from a final judgment, and the plaintiff filed a motion to strike out defendants' plea to the jurisdiction and in abatement. And these pleas and motion are before us for disposition. The applications were brought under General Statutes 1918, § 6065, which read as follows:

" Any court having cognizance of writs of habeas corpus mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition or ne exeat may, in any action pending before it, make any order,

...