Watson v. Burnett, No. 27259.

Docket NºNo. 27259.
Citation216 Ind. 216, 23 N.E.2d 420
Case DateNovember 13, 1939
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

216 Ind. 216
23 N.E.2d 420

WATSON
v.
BURNETT.

No. 27259.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 13, 1939.


Action by Julia C. Burnett against William W. Watson for a mandatory injunction. From a judgment granting a temporary mandatory injunction, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

[23 N.E.2d 421]

Appeal from Sullivan Circuit Court; Martin L. Pigg, Judge.

[23 N.E.2d 422]


Hays & Hays, of Sullivan, for appellant.

Charles H. Bedwell, of Sullivan, for appellee.


SWAIM, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Sullivan Circuit Court granting appellee a temporary mandatory injunction against the appellant as trustee of Turman School Township of Sullivan County. By this injunction appellant was restrained from continuing his acts in denying to the appellee a definite written contract as a public school teacher in the public schools of said school township and was ordered to prepare, execute, as such trustee, and tender to the appellee for her signature a definite written contract employing appellee as a teacher in said schools for the year 1939-1940.

In the year 1928 the appellee, having served under written contract as a teacher in such school township for the past five consecutive years, entered into a written teacher's contract for further service as a teacher in the public schools of said school township for the school year of 1928-1929 and thereby became and was a permanent tenure teacher of such school corporation and the holder of an indefinite contract under the terms of the Teachers' Tenure Act of 1927. Ch. 97, p. 259, Acts 1927. Thereafter the appellee continued to teach in the public schools of said school township until the close of the school year of 1936-1937, when she was discharged by appellant and informed that she would not thereafter be permitted to teach in the public schools of said township. The appellant, as trustee of said school township, failed and refused to enter into a definite contract with the appellee for the school years of 1937-1938 and of 1938-1939, although appellee repeatedly demanded of appellant such a definite contract and that she be permitted to teach in such schools.

On March 19, 1938, the appellant, as trustee of said school township, pursuant to § 2 of said Teachers' Tenure Act, supra, served notice on the appellee of his intention to consider, on April 25, 1938, the matter of the cancellation of appellee's permanent teacher's contract. Thereupon the appellee, pursuant to the terms of said statute, requested a hearing on such consideration and a written statement of the reasons for the consideration of the cancellation of her contract. Pursuant to this request the appellant furnished appellee the following written statement of reasons:

‘To Julia C. Burnett:

‘Complying with your request, the cancellation of your alleged indefinite contract as a permanent teacher of Turman School Township, Sullivan County, Indiana, will be considered on April 25, 1938, for the following reasons:

‘1. Justifiable decrease in the number of teachers. The reduction in the number of teachers of Turman School Township, Sullivan County, Indiana, is brought about by the decrease in attendance, and it is necessary, under the rules of the State Board of Education, to reduce the number of teachers in the Township in order to obtain and retain State aid and tuition support for the schools.

‘2. You hold only a primary teacher's license, which authorizes you to teach only in the first four grades and will not permit you to teach in the intermediate grades.

‘Dated this 22nd day of April, 1938.

‘Wm. W. Watson,

‘Trustee, Turman Township,

Sullivan County, Indiana.'

On the date set for said hearing the appellee appeared and filed her written objections to the jurisdiction and power of the appellant to cancel her contract. The appellant then considered the matter of the cancellation of said contract and did then and there cancel the same. An appeal from this decision was taken by appellee to the county superintendent of schools and at the hearing on such appeal both parties were present and represented by counsel. On May 31, 1938, the said county superintendent of schools rendered a written opinion which attempted to determine the legal questions involved in the controversy and stated that a decrease in the number of teachers was justified, but failed to make any statement or finding that the justifiable decrease in the number of teachers made it necessary to dispense with the services of a tenure teacher.

Appellee was not permitted to teach in said schools during the school year 1938-1939 and in June, 1939, appellee again demanded of appellant that she be given a definite written contract, be reinstated as a teacher in said schools and be permitted to teach during the school year of 1939-1940. On the refusal of the appellant to accede to this demand this action for a

[23 N.E.2d 423]

mandatory injunction was brought by appellee. The cause was submitted to and tried by the court on the verified complaint and the affidavits filed by both parties and by the agreement of the parties no other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • Elliott v. Bd. of Sch. Trs. of Madison Consol. Sch., No. 16-4168
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 4 Diciembre 2017
    ...a 876 F.3d 929teacher earns tenure, the "principal purpose" of which is "to secure permanency in the teaching force." Watson v. Burnett , 216 Ind. 216, 23 N.E.2d 420, 423 (1939). Permanency was intended to promote "the public good through the creation of a competent cadre of teachers in the......
  • City of Indianapolis By and Through Bd. of Directors for Utilities v. Walker, No. 19255
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 Junio 1960
    ...of the complaint, and not having been so raised, the alleged defect was waived. Section 2-1011, Burns' Ind.Stat.; Watson v. Burnett, 1939, 216 Ind. 216, 225, 23 N.E.2d Appellant's fourth cause in its Motion for New Trial specified alleged error of the trial court in overruling appellant's m......
  • Lawson v. State, No. 1177S797
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 Noviembre 1980
    ...423] 159 N.E.2d 393, cert. denied, (1960) 361 U.S. 972, 80 S.Ct. 605, 4 L.Ed.2d 551; Workman v. State, (1939) 216 Ind. 68, 21 N.E.2d 712, 23 N.E.2d 420. Cf. Norton v. State, (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 514. In addition, instructions on an accused's liability as an accessory under § 35-1-29-1, s......
  • Wozniczka v. McKean, No. 468A56
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 6 Mayo 1969
    ...Appellees have waived any objection to any such misnomer. See Vogel v. Brown Township, 112 Ind. 299, 14 N.E. 77 (1887); Watson v. Burnett, 216 Ind. 216, 23 N.E.2d 420 (1939). It is also clear that the proper procedure for raising the question of misnomer is by a Plea in Abatement in the tri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • Elliott v. Bd. of Sch. Trs. of Madison Consol. Sch., No. 16-4168
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 4 Diciembre 2017
    ...a 876 F.3d 929teacher earns tenure, the "principal purpose" of which is "to secure permanency in the teaching force." Watson v. Burnett , 216 Ind. 216, 23 N.E.2d 420, 423 (1939). Permanency was intended to promote "the public good through the creation of a competent cadre of teachers in the......
  • City of Indianapolis By and Through Bd. of Directors for Utilities v. Walker, No. 19255
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 Junio 1960
    ...of the complaint, and not having been so raised, the alleged defect was waived. Section 2-1011, Burns' Ind.Stat.; Watson v. Burnett, 1939, 216 Ind. 216, 225, 23 N.E.2d Appellant's fourth cause in its Motion for New Trial specified alleged error of the trial court in overruling appellant's m......
  • Lawson v. State, No. 1177S797
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 Noviembre 1980
    ...423] 159 N.E.2d 393, cert. denied, (1960) 361 U.S. 972, 80 S.Ct. 605, 4 L.Ed.2d 551; Workman v. State, (1939) 216 Ind. 68, 21 N.E.2d 712, 23 N.E.2d 420. Cf. Norton v. State, (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 514. In addition, instructions on an accused's liability as an accessory under § 35-1-29-1, s......
  • Wozniczka v. McKean, No. 468A56
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 6 Mayo 1969
    ...Appellees have waived any objection to any such misnomer. See Vogel v. Brown Township, 112 Ind. 299, 14 N.E. 77 (1887); Watson v. Burnett, 216 Ind. 216, 23 N.E.2d 420 (1939). It is also clear that the proper procedure for raising the question of misnomer is by a Plea in Abatement in the tri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT