White v. Porter, 4721.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 4721.,4721. |
| Citation | 78 S.W.2d 287 |
| Parties | WHITE v. PORTER et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bowie County; R. H. Harvey, Judge.
Action by Martha White against C. C. Porter and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
O. B. Pirkey, of New Boston, and Wm. V. Brown, of Texarkana, for appellant.
O. H. Atchley, of New Boston, for appellees.
The appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending that since the school term for which the contract was made has expired, that the questions involved have become moot.
The particular controversy here involves the rights of Miss White in the matter of collecting her salary due in payment for her services in teaching the school under a valid and enforceable contract, specifying amount of agreed upon compensation. Her rights and adjudication thereupon do not cease with the school term, but depend entirely upon judgment of the court. The enforcement of the judgment in all its terms and direction legally exists upon its rendition and at the time of its rendition and against the school officials, presently and their successors in office. A mandamus runs against officials and not parties in individual capacity.
On the Merits.
C. C. Porter is the duly elected, qualified, and acting county superintendent of public schools of Bowie county. F. D. Crook, T. M. Gunter, and E. C. Anderson are duly elected, qualified, and acting trustees of Leary Common School District No. 67 of said county. Miss Martha White and Miss Rachel Jones each hold a certificate duly registered authorizing them to teach school in the elementary grades of the public schools of Texas, and are not in any way disqualified to teach in said Common School District No. 67 of Bowie county. Mr. E. C. Anderson was elected at the April, 1933, election of trustees. After his election and prior to May 1, 1933, the time fixed by law for him to enter upon the discharge of the duties as such trustee, there was manifested a difference of opinion between Mr. Crook, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Gunter as to whom they would prefer to employ as teachers. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gunter each signified the preference for Miss White, and Mr. Crook signified the preference for Miss Jones. A petition seems to have been drawn up and circulated, the exact nature of which is not made clear in the record, but it appears to have had for its purpose to prevent Mr. Anderson from qualifying or to oust him as such trustee. Upon notice from the county superintendent to do so, Mr. Crook, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Gunter met on April 26, 1933, with the county superintendent in his office at the county seat, outside the territorial boundaries of said common school district, and the following agreement was there entered into:
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gunter subsequently decided not to carry out the above agreement to employ Miss Jones, for the reason, as they claim, that circulation of said petition was continued after the agreement was signed. No contract of employment was actually signed with Miss Jones by the trustees as called for in the agreement on May 1, 1933, or at any other time. The number of scholastics in Leary Common School District authorizes the employment of three white teachers. The three trustees signed a contract with Miss Edwards to teach first place, and a contract was signed by Mr. Gunter and Mr. Anderson with Mr. Howell to teach the second place. These two contracts were filed with and approved by the county superintendent. It was agreed upon by Mr. Gunter and Mr. Anderson, but not consented to by Mr. Crook, that Miss White should be employed for the third place. On the date of June 26, 1933, the two trustees, Mr. Gunter and Mr. Anderson, signed a written contract with Miss White to teach in the school for the 1933-34 term. The contract was signed in triplicate by the two trustees and the teacher named, on form prescribed by the school authorities of Texas, and regular in terms. It was filed with the county superintendent on August 31, 1933, for his approval. No action with respect to approval of the contract appears to have been taken by the county superintendent until September 29, 1933. The county superintendent being of the opinion that the agreement above quoted entered into on April 26, 1933, by and between Mr. Anderson, Mr. Gunter, and Mr. Crook, was legally sufficient to constitute a contract of employment of Miss Jones to teach the third place in said school, and it being prior in point of time to Miss White's contract, and there not being a sufficient number of scholastics in the district to authorize the employment of a fourth teacher, he then indorsed upon Miss White's contract the following: "Insufficient net scholastics (under 96) for approval, 9-29-1933."
Upon learning of his refusal to approve her contract, Miss White appealed from the ruling of the county superintendent to the county board of school trustees of Bowie county, and Miss Jones was made a party defendant with the county superintendent in said appeal. On hearing of the appeal before the county board, the attorneys for Miss White and the county superintendent made and signed the following stipulations and agreement:
The ruling of the county board of school trustees was in favor of Miss White and against Miss Jones, overruling the decision of the county superintendent in his action refusing to approve Miss White's contract, and entered its order approving the contract of Miss White as of date September 6, 1933. Miss Jones did not appeal from the action of the county board. The county superintendent appealed from the action of the county board to the state superintendent of public instruction, whose decision reversed the decision of the county board of school trustees and upheld the decision of the county superintendent. Miss White appealed from the state superintendent to the state board of education, and the decision of the state board of education upheld the ruling of the state superintendent.
Whereupon this suit was instituted in the district court of Bowie county by Miss White as plaintiff praying for judgment of mandamus against the defendant, C. C. Porter, as county superintendent of public schools of said county, directing and commanding him to approve the contract of Miss White. Miss Rachel Jones was made a party defendant with the county superintendent upon allegations of plaintiff, in substance and effect, that Miss Jones claimed to have a contract for the same place or position in said school as the one claimed by plaintiff, to wit, third place; that the funds of said school are insufficient to pay a fourth teacher, or to pay but one teacher for third place for which both plaintiff and Miss Jones were claiming to hold valid contracts; that Miss Jones was claiming under the agreement above quoted, and that it did not constitute a contract of employment, and that plaintiff holds the only valid contract for the contested place; that, knowing that Miss Jones did not have a contract of employment to teach in said school, and relying upon the statement and agreement of the county superintendent, above quoted, that his only reason for not approving plaintiff's contract was that he considered that Miss Jones had a valid contract, which was first in point of time to that of plaintiff, to teach said place, and that if Miss Jones did not have a valid contract he would approve plaintiff's contract, and relying upon the further advice and request of a majority of the trustees of said district to do so, plaintiff began and has continuously been teaching in the school since its opening. In addition to her prayer for mandamus requiring the county superintendent to approve her contract plaintiff further prays for judgment decreeing her rights in the premises superior to any of Miss Jones, and that the funds of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Book Co. v. Vandiver
... ... 6810, 6816, 6818, 6813, 6812, 6803, Code of 1930; White ... v. Porter, [181 Miss. 522] 78 S.W.2d 287; City of ... Newton v. Board of Supervisors, 112 ... ...
-
Carver v. Gray, 5100.
...Rule 19 for District and County Courts, 142 S.W. xviii; City of Paris v. Bray et ux., 107 Tex. 188, 175 S. W. 432; White v. Porter et al., Tex.Civ. App., 78 S.W.2d 287. The only document involved in this contention which could in any sense be considered permissible as an exhibit to the peti......
-
Waller v. Waller
...relies on. See Muhr, 749 S.W.2d at 494-95. Further, a merely evidentiary document may not be considered in aid of a pleading. White v. Porter, 78 S.W.2d 287, 292 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1934, no writ). Thus, Appellees' assertion that Bill should have attached proof to support his allegati......
-
Carlile v. Peevy
...has been announced by the Galveston court in Miller v. Smiley, 65 S.W.2d 417, writ refused, and by the Texarkana court in White v. Porter, 78 S.W.2d 287. Notwithstanding the findings the trial court made in his judgment, the record is uncontradicted that the county superintendent had before......