Snider v. Severance

STURTEVANT, J.

The petitioner commenced a proceeding to obtain a writ of mandate directed to the defendant ■ board of trustees of Monterey Grammar School commanding' it to assign the petitioner to her classes as a probationary teacher. The trial court made findings in favor of the defendants and from the judgment entered thereon the petitioner has appealed.

The findings made by the trial court were as follows:

“I.

“That prior to'May 1st, 1931, the petitioner resigned from the employment referred to in the petition, which resignation was to take effect at the end of that school year, to-wit, June 12th, 1931.

“II.

“That the averments of Paragraph II of the Answer are true.” (Paragraph II was as follows: “The respondents allege that at the commencement of the school year 1931-1932, towit, on August 31st, 1931, the petitioner absented herself and failed to report for duty as teacher in the school referred to in the petition.”)

“III.

“That prior to June 10th, 1931, the petitioner declined and refused the employment referred to in the petition for the school year of 1931-1932, and notified the respondents that she did not intend to teach longer at the school referred to in the petition and declined and refused to accept further employment, after June 12th, 1931, as teacher by the respondents.

“IV.

“It is not true that at the commencement of the school year 1931-1932, to-wit, on August 31st, 1931, the petitioner reported for duty as a probationary teacher, and it is not true that prior to October 26th, 1931, the petitioner ever demanded of the respondents, or of either of them, that she should be employed as teacher or assigned as teacher in the school referred to in the petition.”

The petitioner attacks portions of findings number I and number III. She says: “The findings of the trial court we assert are based on evidence which is contradictory and

[111]

which we challenge as to questions of law.” The defendants reply, “Under the constitution, our courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction only of questions of law. While the question of whether there is any evidence to justify a verdict or findings presents an issue of law, the moment that a conflict in the evidence appears, there is no longer any question of law presented for the consideration of an appellate court.” Continuing, the defendants state there is therefore nothing to discuss. The reply is sufficient, but we think the case does not even present a conflict as to material points.