Godward v. Board of Trustees
Before: Finch
[161]
FINCH, P. J.
This is an. original application for a writ of mandate to compel the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as principal and teacher of the Mariposa County Union High School. October 12, 1926, the respondent board adopted a motion to employ the petitioner “for a period of three years, beginning September 13th, 1926, and ending June 30, 1929.” He thereafter acted as principal of the school and teacher of algebra, geometry, and physics until the close of the term ending in May, 1928. During the same period five other teachers were continuously employed in the school. June 9, 1928, the board notified the petitioner that his services were no longer required.
The only question to be considered is whether the Board of Trustees had authority to employ the petitioner for a longer term than one year. Prior to 1911 the power to employ a principal was included in the general authorization to employ teachers. Section 1617 of the Political Code, as amended in 1881, provided:
“The powers and duties of trustees of school districts, and of boards of education in cities, are as follows: . . . Seventh—To employ the teachers, janitors, and employees of schools; . . . provided, that no board of trustees shall enter into any contract with such employees to extend beyond the thirtieth day of June next ensuing.” (Stats. 1881, p. 41.) In
Kennedy
v.
Board of Education,
82 Cal. 483, 489 [22 Pac. 1042], it is said: “This section contains no limitation as to the time for which a board of education in a city may employ a teacher. There is such a limitation, but it is confined in terms to boards of trustees.” Section 1617 was amended in 1889, 1891, 1893, 1906, and 1909, but no material change was made in the foregoing provisions. In 1911 the seventh subdivision of section 1617 was amended to read as follows:
“ (a) To employ a principal for each school under their control, and in schools employing eight teachers or more, they may employ a supervising principal for one or more schools under their control, and in each city school district governed by a city board of education to employ a city superintendent of schools and, when necessary, deputy or assistant city superintendent of schools; . . . provided, that any supervising principal, or city superintendent, or deputy,
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)