Malloy v. Bd. of Educ. of City of San Jose

California Supreme Court Jun 7, 1894 No. No. 15353Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the board's ballots for a teacher did not constitute a binding contract of employment, as the board revoked the offer by refusing to declare the candidate elected before any acceptance occurred.

Issues

Whether the board's ballots constituted a binding contract of employment for the respondent.
Whether the respondent was entitled to a writ of mandate to compel the board to declare her elected.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Employment implies a contract on the part of the employer to hire, and on the part of the employee to perform services, and until such a contract is mutually entered into it can have no binding obligation upon either party.”

“The ballots were only an expression of choice on the part of the members casting them, and had no greater force or effect than an oral vote would have had.”

“At most they amounted only to an offer of employment, which respondent had a right to refuse, and the board had a right to revoke or cancel at any time before acceptance.”

Synopsis

Board of Education—Power to Enact Rules—Statutory Quorum.— Where the statute provides that a majority of the hoard of education shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and that the board may enact rules for the conduct of its own proceedings, the authority given it to enact such rules does not authorize it to overthrow or change the rule declared by the statute, that a majority of the board shall constitute a quorum.

Id.—Authority to Employ Teachers—Contract—Mutual Assent.—. The authority given to a board of education to employ teachers entitles them to contract with suitable persons to engage in the work of teaching in the public schools of the city for a fixed salary or compensation; and the employment implies a contract on the part of the employer to hire, and on the part of the employee to perform, services, and until such a contract is mutually entered into, it can have no binding obligation upon either party.

Id.—Ballot For Teacher—Offer of Employment—Revocation Before Acceptance.—The mere balloting by the majority of a quorum of the board of education for a teacher does not constitute an employment of the teacher, but amounts only to an offer of employment, which the board has a right to revoke or cancel at any time before acceptance.

Id.—Effect of Refusal to Declare Election — Mandamus.—When the board, after taking a ballot in favor of the employment of a teacher, refuse then and there to declare the teacher elected, it in effect revoked and canceled the offer, and left nothing thereafter for the teacher to accept; and a writ of mandate will not lie to compel the board to declare such teacher elected.

Belcher, C. The charter of the city of San Jose provides that the board of education of the city shall consist of eight members, and that “ a majority of the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but any smaller number may adjourn from time to time. The board may enact rules for the conduct of its own proceedings,” and it shall have power “to employ and dismiss” teachers, and to fix and order paid their salaries or compensation. (Stats. 1873, p. 395, secs. 3, 50, 52.)

Prior to January 5, 1893, a rule was adopted by the board, and was then in force, providing that “ no measure, or proposition shall be valid unless passed by five votes, except motions to adjourn, to postpone, to reconsider, to commit, to lay on the table, to amend, or the previous question.”

On January 5, 1893, there was a regular meeting of the board, but only seven of its members were present. There was then a vacancy in the corps of teachers of the city, and the members present regularly proceeded to ballot for the election of a teacher to fill the vacancy. Seven ballots were cast, and four of them were for the respondent, Alice B. Malloy. But, notwithstanding a majority of the members present, who constituted a quorum for the transaction of business, voted for respondent, the board then and there refused, and ever [645]since has refused, to declare her elected to fill the vacancy, or to permit her to engage in keeping the school. She possessed all the qualifications for the position of teacher required by law, or the rules and regulations of the board, and has at all times been ready, willing, and able to perform the duties of teacher. Before filing her complaint she duly demanded of the board that it do its duty in this behalf, and declare her duly elected to fill said vacancy, but it refused to do so.

On February 3, 1893, respondent commenced this proceeding, alleging the facts, a;nd praying that a writ of mandate be issued commanding the said board and each, and every member thereof, to immediately meet as a board of. education and declare her elected teacher, etc.

The answer denied that on the fifth day of January, 1893, or at any other time, the defendant board of education regularly, or at all, proceeded to, or did, elect respondent a teacher; denied that it is, or ever was, the duty of the board to declare her elected as a teacher in the said schools, and averred that the board never employed her as a teacher.

Malloy v. Bd. of Educ. of City of San Jose

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief