Grindley v. Santa Cruz County (1884) · DecisionDepot

Grindley v. Santa Cruz County

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jun 18, 1884 No. No. 8170Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a county board of supervisors cannot discharge a physician under a valid employment contract without a legally sufficient justification, and that the trial court's findings were too ambiguous to support a judgment for the defendant.

Issues

Whether the board of supervisors had legal authority to discharge the plaintiff during the term of his employment contract.
Whether the trial court's findings of fact were sufficient to support a judgment for the defendant.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The ground on which such discharge, removal and prevention was made should have been especially found, so that the court could perceive, as a matter of law, that such action of the board was justified by law.”

Synopsis

County Supervisors—Contract With Physician—Discharge.—In an action by a physician to recover damages for breach of contract made with him by the supervisors of a county, held, that defendant was not, on the facts recited in opinion, justified in discharging plaintiff previous to the expiration of the time for which he had been employed to perform the service.1

THORNTON, J. Action by a physician to recover damages for breach of contract made with him by the supervisors of Santa Cruz county.

The court rendered the following decision:

“(1) That on the sixth day of October, 1879, the defendant employed plaintiff as county physician for the period of one year thereafter from that date, and to pay him therefor monthly the sum of thirty-seven dollars.

“ (2) That, at the time of said contract, the plaintiff was a regularly graduated physician and surgeon, holding a diploma, authorizing him to practice medicine and surgery, from the Jefferson Medical College, of the state of Pennsylvania, dated on the 15th of March, A. D. 1865.

“ (3) That, at the time of said contract, the plaintiff held a certificate from the Medical Society of the State of California, showing his right and authorizing him to practice medicine and surgery in any part of this state.

“ (4) That the board of supervisors of the defendant, at the time of entering into the contract, personally handled and examined both the diploma of the plaintiff and his certificate to practice medicine and surgery in this state.

[327]“(5) Plaintiff, on the third day of January, A. D. 1879, filed with the recorder of said county, and caused to be recorded, his said certificate to practice medicine and surgery „ in this state.

“ (6) Under the contract aforesaid, the plaintiff on the same day, the 6th of October, 1879, entered upon the performance of his duties, and attended to all the indigent sick persons of said county, and attended daily at the hospital of said county, between the hours of 9 o’clock and 11 o’clock A. M. of each day, up to the eighteenth day of January, 1880, when, and on which day, the steward of the said hospital, by order of the board of supervisors of defendant, prevented the plaintiff from visiting the sick wards of said hospital, or from attending upon the indigent sick persons of said county.

“(7) On the eighteenth day of January, A. D. 1880, the defendant prevented the plaintiff from completing or from further continuing the contract, or performing his part to be performed under it.

“ (8) The duties of the plaintiff under the said contract consisted in visiting the indigent sick of said county, and prescribing such treatment, medicines, and attention as might be necessary.

Related research

For what reason the defendant discharged the plaintiff does not appear. We cannot perceive, as a matter of law, that the controversy between plaintiff and the steward of the hospital justified the board of supervisors in discharging him. The plaintiff may have been in the right in this matter. Nothing is found from which we can infer in law that the claim made by plaintiff was not just and proper. The facts should have been found from which the court might be able to draw the legal conclusion that plaintiff was in the wrong [330]and was acting outside of the line of his duty. It does not appear from the finding (twelfth) that plaintiff did anything beyond making a claim as to the extent of his powers. This may have arisen from an honest error of judgment on his part. It does not appear that he performed any act beyond what he was authorized as physician of the hospital, or that he exceeded his authority in any way. This controversy, we think, might have been adjusted by the hoard of supervisors, and the scope, extent and limits of the authority of the contending officers defined by the board. The claim of authority by the plaintiff might have been honestly made, and we cannot see how such claim, honestly made, should have subjected him to be discharged by the board from its employment under the contract, and prevented by it from the performance of its requirements. No sufficient reason is given for such discharge and prevention in the findings or conclusions of law. The general reasons given for such discharge or removal, in the conclusions of law, are not sufficient. The ground on which such discharge, removal and prevention was made should have been especially found, so that the court could perceive, as a matter of law, that such action of the board was justified by law. It must be remembered that the plaintiff was in the discharge of his duties under a lawful contract for a specific period, and as long as he complied with his contract and with the law governing his relations to the county as its employee and contractee, the board had no authority to discharge or remove him from his position, or prevent him from performing the duties incumbent on him.

Grindley v. Santa Cruz County

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW.

AI Brief