Maryland case law › Board of County School Commissioners v. Adams

Board of County School Commissioners v. Adams

43 Md. 349 (1875) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: ReversedBartol, C. J.✓ Good law
HoldingAdams sued the Board of County School Commissioners to recover salary as Principal of the Lonaconing Public Schools from September 29 to December 20, 1873, at $90 per month.

Bartol, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The questions presented by this appeal arise upon two bills of exception taken by tlie appellants, who were defendants below; thc first, to the rejection of their second and fourth prayers, and to the modification by tbe Circuit Court of tlieir third prayer ; and the second, to tbe verbal -instruction,or explanation given by the Court to the jury during the argument of the defendants’ counsel. It appears by the plaintiff’s “bill of particulars” that the suit was instituted to recover the salary alleged to be due bi.ni as “ Principal of tbe Lonaconing Public Schools,” from Sept. 29th, till December 20th, 1873, at the rate of $90 per month. The evidence shows that he was elected “ Principal of the Lonaconing Public Schools” on the 29th day of September, 1873; that lie went the next day to Lonaconing, to take charge of the public schools as Principal, but found that the school bouses were “ not in a proper condition for teaching, ou account of the glass being out of the windows, and the houses having to be cleansed, and one of them, called the Castle School house, which he was to occupy, was not entirely completed, and had no furniture therein, or means of heating the same; he then returned to Cumberland and reported the condition of things to the President of the Board.” He afterwards went to Lonaconing and returned to Cumberland several times, making in all twelve trips, the last of which was on the 15th clay of December, 1878.

On two occasion's be remained at Lonaconing one week, once he 354 remained there five days, on two other occasions four days, and at one time, three, clays. During that period, he was endeavoring’ to get the Castle School house completed and in proper condition ; “ started the Detmold School and the Rockville School, and visited them.” On the 19th clay of December, 1878, he was dismissed by the trustees, without thirty clays previous notice. By agreement of counsel, the “By-Laws,-Rules and Regulations for the guidance of teachers and school officers of the public schools of Maryland, adopted by authority of the State Board of Education,” offered in evidence at the trial, were referred to in this.Court as part of the record, and also the “Public School Directory of Allegany County.” From this last it appears that the Fall Term of the schools in that County began Sept. íbth and ended Nov. 21 si, 1873; and the Winter Term began Dec. 1 si, 1873, and ended Feb. 9ill, 1874. We make no reference, to the “ By-Laws, Hules and Regulations,” as they appear to have been those adopted at a subsequent period, under the Act of 1874, ch. 463.

By the Act of 1872, ch. 377, sub ch. 8, sec. 3, it was provided that “Teachers shall enter into registers prepared for that purpose, an accurate account of the attendance of pupils, of text books used and branches taught, and such other statistics as may be required, and make due return thereof to the Board of County School Commissioners at the end of each term ; and no teacher shall be entitled to receive payment for services until the register properly filled up and completed, be so returned; their report shall be filed by the sai’d Board for the purpose of making the annual returns to the State Board of Education.” The defences relied, on by the appellants, were First, that the appellee had failed to make' the “Term Reports,” as required by the Act of 1872, above cited. 355 It is contended by the appellee that this provision of the law applies only'to the teachers who may be in immediate charge of the respective schools, and “ has no application to the principal, having the general superintendence of all the schools of the District.” But in this construction of the law we do not concur. The duty of making the report is one imposed upon all teachers; and is one-from which the principal is not exempt, for he is a teacher, elected for that purpose, exclusively; the law does not contemplate any such officer as principal with duties other than those of teacher. Of course the duty of making the report is one which from its nature, cannot be performed except by those who are actually engaged in teaching, which as it appears

This is a preview of Board of County School Commissioners v. Adams. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.