Williams v. Fitzhugh

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The declaration in this ease alleges that the defendants, who constitute the board of trustees of .the State Formal School a.t Bowie, “on or about the 25th day of August, 1921, engaged the services of the plaintiff as a teacher at the State Formal School, at Bowie, for the school year 1921- ³⁸⁵ 1922, at and for the sum of nine hundred and sixty dollars per year, payable in monthly instalments; that on or about the 12th day of February, 1922, the plaintiff was dismissed without cause from the said State Normal School at Bowie, no charges of any kind whatever having been preferred against him, and that the salary due the plaintiff for the remainder of the term was refused him, and that the payment of the same is still refused though demand for the same has been made, and though the Legislature of Maryland at its session of 1920 duly appropriated the money to pay the said salary.” A demurrer to the declaration wasi siustained, and, the plaintiff -declining! to amend1, judgment on the demurrer in favor of the defendants for costs was entered. The question to be determined is whether the defendants, as the board of trustees of the Normal School, are sneable for the alleged breach of contract. 'Their defense, interposed by the demurrer, is that they constitute a State agency exercising governmental functions, and are exempt from liability to be sued iu that capacity. It is contended for the plaintiff, nlow the appellant, that the object of the suit is simply to require the performance by the defendants' of a duty imposed upon .them by laiw to pay the plaintiff money appropriated by the Legislature for the service he was rendering in the position from which he was dismissed, .and that for such a purpose the action is maintainable.

The appellant’s brief explains that his employment as a teacher at the Normal School was discontinued because of a failure of the water supply, which necessitated the dismissal of the pupils for the remainder of the term. It appears upon examination of the Act of Assembly, to which the declaration refers, that the schedules of salaries appropriated for teachers at the State Normal School at Bowie include no sum corresponding! to the amount of the salary here sought to he iu. part recovered. The demurrer states that the defendants have no funds available for the payment of any judgment which might be rendered against them in this case. ³⁸⁶ By section 82 of article 77 of the Code it is provided: “The state board of education and tbe state superintendent of schools shall be the board of trustees of each of the normal schools maintained and supported by the State.” The general control of the educational interests of the State is committed to the State Board of Education. Section 12.

It is invested with authority to determine the State’s educational policies, and i’s charged with the duty of executing the Cbde provisions by which public education is sought to be promoted. v Section 11. It is empowered to “enact by-laws for the administration of the public school system, which when enacted .and published, shall have the force of law.” Ibid. For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of article 77 of tbe Code, and the by-laws of the board duly enacted and published, it is authorized, if necessary, to institute legal proceeding®. Ibid.

There is no provision that the State Board pi Education may be sued either in its general capacity pr as forming, with the State Superintendent of Education, the board of trustees of the Formal Schools. Feither board has ■any means of procuring funds beyond the amount it receives from the State treasury, under budget appropriations by the General Assembly for specific uses. Public education is a highly important interest of the State government. In the promotion of that interest the State is acting through au agency which the