Zantzinger v. Manning

Thomas. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County directing a mandamus to issue commanding the Board of County School Commissioners and the-County Superintendent of said county to reinstate the appellee as principal of the Laurel High School, and commanding Uirtley J. Morris., one of the appellants, to surrender said office to the appellee. The petition filed in the Court below by the appellee alleges that he had been a duly qualified teacher of the public schools of Prince George’s County for thirty years; that he ¹⁷¹ held, a life certificate from the State Board of Education, (hereinafter referred to as the State Board), and for the last fourteen years has been principal of the Laurel High School, a county high school located in the town of Laurel,, in said county; that during the summer of 1912 certain citizens of Laurel, and certain other citizens of Laurel who had been named by the Board of County School Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as School Commissioners), as a “local advisory hoard for the Laurel High School,” filed with the School Commissioners and the County Superintendent a petition asking for an investigation of -said school; that he filed an answer to said petition and that the matter was set for a hearing on August 6th, 1912, and after a hearing was disposed of by an order of the School Commissioners to the effect that it did not appear, after a hearing, of which all parties concerned had. due notice, “that a further investigation of the condition of the Laurel High School is feasible or necessary at this time,” that after said order was passed by the School Commissioners the petitioner continued to discharge his duties as principal of said school, and that on the 16th of June, 1913, ho received from the superintendent a letter dated June 13th, 1913, notifying him that the School Commissioners had on the 10th -of June, 1913, passed to order as follows: “Ordered that the secretary be authorized by the hoard to give Mr. Roger I. Manning, principal of the Laurel High School, formal notice that his services will not be needed for the next scholastic year”; that said action by the School Commissioners “had been taken after your petitioner had been exonerated from all charges as above set out and without giving him an opportunity to appear before said defendants in his own. behalf.

That no charge of any kind or character had been filed against him by anyone whatsoever. Ho trial was had. That he had no opportunity to find out before hand, the reasons for said alleged dismissal, and that it purported to he a peremptory discharge”; that the petitioner, relying upon the public school laws of the State and ¹⁷² the decision of the State Board, within ten days after the receipt of the above notice requested the School Commissioners to furnish him a statement in writing of the reasons for his dismissal, and that on or about the 1st of July, 1913, the School 'Commissioners, in compliance with his said request sent his counsel the following letter: “Upper Marlboro, Md., July 1, 1913. Ogle Marbury, Esq., Counsel for Roger I. Manning, Baltimore Md. Dear Sir: — In reply to your letter of June 18th, 1913, to the Board of County School Commissioners of Prince George’s County, requesting a statement in writing of the reasons of the Board for its action in terminating Mr. Manning’s services as Principal of the Laurel High School, we have to say that the action of the Board was for the following causes and reasons: 1.

That there is a general lack of harmony and cooperation between the principal and the assistant teachers of the Laurel High School. 2. That there is apparent considerable dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Laurel High School, on the part of many patrons and many citizens of the town of Laurel having children of High School age. 3. That Mr. Manning lacks the necessary adminis- . trative ability so to conduct the school, as to obtain the harmony, co-operation and confidence of the patrons, citizens and assistant teachers, and to promote the highest efficiency of the school. 4. That by reason of these facts, many children do not complete the course, many are sent elsewhere to school who would otherwise attend the Laurel High School and the school fails to attain that degree of efficiency necessary for a proper fulfillment- of its object and to inspire among the pupils that spirit of enthus ¹⁷³ iasm, emulation and eo-operation and regard for discipline essential to a successful school.

Very truly yours, O. B. Zahtzingee, President. R. Hugh Perrib, Virgil M. Lawrewce. Frederick Sasscer, Superintendent.” The petition further alleges that the petitioner, within ten days after the receipt of said letter, filed with the School Commissioners an order to enter an appeal to the State Board, and within the same time filed his petition with the State Board, alleging that the reasons assigned by the School Commissioners for his dismissal were insufficient and untrue, and praying for an opportunity to present his, case and evidence in support thereof to the State Board; that immediately after furnishing the written statement, of the reasons for his dismissal. the School Commissioners, “without considering his right to appeal to the State Board, passed certain orders declaring the prineipalship of Laurel ITigh School vacant and attempting to appoint Kirtley L Morris, defendant herein, principal of said high school”; that on or about the 27th day of August, 1913, the State Board “at a duly called and organized meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, took,up, at a public hearing, the matter of the above mentioned appeal of your petitioner, and after giving the same full and due consideration and after hearing considerable evidence presented by both sides, your petitioner and the said commissioners being present in person and by counsel,” sustained the petitioner’s appeal, and held the action of the School Commissioners in dismissing the petitioner to he void in the following order: “The petition of Roger I. Maiming is hereby sustained, the Board holding that the four reasons contained in a letter dated July 1, 1913, to Ogle Marbury, Esq., counsel for tbe said- Manning, * * * are insufficient in law, except Humber 3, the Board holding that the proof submitted does not sustain the charge set out in said reason Humber 3.” ¹⁷⁴ The, petition then alleges that notwithstanding the passage •of said order of the State Board the School Commissioners refused and still refuse to recognize the petitioner as the principal of said high school, and continue to recognize the said Kirtley J. Morris as principal of said school; that on the 9th of September, 1913, the School Commissioners petitioned the State Board to reopen said case, and at a meeting of the State Board on the 24th of September, 1914, the State Board heard said petition, at which hearing the petitioner and the School Commissioners wtere represented by counsel, and passed the following order refusing to reopen the case: “Whereas no reasons for a reopening of the case have been •submitted to this Board justifying such reopening, the petition therefor is hereby refused”; that notwithstanding said •orders of the State Board, the School Commissioners, the Superintendent and the said Kirtley J. Morris refuse to recognize the petitioner as principal of said school, and refuse to permit him to perform the duties of principal thereof, or to enter the school building, and that the said Morris is now in possession of said office. The answer of the School Commissioners, the Superintendent and Hartley J. Morris admits all the material facts- alleged in the petition, but they deny that the order passed by the School Commissioners on the 6th of August, 1912, “completely exonerated the petitoner of the charges made against him,” and alleges that notwithstanding the -School Commis-. .sioners permitted the petitioner to continue to discharge the duties of principal of said school, they were satisfied from the evidence produced at said hearing that the petitioner should not be allowed to continue as principal of said school, and that the School Commissioners' instructed the Superintendent to inform the petitioner that while he would be permitted to act as principal during that year his resignation would be expected at the end of that year; that the Superintendent did so notify the petitioner, some months before'the expiration of the year and that as the resignation of the peti ¹⁷⁵ tioner was not sent to the School Commissioners, they passed the order referred to notifying him of his removal.

The answer further alleges that the place of the hearing by the State Board was changed, and that they did not get notice of such change in time to secure the attendance of all of their witnesses; that at said hearing t-heir counsel earnestly urged that the State Board had no jurisdiction to interfere with the School Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion in dismissing the petitioner; that after the order of the State Board, sustaining the appeal of the petitioner, they, the defendants, petitioned the State Board to reopen the ease; that the State Board notified them that a rehearing would be held on the 24th of September, 1913, and that on the day fixed for the rehearing they appeared before the State Board with their counsel and a number of witnesses hut that the State Board then informed counsel that they would “hear counsel on the question of whether such rehearing should be given,” and that after hearing counsel the State Board passed the order declining to reopen the case; that the School Commissioners are by law vested with the power of appointing high school teachers and power to remove such teachers for legally sufficient reasons; that the exercise of their discretion in removing a teacher is not subject to review or control by the Stale Board or by the Court, and that their order removing the petitioner was a valid exercise of their discretion and conclusive as to all parties. The petitioner demurred to the answer. The Court below sustained the demurrer, and ordered the writ to issue as we have stated. The State Board having reviewed the action of the School Commissioners in dismissing the appellee, and having sustained his petition, the important questions are, (1) had the State Board the authority to do so, and (2) is the petitioner entitled to the process of a Court to enforce its decision.

Section 55 of Article 77 of the Code of 1912 provides that, “Principal teachers shall be appointed by the Board of I)is ¹⁷⁶ triot School Trustees, subject to confirmation by the Board of County School Commissioners; that said teachers may be removed at any time said Board of District School Trustees may think proper, after thirty days’ notice in writing; provided further, that the said Board of District School Trustees shall furnish in writing, when required by the teacher so notified, the reasons for dismissal; provided, further, that the right of appeal shall lie to the Board of County School Commissioners, whose action in confirming or rejecting the action of the district trustees shall be final,” and by section 25 of the same article it-is provided that the School Commissioners “shall, after advising with the principal of a school to which the teacher is to he appointed, appoint all assistant teachers.” Section 120 of Article YY of the Code of 1904 made it the duty of the School Commissioners when any election district presented to them a building for a high school in the district to accept the same, and to thereafter provide for the maintenance of the high school, and the salaries of teachers, out of the general school fund, and section 121 of the same Article of the Code of 1904 required the School Commissioners, whenever a high school was established in a district, to appoint three persons, who should constitute a board of high school commissioners and exercise the same authority over the high school as was exercised by the Board of District School Trustees. The last mentioned sections were repealed and- ré-enaeted by the Act of 1910, Chapter 386 (p. 228), providing for the establishment of high schools, and by section 120 as re-enacted (now sec. 125 of the Code of 1912), it is provided: “The Board of County School Commissioners of any county shall have authority to establish high schools, subject to the approval of the State Board of Education, in their respective counties, when, in their judgment, it is advisable to do so. All high schools so established and those now in