Ussery v. City of Laredo
Ussery v. City of Laredo
Opinion of the Court
The contract of Ussery to teach a public school was made with three persons claiming to act as trustees of public free schools, by appointment of the county judge of Webb county. Several months previous to the date of this contract, the city of Laredo had assumed control of the public schools within its limits, and the trustees, acting in accordance with the law authorizing cities to take charge of free schools, were, at that time, alone authorized to make such a contract. There is no pretense that the school taught by Ussery had ever been recognized by the proper authorities as a public school, or that the city or its trustees had become parties to the contract in any manner that would make it binding upon them. The city authorities do not appear ever to have known that the appellant was claiming to act in the capacity of a public teacher, until he called upon them for payment of salary for his services as such. The law points out the method by which public schools may be created, teachers employed, and what will entitle them to salaries, and how these shall be paid. This method was not pursued, in any respect, in this case, and the school taught by Ussery was no more than a private school and the court did not err in so finding.
The superintendent of public instruction had no authority to command the city to pay Ussery’s salary. His authority extended only to public school matters; and, even if we admit that he might reverse the action of a board of aldermen refusing the claim of a public teacher, he had no authority to order them to pay salaries to the teachers of private schools. Such a case is beyond his jurisdiction, and the city was not bound to obey his order upon the subject.
We think the court below committed no error in refusing the mandamus, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
[Opinion delivered February 2, 1886.]
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Matt Ussery v. City of Laredo
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Public schools, what necessary to constitute—Public school fund—No AUTHORITY IN SCHOOL BOARD TO APPLY SAME TO OTHER PURPOSES THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS —Teacher of private school not entitled to pay out of public school fund— State superintendent of public instruction, revisory powers of—Case stated—In 1883, IT., under a contract made with three persons claiming to act as trustees of the public schools, by appointment of the county judge of Webb county, taught a school for five scholastic months in school community No. 1, embraced within the corporate limits of the city of Laredo, in that county. By the terms of the contract, IT. was to receive $60 per month for his services. Several months prior to the date of this contract, the city of Laredo had assumed, under the statute, exclusive control over the public schools within its limits. IT., after teaching about two months, applied to the city council of Laredo for a ratification of his contract, but no action was taken upon it; and, at the expiration of the time for which he had contracted to teach, he presented to the council his claim for allowance. A resolution authorizing the payment of the claim was passed, but the mayor refused to issue a warrant therefor, and returned the resolution, with his objections thereto, to the council. From the city’s refusal to pay the claim, U. appealed to the state superintendent of public instruction, and that officer directed the city council to pay it. This order was disregarded, whereupon U. applied to the district court for a writ of mandamus compelling the proper officers of the city to issue to him a warrant upon its treasurer for the amount of his claim. Held: (1) That, to constitute a school a public school, the method by which public schools may be created, teachers employed, salaries paid, &c., pointed out by the law, must be pursued; (2) That, under the circumstances of this case, the school taught by Ü. was nothing more than a private school, and the city council had no authority to order the payment of the salary demanded by him. The fund in the hands of the council, devoted to educational purposes, was to be appropriated to public schools alone, and it could not rightfully be applied to the support of schools of any other character; (3) That the state superintendent of public instruction, whose authority extends to public school matters only, had no power to command the city to pay IT.’s salary, and it was not bound to obey his order to that effect.