From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rutherford v. Board of Education

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 21, 1933
186 N.E. 731 (Ohio 1933)

Opinion

No. 23940

Decided June 21, 1933.

Schools — Employment of teachers by county board of education — Section 7610-1, General Code — Approval of county children's home superintendent unnecessary, when.

Under the provisions of Section 7610-1, General Code, when a county board of education is required to employ teachers for a county children's home, the approval of the superintendent of such home is unnecessary.

ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Jefferson county.

This error proceeding involves two Jefferson county cases that were consolidated and heard together in the trial court and in the Court of Appeals. The three parties involved are Edward Rutherford, superintendent of the McCollough Jefferson County Children's Home, the board of education of Jefferson county, and the board of education of Port Homer rural school district of Jefferson county.

At the children's home is a school under control of the local board of education except that under Section 7676, General Code, the employment of teachers by this board is subject to approval by the superintendent of the home. On June 6, 1932, the board employed two teachers, but Superintendent Rutherford refused to approve this action. Then the board offered to employ two other teachers, and again Rutherford refused his approval. At this juncture Professor Carl Manrod, superintendent of the Jefferson county schools, attempted to relieve the situation by selecting two other teachers. Although these selections were clearly made without authority they were approved by Rutherford, but were rejected by the local board. Then the matter was brought to the attention of the county board of education. This board acted by employing the same two teachers originally selected by the local board. Of course Rutherford refused to approve this action and prevented these teachers from assuming their duties, claiming that under Section 7610-1, General Code, no appointment is authorized by either the local board or the county board without his approval.

The Court of Common Pleas sustained Rutherford's contention, but the Court of Appeals adopted the opposite view.

Mr. Edward McKinley and Mr. C.H. Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. E. DeWitt Erskine, for defendants in error.


The single question presented is whether under circumstances such as above related a county board of education is authorized to employ teachers without the approval of the superintendent of the children's home.

It is agreed that such approval is necessary when appointments are made by the local board under Section 7676, General Code. The issue lies in the interpretation of Section 7610-1, General Code, which reads in part as follows:

"If the board of education in a district under the supervision of the county board of education fails to provide sufficient school privileges for all the youth of school age in the district, or to provide for the continuance of any school in the district for at least thirty-two weeks in the year, or to provide for each school an equitable share of school advantages as required by this title, or to provide suitable school houses for all the schools under its control, or to elect a superintendent or teachers, or to pay their salaries, or to pay out any other school money, needed in school administration, or to fill any vacancies in the board within the period of thirty days after such vacancies occur, the county board of education of the county to which such district belongs, upon being advised and satisfied thereof, shall perform any and all such duties or acts, in the same manner as the board of education by this title is authorized to perform them * * *."

The crux of the dispute is found in the words "in the same manner as the board of education by this title is authorized to perform them." Does this language constitute a general instruction to the county board, or does it inferentially require the approval of the superintendent whenever that board is called upon to employ teachers after the failure of the local board to do so?

One test of statutory construction is the purpose of the Legislature is disclosed by related sections of the Code. A study of these statutes indicates that the chief objective was the maintenance of an efficient system of educational facilities throughout the entire state of Ohio. Obviously this purpose could not be effectuated if it were possible for a superintendent to prevent the selection of teachers. This court is of the opinion that any doubt must be resolved in favor of the construction that will provide a practical method for keeping the schools open and in operation.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

DAY, ALLEN, STEPHENSON and JONES, JJ., concur.

BEVIS, J., not participating.


I cannot concur in the judgment. In my opinion the statute is plain and unambiguous and was correctly applied by the Common Pleas Court. I agree that, in view of the situation disclosed by this case, the statute should be amended, but I still hold to the opinion that legislation is a legislative function.


Summaries of

Rutherford v. Board of Education

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 21, 1933
186 N.E. 731 (Ohio 1933)
Case details for

Rutherford v. Board of Education

Case Details

Full title:RUTHERFORD, SUPT. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PORT HOMER RURAL SCHOOL…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 21, 1933

Citations

186 N.E. 731 (Ohio 1933)
186 N.E. 731

Citing Cases

State ex rel. Harrell v. Board of Education

In response, Harrell and Celigoj argue that R.C. 3313.85 applies when a local board of education has failed…