Board of Education v. Beckley

Ohio Court of Appeals

Board of Education v. Beckley

177 N.E. 641, 40 Ohio App. 66, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 751, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 388

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 13, 1930

DocketNo 335

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 177 N.E. 641 (Board of Education v. Beckley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Education v. Beckley, 177 N.E. 641, 40 Ohio App. 66, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 751, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 388 (Ohio Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

Hulls Corners’ school was an elementary school and under 7830 GC, she was required to have

“from a certificating authority having legal jurisdiction a certificate * * * that he is qualified to teach orthography, reading, writing, arithmetic, ■ English grammar and composition, geography, history of the United States, ■, physiology, including narcotics, litera-:ture, and elementary agriculture, and,.that he possesses an adequate knowledge of the principles of teaching; except as provided in Sections 7807-9, 7807-10, 7807-6, 7852 and 7831-1.”

The sections last referred to in the above quoted passage have no bearing upon the instant case.

As the the only certificate possessed by the defendant in error was provisional in character and authorized her to teach Eng-, lish and History only, she did not have. a.' certificate which would authorize her to:teach in an elementary school such as thaji' at Hulls Corners’ was.

Under 7786 GC, the clerk of the Board.of .< Education can not lawfully draw an order for the payment of a teacher’s salary until the teacher files with such clerk a written .statement from the Superintendent of Schools showing that there has been filed with him a legal teacher’s certificate (or. a,' true copy thereof) to teach the subjects or grades taught. As the certificate on fiie authorized only' the teaching of English’ and History, in high schools of Ohio, it was not such ,a certificate as was required to teach in an elementary school. Withdut the required certificate, plaintiff below was not entitled to recover the unpaid portion of the salary.

This court finds, however, that a final judgment can not be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the reason that there was' no motion to direct a verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence;, nor was there any request submitted to the court for: an instructed verdict. Woodman vs. Stahl, 28, Oh Ap 464, 467.

Attention is called to the fact that there is a question whether mandamus was not' the proper remedy in the instant case..

For the reasons given the judgment will be reversed and the cause. remanded for, further proceedings according to,.law.’

Lloyd and Richards, JJ., concur.1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WILLIAMS, J.

Hulls Corners’ school was an elementary school and under 7830 GC, she was required to have

“from a certificating authority having legal jurisdiction a certificate * * * that he is qualified to teach orthography, reading, writing, arithmetic, ■ English grammar and composition, geography, history of the United States, ■, physiology, including narcotics, litera-:ture, and elementary agriculture, and,.that he possesses an adequate knowledge of the principles of teaching; except as provided in Sections 7807-9, 7807-10, 7807-6, 7852 and 7831-1.”

The sections last referred to in the above quoted passage have no bearing upon the instant case.

As the the only certificate possessed by the defendant in error was provisional in character and authorized her to teach Eng-, lish and History only, she did not have. a.' certificate which would authorize her to:teach in an elementary school such as thaji' at Hulls Corners’ was.

Under 7786 GC, the clerk of the Board.of .< Education can not lawfully draw an order for the payment of a teacher’s salary until the teacher files with such clerk a written .statement from the Superintendent of Schools showing that there has been filed with him a legal teacher’s certificate (or. a,' true copy thereof) to teach the subjects or grades taught. As the certificate on fiie authorized only' the teaching of English’ and History, in high schools of Ohio, it was not such ,a certificate as was required to teach in an elementary school. Withdut the required certificate, plaintiff below was not entitled to recover the unpaid portion of the salary.

This court finds, however, that a final judgment can not be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the reason that there was' no motion to direct a verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence;, nor was there any request submitted to the court for: an instructed verdict. Woodman vs. Stahl, 28, Oh Ap 464, 467.

Attention is called to the fact that there is a question whether mandamus was not' the proper remedy in the instant case..

For the reasons given the judgment will be reversed and the cause. remanded for, further proceedings according to,.law.’

Lloyd and Richards, JJ., concur.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 N.E. 641, 40 Ohio App. 66, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 751, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-education-v-beckley-ohioctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack