State Ex Rel. Butler v. Dugger

111 S.W.2d 1032, 172 Tenn. 281, 8 Beeler 281, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 78
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1938
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 111 S.W.2d 1032 (State Ex Rel. Butler v. Dugger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Butler v. Dugger, 111 S.W.2d 1032, 172 Tenn. 281, 8 Beeler 281, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (Tenn. 1938).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Green

delivered the opinion of the Court.

*283 This is a petition for mandamus on the relation of H. A. Butler to compel the Superintendent of Education of Wayne county to issue a warrant in favor of relator for $45, claimed to he due relator under a contract with the County Board of School Commissioners for the operation of a bus. The chancellor dismissed the petition, and the relator has appealed.

The Wayne county schools opened on July 19, 1937. A few days prior to that date the Board of School Commissioners met and, after certain proceedings had, entered into a contract with the relator Butler whereby the latter was to run a school bus over a designated route for the transportation of pupils to and from their homes to the Pinhook school. Butler was to be paid $100 a month.

The relator was the owner of a school bus; having operated the same under contract with the Wayne County Board of School Commissioners for the previous scholastic year. Under this contract of July, 1937, relator began the operation of his bus over the Pinhook school route and continued such operation until Friday, September 10, 1937. On that date he gave notice to the Board of School Commissioners that he would not continue the operation of this bus after Monday, September 13.

Relator declined to continue the operation of his bus because he had received no pay for such undertaking. Defendant Dugger, the County Superintendent of Public Instruction, refused to issue a warrant in relator’s favor. Defendant took the position that the contract entered into between the relator and the Board of School Commissioners was illegal by reason of certain provisions of chapter 831 of the Private Acts of 1935, ap *284 plicable to Wayne county. Section 11 of that act is as follows:

“That the County Board of School Commissioners herein created shall have the power and authority to enter into contracts and agreements with persons., firms or corporations for the erection, purchase, repair or maintenance of its buildings and property, equipment and supplies, aiid for any other purpose deemed necessary by the Board of School Commissioners to carry out the provisions of this Act or the general law applicable to public school affairs, or in the proper discharge of the duties imposed by this Act. iProvided, that in all cases for the employment of janitors, bus drivers, or for transporting pupils to schools, and in other cases for labor, materials, fuel, equipment or supplies, or the erection, repair or maintenance of any building, part of building, or grounds where the cost shall exceed the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) no contract shall be entered into or made until after due advertisement of same shall have been made in some newspaper published in such County for three consecutive weeks, setting forth the amount, quality and description of such services, labor, materials, supplies or equipment desired, and the time within which written and sealed bids for same shall be received, and in all cases a cash deposit shall be made with such bids equal to fifteen per centum of the amount bid to guarantee the performance of such contract if awarded, such deposits to be returned immediately to unsuccessful bidders, and the successful bidder when the contract shall have been fully completed; and when such deposit is made with such written and sealed bids, and the Board of School Commissioners at some session shall open same, a quorum being present, such contracts shall in all cases be awarded to the lowest bidder. ’ ’

*285 After receiving notice from relator that lie would discontinue the operation of the Pinhook hus on September 13, the Board of School Commissioners met on that day and passed a resolution which, after a lengthy preamble, continued as follows:

“Now, therefore, it is resolved by this Board that such busses as have been operated heretofore during the present school year be operated for such period as this Board may consider proper and that the right be reserved by this Board to discontinue the operation thereof at any time it should desire so to do, and that such drivers or operators be paid for such service at the rates per day hereinafter set out because of the fact that it cannot now be known how long the funds fixed or allowed in the budget for transportation will last or how many busses can be operated for the term or what busses will be discontinued.”

A schedule of per diem rates for the different school busses was then set out stating the per diem that relator should have for the operation of the Pinhook bus as $5 a day. The resolution directed the County Superintendent, at the end of each week during such time as the busses might be operated, to issue warrants to the several drivers'or operators for such amounts as they had earned during the previous week under the schedule. The resolution further directed the chairman of the Board of School Commissioners to enter into contracts with the several drivers or operators pursuant to the resolution. By this resolution the driver or operator of each bus was selected, designated by name, and his compensation fixed.

Later, a contract was entered into between relator Butler and J. W. Copeland, chairman, acting for the *286 Board of School Commissioners, pursuant to the provisions of this resolution.

We gather from the record that Butler did not operate his bus on September 13, He resumed the operation of the bus on September 14, and continued such operation until September 24. The County Superintendent again declined to issue any -warrant in favor of Butler, and on September 24 Butler again stopped running his bus. In this suit Butler only seeks compensation at the rate of $5 a day for the nine school days between September 14 and September 24. No other compensation is herein sought.

After September 24, the Board of School Commissioners met again and passed a resolution which in substance ratified their proceedings on September 13 and directed the County Superintendent to issue warrants to the several drivers and operators for their services from the date of the passage of the resolution of September 13 until September 17, 1937. The County Superintendent was also directed to issue his warrants to the several drivers and operators “for the several amounts due to each of them under their several contracts of employment entered into with this Board and covering the period from the beginning of the several schools to which busses were operated from the beginning of the present school year up to and including September 10, 1937, this Board recognizing and admitting that such bus drivers and operators are entitled to pay for their services for that period and that their several contracts of employment were and are legal and valid.”

The County Superintendent continued his refusal to issue warrants to the bus drivers and operators, under any of these resolutions and contracts. This suit was *287 thereupon filed, involving only compensation for the nine school days between September 14 and September 24.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 S.W.2d 1032, 172 Tenn. 281, 8 Beeler 281, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-butler-v-dugger-tenn-1938.