*1 698 supports authority we been referred to no
such a “or at the trial” construction. The statement must be taken action is set to mean where cause of up Municipal or cross- Court action counterclaim though complaint, jurisdiction even lack cause of said may appear pleading may itself, from the evidence jurisdiction offered at thes trial which discloses the lack of pleaded, thereupon over the cause action so the court must transfer the case. proceed foregoing disposes discussion of this
ing, Municipal statutory power lacked Court (see was, transfer consequence, the cause. order void Its Arroyo 47 Superior Court, & 92 Ditch Water v. Cal. Co. Rep. 91]), order Pac. and the Am. St. [28 was, Superior under retransferring Court the cause circumstances, proper. Superior hereby
The said order of the Court affirmed. Curtis, J., Preston, J., Waste, J., Shenk, J., Thomp C. son, J., J., Seawell, concurred. March 26, A. No. In 14966. Bank.
[L. 1935.] ABRAHAM, Appellant, BEULAH J. VIRGIL v. J. SIMS al., Respondents.
et *2 E. Abraham and H. Appellant. W. B. Stewart Heald, Attorney, Elmer District McCrory, W. and S. L. Attorney, Respondents. Assistant District After further ques THE COURT. consideration of the proceeding, opinion in this tions involved we are Appeal the decision rendered the District Court correctly We therein. determines the matters at issue n Mr. adopt opinion therefore written of that court pro Justice tempore court. It of this Haines as the is as follows: is a J.
“This Beulah proceeding mandamus instituted Abraham, as require petitioner, Virgil J. Sims, A. M. Whipple Goodson, and W.W. as members of and constituting Brawley the Boards of Trustees School Imperial District County, California, to reinstate Brawley teacher classify schools; to her as teacher in said district and to war- issue rants for as a teacher said schools for that part elapsed open- which had between the ing of said September 19, 1932, schools on filing and the petition on November 1932. petition alleges
“The Sims, that said Whipple and Good- son have constituted and do constitute the Board of Trustees district, said and that one Mclntire has been and is the superintendent of district; peti schools for said *3 employed tioner was a as teacher the schools of said years district for 1929-30, the 1927-28, school 1928-29, 1930-31, 1931-32, and having taught reason of therein period years for a of three became entitled to be classified permanent as a teacher provisions under the 5.500 of section upon the School Code, and employment her reelection and as a teacher in year said schools the 1930-31 she became permanent such teacher. It alleged Sep is further that on 16, 1932, tember she was notified said Mclntire that she assigned had been to teach 4B grades and 5B in one of the year schools of said 1932-33; district for the Septem that on 19, 1932, year ber the date on which the commenced, school presented ready herself at the willing school and pro her teacher, ceed with as such duties but assign that without ing any reason therefor Mclntire refused to allow her do so; days next again on the two presented herself result; with the same that on the last days of these he told longer permitted her she would no be teach in said return, schools and she need not and at time charge another teacher in placed of the classes to which assigned. alleged been It is further she had that she after received from letter a the ward effect that d accepted return the ha the of an unsigned resignation contract as as teacher her schools’; said refused to it is untrue that she ever any by respondents, untrue her and it is tendered teacher; that she ever but resignation tendered as such contrary beginning that on the she has at all times since year said willing school and and ready to assume perform her duties such as teacher and notified re has so spondents verbally both has de writing; manded per reinstatement as a teacher and mitted to assume perform her as such ‘under duties respond classification to entitled’; which she was but that ents superintendent and their reply said to her made no that no her; communications and have refused reinstate charges for her removal been preferred as a teacher have against her that she is holder a life certificate from the qualifications required state and all has School Code entitle her to classification a Respondents, says, teacher. warrants refuse issue year 1932, for her beginning from school of the and she remedy has no plain, speedy adequate ordinary course of law.
“Respondents answered, admitting many allega- of the tions of petition, claiming employment that her year 1930-31 did not include the first month of that year. They admit at beginning school 1932-33 she herself and offered to -assume alleged, duties as and admit that Mclntire refused to allow have, so, they they do and that describe as for what term’, any salary the ‘current school refused to draw war- by saying they justify rants in favor. This refusal .that meeting April 18, 1932, general re- they ordered elementary duction of salaries of all teachers district, salaries, including schools that all petitioner’s, were reduced $1557 ‘for next school *4 (evidently meaning ‘year’), of petitioner term’ .all of which May, 1932; subsequently in notified was ten- was dered, by respondents, teaching a contract for at such (year) Septem- school term figure beginning for the reduced per- and has ever but refused to since ber refusal, in which reason such sisted permit refused to upon to enter duties of a teacher her the (year). term demurrer, “To petitioner interposed this answer the a which tried and was overruled. case was Thereafter the judgment denying peti- rendered respondents, in favor of sought. tioner appeal. Hence writ this “It petitioner's is refused to claim that she never fact contrary, her, but, was tendered on the prevented by respondents superintendent from and their doing so. It had become further claim since she permanent necessary a teacher, no new contract was therefore, and, of her such; continuance status absence to abandon evidence that she intended returning position un- teacher, as such her action signed not amount a her could tendered position resignation treating justify respondents or both Respondents dispute as vacant. the correctness necessary therefore, contentions, will, these consider them. petitioner appears year 1931-32,
“It that for the school employed respond- $1,600, had been and the at a ents, 18, 1932, regular April at a voted to meeting held on fix, all teach- succeeding year, school salaries year, receiving then at pay per ers at the rate of year. meeting A $1,557 per the lower rate of teachers’ day, following by petitioner attended was held on super- Mclntire, explained by reduction was clearly reason, disclosed For intendent. some petitioner’s record, dispense respondents undertook to notified she was so ensuing services for the school time, she just May after just 16. Either before or as a her classification question raised Respondents she had position teacher. since took year 1930-31, school during first month of the not served agreed and it she was not entitled be so classified attorney. question the district should be submitted to rating and he was entitled to this opinion was that she His attorney-general, ex- question to the who submitted rulings ultimately opinion. were These pressed the same meeting held respondents, who accepted open, days school and voted 16, 1932, three before year 1932-33, school contract for the petitioner offer
703 at the day rate. Such a contract on the same was prepared, executed handed by the and clerk the district to a Burris, Mrs. secretary, who take to was Mclntire’s petitioner, which was done. account what Petitioner’s she said to Mrs. Burris and inter- the latter’s account view says differ. Abraham Mrs. that when the contract salary handed to her ‘I is she said: want to if the see what sign should be I it and it,’ before looked at that she said, ‘No, salary says She not what it should be.’ spoke she in the salary omission to raise her preceding year (1931-32), of others when the salaries group years had-par- her raised, though were in former she ticipated they salary had received. such increases as point Her if now to seemed to be that salaries were reduced, ought not, apply not to in her case as she when the rest in year, an increase last received group says had. She that she then asked Mrs. Burris to take the contract back to Mclntire ‘and it to him and show tell him salary’, added, about the and ‘If it is not all she right ’phone me and I over’; will come that Mrs. Burris took back, though she, the contract Abra- and that is Mrs. ham, expected it, her to return with she did not.
“Mrs. ‘I Burris testified: handed Mrs. Abraham the con- and tract before she believe looked at it she said she' didn’t going sign got she was it, glasses—she and then she said, “No, read it over and I sign she won’t this is not right salary. I contract,” and I took won’t it back to Mr. I her I Mclntire’s office. ... told would give said, take it back and “I it to him. She will come I over and see him this afternoon. don’t time have ’ say now.” Mrs. Burris went did see that she not (Friday), Mrs. Abraham further that afternoon morning go she saw her into Mclntire’s office the next (Saturday, 17), o’clock, 10 between and (Saturday) that on that afternoon Mrs. Abraham had told her that ‘she didn’t mean send back, the contract that she just meant have it come back for consideration of brought I salary told her it back told Mr. Mc- lntire would salary it because the not right’. Asked further about what Mrs. Abraham had said preceding afternoon, said: to her the Mrs. Burris ‘She said thought money she should have pre- had more year, vious right, she wanted was not and that if see get she could not the difference got thought got, what some teachers of the other fur- got year. she should She the same as them that say ther did testified that Mrs. Abraham never would offered specified work for her, Abraham *6 1, 1932, Mrs. Saturday, but that on come, October quite re- didn’t had ‘said to witness’ home and she member tell what was said to know if I would and wanted contract, her and day what she I the said that delivered her I told I would not she went back and told Mr. Mclntire sign whereupon, ‘she right salary’, it.because it was not the to told me she refused had to Mclntire and he had went Mr. Saturday give again her the contract. asked for it on She morning, any more’. and then about it we didn’t talk put had Mclntire
“Mrs. Burris testified further that respondent Sims. in from contract the safe on instructions taken the contract originally Asked had whether she when to take the to asked Mrs. Abraham the had latter ascertaining purpose of contract back to Mclntire ‘for correct’, therein was salary mentioned whether or not the it, sign that just said she wouldn’t was ‘She answer something about call- said right ... she was not come her; thought I have I she would ing didn’t time. ’ over. action on pursuant to board’s “Mclntire testified that of September 16, a contract at he caused clerk, day Mrs. on Mrs. Abraham his be submitted that brought a conversation Burris; it back and after that Mclntire, office, he, respondent Sims, who was safe; morning Mrs. placed next Abraham it private conversation 10; 9 and that he had a called between office, ‘she told me that at which time inner with her his willing she had returned the contract and she was not' salary. I not a sufficient her if sign it asked because previous day, delivered a contract the and she had'been voluntarily, I if she said, “Yes.” asked her returned it “Yes,” willing and she added she was not said and she salary. I not sufficient ... told her sign it because it was submit, I intended to submit glad that would meeting September the next the Board at matter to matter, care of the and if she they wished would take 20, and present to be meeting, very glad at would be we says her. He con- contract, at the time of versation, neither the safe that Mrs. Abraham and said that work for sign nor wanted that she would $1,557. her that say, however, He did that he told direction placed safe at the board; that he respondent Sims, who was chairman not know did not it to and he does then offer her to it or not. He whether she then wanted admits suggestion morning on the same she attended his own a teacher meeting introduced her as teachers’ 'at Tuesday Monday, grades 4B 5B. admits that He 21) Wednesday (September refused purpose teaching and that he herself for the permit not, up to says did even do so. He her to express willingness trial, to teach the time of the her. offered Sims, “All trial. three testified at the says Mrs. Burris board, the chairman when came house on back from Mrs. Abraham’s the afternoon happened 16, he in the office directed to be *7 Mclntire put to the the safe the contract into until Someone, he, could act it. on and Sims it was believed suggested gotten that an from the district attor- ney legal about having the effect of Abraham’s returned Mrs. unsigned. the apparently contract This done and was the opinion rendered was that act was tantamount resignation. an Sims had with Mrs. on interview Abraham Sunday, September 18. me ‘She told she had refused sign salary. a contract on stipulated the . account of . . She told inme the thought conversation she had ’ against been discriminated says the before. he He doesn’t her saying remember that she would teach the coming year salary the fixed said, the board. you ‘If are not satisfied with schedule, and not assignment satisfied with the given you, or, you if are not anything, why satisfied with you did send the contract back when presented you, it was and that twenty days she had any difficulty might work out arise between Mr. Board, Mclntire, classification, or. or anything or ’ else, and she said she realized she had made a He mistake. discouraged her from presenting herself on following allow her
day teach, saying that Mclntire could the board September 20, when do so. He admits that on resigna- as a undertook to treat the return of had that she part, tion on her it was advised herself and to teach. claimed “Respondent testified Whipple, board, clerk meet- Saturday preceding ‘Mrs. Abraham me called on said ing of the 20th She and asked me to come over. about, I didn’t something wanted to talk to me had mentioned over go nothing was about the contract ’ Septem- taken on ’phone. to the reason for the action As ‘My feeling was offered was that she ber he said: down, and rate, it regular at the and had turned contract do.’ therefore, nothing else the Board could there was board, Goodson, member of the “Respondent the third Saturday came testified that Mrs. Abraham to his house very September 17, much that ‘she dis- evening, sign being contract, about not able turbed about morning, or contract when went to school the next morning. meet He told her the board would might if September 2'0 be there she wished. it,’ reason she returned ‘She stated then the was the had sent it back with e., i. the contract. She said she ‘I discussing that matter with Mclntire. took idea didn’t let her because that he evening the safe him the before and returned authority to let her the office and had no there in adjust matters made no effort to why the board it.’ Asked ‘We have so much criti- Abraham, said: Goodson with Mrs. majority great people from a permanent teachers cism on con- Mrs. Abraham returned that district, and when resignation; the same as her unsigned, we took it as tract adjust no effort to schedule made naturally we feeling there; up and we wanted her because teaching, tenure away from this get no thing a nutshell. There is the whole That is office. *8 ’ said, Her were services, Abraham. to Mrs. objection only reason satisfactory. was asked: ‘The He perfectly you to, possible, wanted if any action was you didn’t take ‘Exactly’. reply was, law?’' His permanent tenure evade Mclntire to the 27 Abraham wrote September Mrs. “On t than other the contrac not returned she had that effect
707 salary therein information as to whether or not had following correct’; day mentioned that she was signing purpose called at his office of the contract for the adjusting ‘and be entitled to which would ‘you permit later’, sign but the contract refused to me to during me that I informed was entitled to teach not year’; accepted action as if the board had resignation his failure it must have been because of inform of the facts. concluded: ‘I de making She am upon you delivery mand at this time for my contract my signature, permission my to resume duties as my Brawley Elementary a teacher Schools within ’ proper classification. 4, 1932, “On October wrote the board a letter recit- ing September that on 21 present she had been at assigned pre- the school to which had been but was performing vented Mclntire from her duties and that latter date he had informed would be to teach allowed because the board had decided that returning, unsigned, September contract on resignation, to a amounted she advised the sign merely she did not refuse to but returned it if the in it ascertain mentioned was correct ‘because my permanent teacher’; stating status as also that on September 17 she had called sign at Mclntire’s office to the contract told him contract up per- locked the safe and that she would not be sign mitted it. paid
“No attention either of these letters. “ petitioner The trial court found ‘that refused accept to her re- offered .so and/or gave, spondents therefor, as her reason that the right; was not at no time thereafter did offer salary specified teach said contract, but has herein do so; all times refused to that thereafter charge placed another teacher classes to which petitioner assigned. had been may the testimony “It conceded that conflicts action before the board’s whether Mrs. refused to Abraham If to her. merely to obtain further returned it information on the salary, subject and made clear to Mrs. Burris *9 not deemed part her could be Melntire, such action on or to have Burris, Melntire and Sims sign it. Mrs. a refusal to refuse, had or saying, that she did quoted her either all as therefore, conflict, enough of a sign it. There is refused to transpired, nothing had if more so the evidence refuse. did so she finding that we feel bound would if Even necessarily final. however, refusal, was not Such matter of purely board had been relations her decision her reconsidered might lawfully have contract she meeting it at its any upon acted at time before the board meantime not September 20, at least if she did her duties as a teacher. perform, perform, or offer to omit to tes- from the passages from those question There can be no have Goodson, we which timony respondents Sims and meet- prior them knew to board’s recited, that both of longer, no Abraham’s attitude was day that Mrs. ing on that sign the unequivocal refusal to been, had one of if it ever him that Sims, told for, according to she had contract, according to Good- mistake’ and returning it ‘made a had sign inability her to disturbed’ about was ‘much son the, knowledge of morning. Saturday With this men, together constituted attitude, who of these both meeting in board, participated at majority of the sign We are of the as definite. treating her refusal to any without conflict shows evidence supposed refusal they upon time acted at the one, had refusal, if there ever had been contract, such longer knowledge, qualified it could no so to their been, member of the board knew The third as treated such. be something to to communicate that she wished the time at he did not take trouble of which him, nature Moreover, not the record contains we do think learn. Abraham would not that Mrs. evidence substantial year 1932-33 even she been school taught her, greater than the offered to no entitled salary. actually to teach for refused ever or that she school, opening at the presenting herself Certainly, willingness perform her duties she manifested might entitled to that she be found chance at least the take quotes Melntire True, that. than greater no willing saying ‘was evi- money’. light In of other that amount of teach for by this, meant if she said dence the most she could have willing any additional all, was that she was not to waive true, might Again, if be which she be entitled. Saturday, claims, Sep- as Mclntire that when she called on sign the con- tember neither asked to allowed so, tract nor do opportunity she refused the says had the he made treat the statement to her matter morning, submit the he would *10 promise meeting board at as its a submit question, dispensing to the board the of not services, nothing seems to been said about time, but the matter what her be. of should
“Taking light the evidence in most unfavorable her, we think the most Mrs. show, it can said to far be so as concerned, Abraham’s is conduct as of the time the board accepted fit ‘resignation’, what it saw to as her treat is that affirmatively she had not expressed willingness to a waive any $1,557 salary might excess over the turn out rightfully belong her, willing might or that be to concede to her. point
“No seems to be made of circumstance that Mrs. reason, during for Abraham, some did not teach the first year 1930-31, month of the shall, school and we purpose decision, of this assume that her status in the Brawley district, respondents, school as of time that through clerk, and his Burris, Mclntire Mrs. tendered her year 1932-33, permanent was that of a meaning teacher within the of section 5.500 of School Code. Leymel in Johnson,
“As was said v. App. 105 Cal. 694, 702 Pac. : conclusion ‘The the status [288 858] employee a teacher an posi of is that of is irresistible. The by tion is secured selection the board of trustees and employment by contract, the terms of the are fixed authority for in (sec. which is found the Political Code 1609). general powers Under its the board of education is authorized to enter into contracts with teachers and fix compensation employment. their (Marion terms of v. Education, Board 606 Cal. Pac. 20 L. R. A. [32 of 197].)’ authority employ teachers contained is now chapter in I part article of III of of the School Code provisions respect fixing their compensation article I chapter VIII part III thereof. Notwith standing, however, that the relation between a teacher and the board essentially of trustees contract, one of until the permanent teacher has attained status, or her his reemployment in succeeding years purely is a matter in the discretion, board’s the situation far is so modified teachers’ (now tenure represented enactments by sections 5.500 5.504, inclusive, both Code), School respect said with teachers Dutart v. Wood ward, 99 App. 736, 739 Cal. 493], Pac. legislature ‘the [279 upon teachers, has conferred under special circumstances, a right vested to be so permanent- classified and to teach as instructors, particular district has where this secured, subject to such reasonable may rules as adopted, which are conflict with law’. The result of these enactments not to make the relation originating less in contract, one but to annex to contracts employment repeated when sufficient time certain consequences. legal consequences These are not contractual except in being sense broad operation annexed law to the contract and have been said to be ‘in nature (Buckbee regulation’. of a civil service v. Board Educa *11 tion, App. 115 Div. 366 Supp. 943, N. Y. 950], [100 cited Trustees, in Fidler v. Board 112 App. Cal. 305 296, [296 of 912].) consequences Pac. One of the permanent right ais long teach regulations so as the board’s reasonable are complied with, in certain exceptional save circumstances are not right we here concerned. is This to teach an incident to permanent classification as a teacher after years employment three consecutive of service, re election succeeding board the next year, school beginning year law as of of that automatically effects nothing required the classification and more is to accom Code, plish (School 5.500; it. Grigsby sec. King, v. 202 307 299, 789]; Cal. Pac. Education, Owens v. Board [260 of App. 403, 68 406 Pac. ; Hench, Cal. La Shells v. [229 881] App. 6, 377]; 13 Meyer, 98 Pac. Gastineau Cal. v. 131 [276 (2d) 31].) 617 Pac. App. 611, It Cal. was said [22 obligation merely Buckbee case that the board’s is ‘to re year employ year, the teacher from as if taken from an eligible list the civil service’. Under our how statute, of requisite ever, no affirmative action of the board is to aecom-
711 plish reemployment. automatically virtue such is It done Code, per- of sections 5.500 and 5.401 of the School and a notify manent ac- teacher even of need not board his only ceptance, being required such notice under section 5.402 impli- of not ‘under permanent those tenure’. The manifest contrary cation is that unless he the board notifies to the open- appear or fails to teaching of purpose at the ing year of accepted the school he must be deemed to have reemployment. questionable In it these circumstances is whether system very under our own what has occurred is happily ‘reemployment’ a described as all and whether ‘ aptly designated would not be more as a continuance employment’. an It is v. perfectly true, as said Martin Fisher, App. 276], Cal. posi- Pac. that ‘the [291 public tion a teacher schools of California is not strictly an office’. It is employment an and initiated a contract. But, as said in the case last cited: ‘The be- coming permanent of a teacher, and the continuation employment, this is given by statute. . . . “ legislature designed this state give teachers, under conditions, permanency defined tenure, has, however, carry been held to with it against change salary. no assurance phrase That of the subject ably has been so in Fidler v. discussed Board of Trustees, supra (pp. 301, 305), enlarge is needless to upon it here. The power trustees raise or reduce the salaries of doubted, pro teachers cannot be vided it is reasonably attempt exercised and no made is beginning after the particular school to reduce year. salaries for that No more can it be doubted that despite- permanency of a teacher’s tenure the is fully empowered change assignment, his time and from prescribe duties, to time to his long so power such reasonably prescribed exercised and the duties are in the profession line required of his and he is not out teach (Dutart Woodward, supra.) side the district. v. It said, Trustees, supra (p. 301) in Fidler v. however, Board : contend, ‘Respondents however, do not there can be *12 arbitrary or unreasonable exercise the board power permanent teacher, to reduce of a with assignment of duties it said in respect to the Dutart v. part Woodward, supra, ‘for the refusal on that of the comply dangerous as- teacher to with . . . unreasonable or authority signments, legal prefer the board would have no to charges against deprive the teacher and her lawful permanent status as a teacher’.
“In the instant case Mrs. Abraham seems to against entertained the belief that she had been discriminated in arbitrary way salary; an in the matter of her having stead of its reduction made on the basis been sum previous year, that she should have received had been made on the basis of a lesser sum than she required possibly accept year. to for that We .cannot present had, from the on that determine record whether she score, any just ground or we are complaint not, emphatically conduct, as opinion of the her whole majority record, shown at least a and as known to September 20, 1932, of the board to when it undertook on accept ‘resignation’, ‘resignation’ their no acceptance. v. that Fidler Counsel for insist Trustees, referred, supra, Board we have to which which, as much of what is we said requires judgment peti agree, an affirmation here. permanent case, occupied in that who of a tioner status year employed 1928-29 been for the school teacher, had $2,900. vice-principal at a The board as a trustees, assign him for 1929-30 having duties decided him only teaching, a contract for that involved offered forth, year $2,500. correspondence back and This led to under date of June including a letter your ‘I offer of have refused informed the board he previous letter referring grounds set out contract’, right disputed reduce his he had the board’s in which say, salary. however, that he maintained He went his to continue teacher under his salary. beginning pre At the of the school he former assigned no duties. The himself but was board there sented him asking teach, reiterating willing him wrote its upon saying him pay salary, unless ness teaching it would be forced to conclude he commenced replied ready to employment. He that he was refused he him, assigned teaching had been but that teach, that no legally ‘expect paid the sum to which am should *13 entitled, twenty-five or whether it he hundred dollars twenty-nine hundred dollars’.
“The court said of the correspondence: ‘We think these letters appellant accept manifest a refusal part on the to however, the offered Conceding, only pur- contract. for the pose of discussion, appellant’s contention, that will- he was ing to per work year, leaving the amount of his compensation litigation, to be by determined later or other- wise, to meritorious, by met and overcome con- flicting evidence, conflicting was, ’.' This evidence accord- ing opinion, testify stipulation a that would witnesses by reason of petitioner’s accept precise refusal terms of the by board’s offer position ‘and reason and petitioner’, demands of made other ar- rangements performance assigned of the duties petitioner, that, therefore, and offer to him was its finally rejected deemed by longer subject him and no acceptance. The court declared the trial itself bound court’s determination of and this conflict in evidence that, concluded there must be held been a ‘refusal to have resignation’. teach’ which was ‘of course tantamount a hearing Supreme requested. No Court We shall was inability not conceal our to see the conflict the evidence deemed the court to exist nor our view that the result unsatisfactory reached was an conclusion to an attempting otherwise luminous and instructive. Without only say do draw tenuous distinctions we can that we subscribe to not the view a teacher is bound to abandon good compensation held in views faith as to the to which entitled, pain permanency or she is forfeiture abundantly status, and manifest bar, the case at it is ‘refusal was, petitioner’s there to teach’ part, no ‘resignation’ no for the board to consider.” judgment The is reversed.
SHENK, J., Dissenting. I am unable concur. The judgment appeal is from a after full and fair trial on findings merits. trial court made in favor of the respondents. findings in part supported by are un These though contradicted evidence and substantial otherwise conflicting findings From appears evidence. these position petitioner occupied as teacher in the district
during the school 1931-1932 salary at a $1600. On April 18, 1932, respondent board reduced the salaries amount, for the following year receiving of all teachers to $1557. following day petitioner On the notified was A calling reduction. for the reduced prepared acceptance for her signature. accept She refused to same or to gave as the reason for her refusal right. At no time has she offered to teach specified in said contract and at *14 all times has refused do so. placed then another teacher charge of the classes to as- petitioner which the had been signed. peti- The trial although court concluded tioner had teacher, attained the status of refusing conduct in to teach at the fixed the board was tantamount resignation. to a may
It be conceded that there is evidence on which con- trary findings might based, apparent me that the court in prevailing opinion entered has domain of the trial by testing credibility court weighing my witnesses and In evidence. petitioner justified has not on the record a reversal of judgment.
Waste, J.,C. concurred. March 26, In No. 3714. Bank.
[Crim. 1935.] PEOPLE, Respondent, THE LATONA, v. ELLIS J.
Appellant.