WESTBERRY v. TAYLOR et al., 215 Ga. 464, 111 S.E.2.d 77 (1959)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Text
Hugh D. Wright, Elsie H. Griner, for plaintiff in error.
L. L. Westberry filed a petition for mandamus in Berrien Superior Court against five named persons as the duly appointed, acting, and qualified members of the Board of Education of Berrien County, Georgia, and W. H. Outlaw, as the duly elected, acting, and qualified Superintendent of Schools of Berrien County, in which petition he alleged: that on June 30, 1958, he entered into a contract with the Board of Education of Berrien County to teach in the Berrien County schools for a period of three years, copy of the contract being attached as an exhibit to the petition, and he did teach in the Berrien County schools during the school year of 1958-59, under the terms of said contract; that he was licensed to teach in the State of Georgia, had fully performed all of the obligations imposed on him by said contract, and stood ready, willing, and able to fully abide by and carry out all of the terms and conditions of the contract; that on April 18, 1959, he was advised by letter from Larry Taylor, Chairman of the Berrien County Board of Education, and W. H. Outlaw, County School Superintendent, that he would not be re-employed for the year 1959-60; that, prior to the notice, he had not been given a hearing by the Board of Education, nor were any charges preferred against him by anyone, and that he had not had an opportunity to present his defense; that he had demanded of the defendants a hearing under the tends and provisions of the law embodied in Code (Ann.) 32-912, but had not been given a hearing. He prayed that he be reinstated in his position as a teacher at the Berrien County High School. A general demurrer was filed, which was sustained and the petition dismissed. The exception is to this judgment. Held:
1. "The right to the extraordinary aid of mandamus does not exist when there is available to the party seeking the writ a specific legal remedy." DeBerry v. Spikes,
3. While the petition alleges that the plaintiff had demanded of the defendants a hearing under the terms and provisions of the law embodied in Code (Ann.) 32-912, but has not been given a hearing, this mandamus proceeding does not seek such a hearing.
4. The petition alleges no cause of action for the writ of mandamus to compel the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff as a teacher at the Berrien County High School, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition.
William D. Knight, H. W. Lott, contra.
1959
Sponsored links
