Clark v. Board of Education

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to the plaintiff’s second amended complaint.

The action is for a writ of mandate requiring the defendants, as the board of directors of the Eureka School District, to reinstate the plaintiff as a teacher in the schools of said district.

After certain formal matters, being set forth, the complaint of the petitioner alleges as follows in paragraph 3 thereof:

In paragraph 6 of the complaint the plaintiff’s demand for reinstatement is alleged as follows: “That thereafter, to wit: on or about the 7th day of August, 1922, petitioner made a demand for reinstatement, and did on the 28th day of August, 1922, present himself at said Winship School prepared to go on with his work as such permanent teacher, and was thereupon by order of the defendants, ejected therefrom, and informed that he could not assume such position. That defendants failed and refused and do now fail and refuse to reinstate petitioner or permit him to assume the duties as such permanent teacher, or otherwise.”

In paragraph 7 of plaintiff’s complaint it is next alleged that the plaintiff was dismissed without cause, etc.…