25,278. Precedential Affirmed Processed

Oikari v. Independent School District No. 40

Minnesota Supreme Court · Filed February 25, 1927 · 212 N.W. 598

Cited by

Willis v. County of Sherburne 555 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1996
Dietz v. Dodge County 487 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1992
State Ex Rel. Caffrey v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 246 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 1976
State Ex Rel. Stubben v. Board of County Commissioners 141 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1966
Kierk v. City of Thief River Falls 96 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1959
State Ex Rel. McGinnis v. Police Civil Service Commission 91 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1958
State Ex Rel. City of St. Paul v. Oehler 16 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1944
State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. Oehler 15 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1944
State Ex Rel. Rockwell v. State Board of Education 6 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1942
State Ex Rel. Lund v. City of Bemidji 295 N.W. 514 Minn. 1940
Backie v. Cromwell Consolidated School District No. 13 242 N.W. 389 Minn. 1932
State Ex Rel. Castel v. Village of Chisholm 217 N.W. 681 Minn. 1928

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Egan v. City of St. Paul 57 Minn. 1
Parish v. City of St. Paul 84 Minn. 426
State ex rel. Brandt v. Thompson 91 Minn. 279
Sykes v. City of Minneapolis 124 Minn. 73
State ex rel. Furlong v. McColl 127 Minn. 155
State ex rel. Early v. Wunderlich 144 Minn. 368
State ex rel. Village of Chisholm v. Bergeron 156 Minn. 276

Opinion text

Taylor, O. Plaintiff was employed by defendant in 1922 as janitor of one of its school buildings at a salary of $155 per month. Nothing was said as to the length of time for which he was employed, but he was placed on the monthly payroll and received his pay at the end of each month. He was discharged on October 2, 1924, and received pay for two days in October. Claiming that he was employed from month to month and was entitled to pay for the full month of October he sued for a month’s salary less the amount paid *302 for the two days of actual service in that month. Whether the court was correct in holding that the employment was terminable at will is the question presented. Plaintiff seemingly overlooks the fact that, as an employe of the school district, he was subject to the rules governing the appointment and removal of subordinate officers and employes of municipal corporations. The authorities all agree that the power to appoint officers or employes of a municipal corporation carries with it the power to remove such appointees at pleasure unless the power of removal is restricted by statutory law. 22 R. C. L. 562, §§ 266, 267; 29 Cyc. 1371; 23 Am. & Eng. Ene. (2d ed.) 435; Ann. Cas. 1912C, cases cited at page 374, et seq.; 2 McQuillin, Mun. Corp. 1229, § 558; 2 Dillon, Mun. Corp. (5th ed.) 791, § 473. This court has frequently recognized this rule. Egan v. City of St. Paul, 57 Minn. 1 , 58 N. W. 267 ; Parish v. City of St. Paul, 84 Minn. 426 , 87 N. W. 1124 , 87 Am. St. 374; State ex rel. Brandt v. Thompson, 91 Minn. 279 , 97 N. W. 887 ; Sykes v. City of Minneapolis, 124 Minn. 73 , 144 N. W. 453 ; State ex rel. Furlong v. McColl, 127 Minn. 155 , 149 N. W. 11 ; State ex rel. Early v. Wunderlich, 144 Minn. 368 , 175 N. W. 677 ; State ex rel. Village of Chisholm v. Bergeron, 156 Minn. 276 , 194 N. W. 624 . There being no statute fixing the duration of the employment or restricting the power of removal in this case, the school board could discharge plaintiff whenever it saw fit to do so. It follows that the conclusion of the learned trial court was correct and its order is affirmed.