Case Name: KEIL v. MAXWELL et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-04-13
Citations: 152 N.Y.S. 622
Docket Number: 
Parties: KEIL v. MAXWELL et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 152
Pages: 622–623

Head Matter:
KEIL v. MAXWELL et al.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County.
April 13, 1915.)
Mandamus <@=>79—Teachers—Eligibility—“Satisfactory.”
Under Greater New York Charter (Laws 1901, c. 466) § 1089, giving the board of examiners of the board of education power to issue licenses, and necessarily to determine under the by-laws of the department who are entitled thereto, the term “satisfactory,” as used in a by-law providing that applicants for licenses as assistant teachers in high, schools must have had five years’ satisfactory experience in teaching, means satisfactory to the board of examiners, and not to the court, which cannot substitute its judgment, and compel the board to place relator’s name on the eligible list.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Mandamus, Cent. Dig. §§ 170-176; Dec. Dig. <@=79.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Satisfactory.]
Motion by one Keil for mandamus, directed to one Maxwell and others, as the Board of Examiners of the Board of Education, to place relator’s name on the eligible list as an assistant teacher. Denied.
John T. Loew, of New York City, for petitioner.
Charles McIntyre, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of New York City, for the defendants.

Opinion:
BLACKMAR, J.
Motion for a mandamus directed to the board of examiners of the board of education commanding them to place the relator's name on the eligible list as an assistant teacher of mathematics for high schools. The relator's petition states that "section 84 of the by-laws of the board of education provides that applicants for licenses as assistant teachers in high schools must have had five years' 'satisfactory' experience in teaching," and that the board of examiners refused his license, and to place his name on the eligible list, "upon the claim that his experience as grade teacher has not been 'satisfactory.' "
On the face of relator's petition he is not entitled to a writ of mandamus, not even to an alternative writ; for, even if the allegations of the petition were established by the verdict of a jury, he could not succeed. ' Satisfactory" means satisfactory to the board of examiners, and not to a court or jury. The power to issue licenses, and, necessarily, to determine, under the by-laws of the department, who are entitled to the same, is given by law to the board of examiners (section 1089 of the charter). The court cannot substitute its judgment that the experience of the relator was satisfactory in the place of that of the board of examiners.
Motion denied, with $10 costs.