Case Name: MARGARET McKENZIE, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, etc., et al., Respondents
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1905-08-12
Citations: 1 Cal. App. 410
Docket Number: No. 19
Parties: MARGARET McKENZIE, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, etc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 410–411

Head Matter:
[No. 19.
First Appellate District.
August 12, 1905.]
MARGARET McKENZIE, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, etc., et al., Respondents.
Mandamus—Bestobation or Dismissed Teaches—Investigation ot Charges—Case Aettbmed.—A writ of mandate will not lie to compel the restoration of a teacher dismissed upon written charges made by citizens after investigation thereof by the board of education without charges preferred by the county superintendent of schools. (The ease of McKenzie v. Board of Education etc. et at, ante, p. 406, applied and affirmed.)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court
S. V. Costello, and Campbell, Metson & Campbell, for Appellant.
Percy V. Long, City Attorney, for Respondents.

Opinion:
COOPER, J.
This is an application by petitioner for a writ of mandate against respondents as the board of education of the city and county of San Francisco, to compel said board to restore her to her position as teacher in the public schools of said city and county. The trial court denied the petition, and judgment was accordingly entered in favor of respondents. From the judgment petitioner prosecutes this appeal.
The contention of appellant is, that the board of education had no jurisdiction in the matter of hearing testimony, for the reason that no formal charges had been presented against her by the county superintendent. This contention has been disposed of against appellant in the case of Margaret McKenzie v. Board of Education of the City and County of San Francisco, (No. 128), ante, p. 406, this day decided, and for the reasons therein stated the judgment in this ease is affirmed.
Harrison, P. J., and Hall, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on September 11, 1905, and a petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court after judgment in the district court of appeal was denied by the supreme court on October 11, 1905.