School-Dist. No. 42 v. Bennett

• Decision Date: 15 February 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 132
• Parties: SCHOOL-DIST. No. 42 <I>v.</I> BENNETT.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

13 S.W. 132

SCHOOL-DIST. No. 42

v. BENNETT.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 15, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Clay county; J. E. RIDDICK, Judge.

This was an action, brought by P. P. Bennett against school-district No. 42, to recover for services rendered in teaching a school in said district. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

E. F. Brown, for appellant. J. C. Hawthorne, for appellee.

HEMINGWAY, J.

Baker Pollard, and McCleskey were directors of the appellant school-district when the annual district meeting convened, in May, 1887. Baker was the senior member of the board, and Rodery was elected by the meeting to succeed him. The vote was canvassed, and the result declared, when Rodery announced that he would accept the office. At some subsequent time, Rodery took some kind of a verbal oath before a justice of the peace; but he did not "subscribe to the oath prescribed for officers by the constitution of this state," "and file it in the office of the clerk of the county court," until the latter part of the following September. During the interval, Baker continued to act as a director. On the day that Rodery's oath was filed with the county clerk, the appellee made a contract with Baker and Pollard, as directors of the district, to teach a school in the district for three months at $40 per month. The appellee taught the school. The directors refused to pay him. He brought this suit, recovered a judgment, and they have appealed. He was notified by Rodery and McCleskey, before he began to teach, that they disputed the validity of his contract, and would not pay him if he taught. It does not appear whether the contract was made at a meeting of the board, or by the two directors acting separately; but it was not made at a meeting held at the stated time for meetings in that district, and McCleskey had no notice of the meeting, if one was held. The court, in its instructions, charged that notice to him was not necessary.

Two directors can act for the board, if they proceed in conformity to law. Mansf. Dig. § 6366.

This settled, the appeal tenders two questions for our consideration: Was Baker a director when he signed the contract? If so, was it the contract of the board, unless made by a majority of the directors, at a meeting of the board, of which the director absent had notice?

Baker's term continued until his successor was elected and qualified. Id. § 6205. The statute provided that the term of office should begin on the 15th of October after the election, (Mansf. Dig. § 6206,) and that the party elected, within 10 days after the 15th of October, take and subscribe before a justice of the peace the oath prescribed for officers by the constitution, and file it with the county clerk. This was amended by the act of April 4, 1887, which provides that any person elected and accepting the office should, within 10 days after having been notified of his election, file his acceptance with his predecessor, subscribe the oath, and file it with the clerk, and enter at once upon the discharge of his duties. It is insisted that, under the law as amended, the term of the member elected does not begin until October; that the officers holding the election are required to return the result to the county clerk 10 days before the court meets for levying taxes; and that it is thereby implied that this tribunal shall canvass the vote for directors, and certify the result to those elected, and that as it convenes in October, the term cannot begin sooner. When the justices of the peace sit with the county judge, the constitution directs the scope of their work, which is to assist in levying taxes, and making appropriations. Const. 1874, art. 7, § 30. There is nothing in the nature of this duty akin to that of canvassing and certifying the vote for officers; and, as the statute does not cast it upon them in express terms, or by necessary implication, we...