2, Wolfe v. School Dist. No. 2, Columbia County

• Decision Date: 29 April 1910
• Parties: WOLFE v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2, COLUMBIA COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

108 P. 442

58 Wash. 212

WOLFE v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2, COLUMBIA COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 29, 1910

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Columbia County; Chester F Miller, Judge.

Action by Clara Wolfe against School District No. 2 of Columbia County, a public corporation. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Troy &amp Sturdevant, for appellant.

Will H Fouts, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

On July 12, 1894, at a regular meeting of the board of directors of School District No. 2, Columbia County, the appellant was elected to the position of principal of the high school of that district to serve for a term of eight months beginning October 1, 1894, at a salary of $50 per month. After being informed of her election by the clerk of the school district she sent a formal letter to that officer accepting the position. No written contract was entered into such as the school law seems to have contemplated; but the appellant took up her duties at the commencement of the school year and performed them for a period of three months, when she was discharged by the school directors. It is agreed that the appellant was duly qualified to teach under the laws of the state, and that her discharge was not because of any fault of her own, but on account of the district's financial condition; the directors having found it necessary in order to continue the school to retrench in their expenditures. After her discharge the appellant in good faith sought employment elsewhere, and, failing to find it, brought this action against the district to recover as damages for a breach of the contract a sum equal to the salary for the unexpired term. To a complaint setting out the foregoing facts, the respondent answered by way of denials and affirmative defenses; the second of the affirmative defenses being the following: '(2) For a further and separate defense defendant alleges: First, that at the time said alleged contract was entered into by plaintiff and defendant the board of directors of defendant had incurred indebtedness against said School District No. 2, the defendant herein, which said indebtedness had been contracted during the year in which said alleged contract was made, and was payable out of the general fund of said district, the defendant herein, and was in a sum exceeding in the aggregate the amount apportioned to said district at the last quarterly apportionment next following the date on which taxes became delinquent prior thereto, and said indebtedness had not been authorized by...