Sloan v. Sch. Directors of Dist. No. 22

Decision Date17 April 1940
Docket NumberNo. 25539.,25539.
PartiesSLOAN v. SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF DISTRICT NO. 22.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Suit by Georgia Sloan against the School Directors of District No. 22 on a teaching contract. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.Appeal from Circuit Court, Hamilton County; Blaine Huffman, judge.

W. W. Daily, of McLeansboro (John D. Daily, of McLeansboro, of counsel), for appellant.

R. E. Smith, of Benton, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

Appellant, Georgia Sloan, brought suit in the circuit court of Hamilton county to recover on a contract with appellees, school directors, whereby she agreed to teach school for three years at a salary specified in the contract. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and this motion was sustained. Appellant elected to stand by her complaint and judgment was entered for appellees. The appeal has been brought directly to this court on the ground the constitutionality of section 127a of an act to establish and maintain a system of free schools, Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, chap. 122, par. 136b, is involved.

The substance of the complaint is that appellant held a certificate of qualification to teach school in school district No. 22 in Hamilton county and that August 31, 1936, this certificate was renewed by the county superintendent of schools of Hamilton county for a period of four years, and that this certificate was duly registered with the county superintendent; that prior to September 9, 1937, she had taught school in school district No. 22 for a probationary period of four consecutive years; that September 16, 1937, by a written contract duly entered into, appellees employed appellant to teach school in said school district No. 22 for a term of three years from that date; that appellant did teach until August 24, 1938, when appellees, without cause, discharged appellant and refused to permit her to continue to teach in said district; that ever since that time she always has been ready and willing to teach in said school and has always offered and tendered her services as such teacher. The complaint alleges there was, at the time the suit was filed, $880 due her under the contract, and prayed for judgment in that amount with interest.

The grounds of the motion to dismiss are: (1) The complaint shows that appellant did not at the time of making the alleged contract hold a valid certificate covering the three-year term of employment; (2) the complaint fails to show the contract was made at a regular or special meeting of the school directors as provided by law; (3) the school directors had no authority to employ appellant for a term of more than one year, and (4) section 127a of chapter 122, supra, purporting to empower a board of school directors to employ a teacher for a space of more than one year is unconstitutional and void. These grounds will be considered in that order.

One of the statutory requirements that must be met to entitle a person to teach in the common schools is the holding of a certificate of qualification ‘covering the period of his employment.’ Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, chap. 122, par. 481. This certificate must be registered each year with the county superintendent in whose county the holder is to teach. Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, chap. 122, par. 489. It will be observed that the statute requires the certificate must cover the period of employment, which the complaint alleges is true here, but does not require that it be registered for the period of employment at the time the contract is entered into. The complaint alleges her certificate has been registered each year, and that is all the statute requires. This ground affords no reason for striking the complaint.

The statute provides that ‘no official business shall be transacted by the directors except at a regular or a special meeting.’ Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, chap. 122, par. 119. Appellees contend it was necessary to allege the contract was made at a regular or special meeting. The complaint alleges the contract was duly entered into between appellant and appellees. We think that allegation is sufficient and that whether it was made at either a regular or special meeting is a matter of proof.

In support of their contention that a board of school directors cannot employ a teacher for a term of more than one year, appellees cite Stevenson v. School Directors, 87 Ill. 255, and Davis v. School Directors, 92 Ill. 293. Those cases do so hold, but they have no application here, for they were decided before the enactment of section 127a, supra. Laws of 1927, p. 823.

The principal question presented in this appeal is whether section 127a, supra, is constitutional. It reads, in part: ‘The service of all teachers, principals and superintendents in the public schools in any district of this State, having a board of school directors,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Pauley v. Kelly
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1979
    ...30. Smith v. Board of Education of Oswego Community High School District, 405 Ill. 143, 89 N.E.2d 893 (1950). 31. Sloan v. School Directors of District No. 22, 373 Ill. 511, 26 N.E.2d 846 (1940). 32. Board of Education of Louisville v. Society of Alumni of Louisville High School, Inc., 239 ......
  • Talbott v. Independent School Dist. of Des Moines
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • August 4, 1941
    ... ... Directors of the Independent School District of Des Moines, ... in its capacity as ...           ... Hutchinson & Hutchinson and Herrick, Sloan & Langdon, all of ... Des Moines, for appellants ...           ...          On ... April 22, 1918 the defendant Board, pursuant to said enabling ... statute, by Rule ... ...
  • Schreiber v. Cook Cnty.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1944
  • Hostrop v. Board of Jr. College Dist. No. 515, Cook and Will Counties and State of Ill.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • October 30, 1975
    ...and superintendents for a period of three years, after expiration of a two-year probationary period. See Sloan v. School Directors of District No. 22, 373 Ill. 511, 26 N.E.2d 846 (1940). In Sloan the Illinois Supreme Court determined that the Stevenson And Davis cases, Supra, were no longer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT