7 OF CLALLAM COUNTY, Taylor v. School Dist. No. 7 of Clallam County

• Decision Date: 26 January 1897
• Citation: 16 Wash. 365,47 P. 758
• Parties: TAYLOR v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 7 OF CLALLAM COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

47 P. 758

16 Wash. 365

TAYLOR v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 7 OF CLALLAM COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 26, 1897

Appeal from superior court, Clallam county; James G. McClinton Judge.

Action by A. M. Taylor against school district No. 7 of Clallam county for breach of contract. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. C Hatch, for appellant.

W. L Marquardt, for respondent.

REAVIS J.

On the 28th day of June, 1895, the defendant, by a majority of its board of directors, employed plaintiff to teach in the public schools of the district for the term during the school year commencing the 1st day of July, 1895, and ending the last day of June, 1896, at the rate of $70 per month. At the time the contract was made, the election for school officers for the ensuing year had been held. When the contract was made, the school board consisted of McGeorge, Graham, and Hatfield. At the election held on the second Monday of June, Eacrett was elected to succeed Graham. After the board was reorganized following the election, it refused to recognize the contract previously made with plaintiff, and the present action was instituted to recover damages for breach of contract. A general demurrer was interposed to the complaint, and overruled. The defendant then answered, denying the essential paragraphs of the complaint, and set up the affirmative defense that McGeorge and Graham, on the 20th of June, 1895, for the fraudulent and unlawful purpose of forcing the district to employ plaintiff to teach said school, did conspire with plaintiff to that end, and did, against the known wishes of the board, as reorganized by said election, make the contract set out in the complaint; and that, at the time the contract was made with plaintiff, Hatfield, one of the directors, opposed hiring plaintiff to teach the school; and that the newly-elected director was also opposed to engaging plaintiff. To this affirmative defense plaintiff interposed a demurrer, on the ground that sufficient facts were not stated to constitute a defense. The demurrer was sustained.

There is but one question presented in this cause: Can a board of directors of a school district make a valid contract with a teacher for a term of school to begin in the next succeeding school year, and after the term of one of the directors has expired? We think the demurrer to the affirmative defense set up in the answer was...