87 Ill. 255 (Ill. 1877), Stevenson v. School Directors of Dist. No. 1

• Date: Invalid date
• Docket Number: .
• Citation: 87 Ill. 255
• Parties: NATHANIEL A. STEVENSON v. SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF DISTRICT NO. 1, T. 28 N., R. 14 W
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 255

87 Ill. 255 (Ill. 1877)

NATHANIEL A. STEVENSON

v.

SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF DISTRICT NO. 1, T. 28 N., R. 14 W

Supreme Court of Illinois, Northern Grand Division

September, 1877

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. N. J. PILLSBURY, Judge, presiding.

Judgment affirmed.

Messrs. BLADES, KAY & EVANS, for the plaintiff in error

Mr. M. B. WRIGHT, and Mr. ROBERT DOYLE, for the defendants in error.

OPINION

Mr. Chief Justice Scholfield.

Plaintiff in error claims to have been employed by two school directors, on the 10th day of December, 1875, to teach a district school for the term of nine months, commencing on the third day of April, 1876; that he was ready, and offered to teach the school, but was prevented from so doing by the school directors. On the trial, he offered in evidence an instrument in writing tending to prove the making of a contract, as claimed by him, but this, on objection by counsel of defendants in error, was excluded by the court. He also, in the same connection, offered to prove that, on the third day of

Page 256

April, 1876, when he was on the way to the school house, he was met by two of the directors and requested to delay commencing the school for one week, on account of bad roads, which he agreed to, and that, before that time arrived, he was notified by the directors that his services were not needed, and that they had employed another teacher; and also, that after the agreement to postpone commencement of the school, the directors requested him to take less than the contract price to teach the school, which he declined to do; but this evidence was also excluded by the court.

Judgment was rendered for the defendants in error, and the only question before us, therefore, is, did the court err in excluding this evidence?

It does not appear from the abstract that plaintiff in error proved, or offered to prove, that, when the contract was made, or when the school was to have been commenced, he had a certificate of qualifications as a teacher, obtained under the provisions of the statute. It is provided by sec. 52, of the School law, (Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 964,) that "No teacher shall be entitled to any portion of the common school or township fund, or other public fund, or be employed to teach any school under the control of any board of directors of any school district in this State, who shall not, at the time of his employment, have a certificate of qualification obtained under the provisions of this act." * * * Unless, therefore, at the time the alleged contract was made, he had such a certificate--one under which he could fully perform his part of the contract--that is, one entitling him to teach during the entire term, the contract would be a nullity; and, by analogy to previous decisions, it would seem clear that, to entitle him to recover, he should have proved, or have offered...