School Dist. No. 47 v. Goodwin

• Decision Date: 17 December 1906
• Citation: 98 S.W. 696
• Parties: SCHOOL DIST. NO. 47 v. GOODWIN.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

98 S.W. 696

SCHOOL DIST. NO. 47 v. GOODWIN.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 17, 1906.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ouachita County; C. W. Smith, Judge.

Action by T. Goodwin against School District No. 47. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Smead & Powell, for appellant. Gaughan & Sifford, for appellee.

HILL, C. J.

Appellee was engaged to teach school by two school directors at a meeting, of which, at best, only verbal notice was given to the other director. A written contract for six months at rate of $40 per month was signed by the teacher, and on part of the district was signed by the two directors, and under it she entered into performance and taught the school for two months, two weeks, and two days, and then was barred entrance to the schoolhouse by the directors, and she sued upon the contract and recovered, and the district appealed.

Appellant points out error in the instructions given and the refusal to give requested instructions; the latter being in conformity to Burns v. Thompson, 64 Ark. 489, 43 S. W. 499. The errors of the court, however, were not prejudicial, for the appellant's own testimony shows the contract was ratified, and this renders unavailing here matters as to its original invalidity. The evidence most favorable to the district was, in substance: That the agreement to employ appellee was made at a meeting attended by only two directors, of which meeting if the absent director had any notice at all, a disputed matter, it was verbal and informal. The written contract was signed by only two directors; the other declining to sign it. After it was signed by the teacher and the two directors purporting to act for the district the teacher at once opened school with the knowledge and acquiescence of the other director. This absent director, Browning, was secretary of the board, and drew warrants in favor of the teacher for each of the two completed months she taught, which he would not sign himself, but delivered to the other directors to be signed by them and to be cashed by the teacher. The district patronized the school and people and directors recognized appellee's authority as teacher for the district, and the only objection at all was this director, Browning, refusing to sign the contract or warrants, but at the same time he acquiesced in the matter, as he expressed it to her, "If the other two directors hire you, I can't contrary them, and I did not." Judge Dillon says: "A municipal corporation...