Arnold v. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1883
• Citation: 78 Mo. 226
• Parties: ARNOLD v. SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

78 Mo. 226

ARNOLD

v.SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1883.

Appeal from Boone Circuit Court.--HON. G. H. BURCKHARTT, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

S. Turner for appellant, cited Puterbaugh v. Township Board, 53 Mo. 472; McCutchen v. Windsor, 55 Mo. 149; Fitzgerald v. Hayward, 50 Mo. 516; State v. Foerstel, 2 Mo. App. 497.

S. G. Douglass for respondent, cited 1 Dillon Munic. Corp., p. 96, § 10 a; Morley v. Power, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 691; s. c., 12 Cent. L. J. 540; McCutchen v. Windsor, 55 Mo. 151; Pittman v. Adams, 44 Mo. 586; Geter v. Commissioners, 1 Bay 354; Singleton v. Commissioners, 2 Bay 105.

MARTIN, C.

This action was commenced on the 21st day of July, 1879, for the purpose of recovering wages as a teacher. It is alleged in the petition that plaintiff entered into a written contract with the directors of defendant, by the terms whereof he was to teach the school of said district for the period of four months, beginning on the 9th day of September, 1878, and was to receive therefor a salary of $40 per month; that he entered upon the discharge of his duty under the contract, and taught said school for about seven weeks and two days, until about the 30th day of October, 1878, when the directors of defendant locked up the school house and prevented the further discharge of his contract; that he had repeatedly tendered his services under said contract and had held himself in readiness to comply with his part of the same, but that defendant refused to accept his further services or to pay him for the time of his employment, wherefore he asked for a judgment in the sum of $120, the amount of the residue coming to him under said contract. There is another count for extra services as janitor, for preparing fires and cleaning the school house, for which he asked a judgment in the sum of $10.

The answer of defendant admits the hiring and the time of actual service as alleged, and pleads a tender of $34, being the residue owing to plaintiff for the time of his actual service. The answer then concludes with the following special defense: That at the time of making the contract with respondent, it was distinctly understood and agreed that respondent should, in the government of the scholars, observe the written rules theretofore in force in the school, which rules were talked over and explained to the respondent; that among other things said rules prescribed that the teacher should subject no pupil to corporal punishment, until the directors should be consulted and their assent obtained, and that the teacher should be patient and kind to the pupils; that respondent, in September and October of said year, in managing and conducting the school, repeatedly disregarded and broke said rules, by the infliction of corporal punishment upon his pupils without consulting the directory; that respondent, during said months, gave way to violent outbursts of temper and cursed and abused his pupils, and beat and abused them in a cruel and brutal manner after he had been warned not to do so by the directors; that finally, after due notice to respondent, the directors dismissed respondent as teacher on or about the 30th day of October, as they averred it was their right and duty to do, and about the day stated (30th October) the directors locked up their school house and refused to accept his further services as teacher. The answer again tendered respondent the warrant aforesaid, for $34.

At the November term, 1879, of the circuit court, when the cause was called for trial, the respondent withdrew his reply to the answer, and filed his demurrer to “so much of defendant's answer as sets up plaintiff's cruel and abusive treatment of the scholars in his school, for the reason that the same contains no defense to this action,” which demurrer was sustained by the court, and appellant excepted Thereupon the trial was proceeded with as to the issues embraced in the answer not reached or covered by the demurrer.

The plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove that he tendered his services and his monthly reports during the whole term of his contract; that he obtained no other engagement and was not fit for other business; that the directors failed to have the house swept or fires made as they had agreed to, and that he had attended to such duties, and had expended fifty cents for fuel, and that his services as janitor were worth $10.

On the part of defendant the evidence tended to prove that a copy of the rules was given to plaintiff when he signed the printed contract of hiring. The rules were then offered and excluded. It further appears from defendant's testimony that about the 20th day of October, 1878, complaints were made to the directors about the treatment of the scholars by plaintiff; that about the 25th day of October, 1878, they met and investigated the charges, and requested plaintiff to quit teaching, which he refused to do; that thereupon they locked up the school house on the 30th day of October, 1878, and gave plaintiff a written notice of his discharge as teacher. It also appears that the directors offered to prove that the plaintiff, in the school house and during school hours, had knocked down a scholar by the name of Jones with a billet of stove wood, and had stamped on another by the name of Peyton, and had indulged in a multitude of profane and objurgatory expressions while conducting these physical exercises. This evidence was excluded. Thereupon the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $120.50.

The single question presented in the case is, whether the directors had the lawful right to terminate the plaintiff's contract of employment and discharge him from his position in the school as a teacher. A brief review of the school law bearing on this question may assist us in giving to it a proper answer.

The 6th section of the school law in the statutes of 1865 gave the local school directors the power to employ teachers and the qualified power to dismiss them. Gen. St. 1865, p. 258, § 6. It read as follows: “It shall be the duty of the school directors in each sub-district to manage and control its local interests and affairs; to employ teachers; to certify the amount due them for services to the township clerk, who shall draw an order on the county treasurer as hereinafter provided; and to dismiss any teacher at any time for such reasons as they may deem sufficient; provided such dismissal shall receive the sanction of the township board.” It will be observed that to render a dismissal valid, it had to receive the sanction of the township board of education. This board could also discharge the duties of the local directors when they failed or refused to do so. Gen. St. 1865, p. 260, § 12.

...