Baxter v. School District of Miller

• Citation: 266 S.W. 760,217 Mo.App. 389
• Parties: REITHA BAXTER, Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MILLER, Respondent. *
• Decision Date: 16 December 1924
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

266 S.W. 760

217 Mo.App. 389

REITHA BAXTER, Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MILLER, Respondent. *

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Springfield

December 16, 1924

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lawrence County.--Hon. Chas. L Henson, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

H. H Bloss of Aurora, A. N. Walker of Springfield, and M. S. Ginn of Miller, for appellant.

(1) In our opinion this case rests almost entirely on the question as to whether or not the act of the directors of the Miller School District in holding an election of teachers at the meeting on April 24, 1922 (which meeting is admitted to have been attended by all of the school directors), and the election of plaintiff as a teacher at that meeting, was sufficient authority for the entering into a contract with her for, if it was, then the contract as it appears in the record was a legal one and she can recover. With this point decided in the plaintiff's favor, and it does not seem that there can be any questions as to it, her contract, in view of the decisions, did not require the signature of the President to bind the district. The election of plaintiff as teacher was certainly sufficient evidence of her employment "by order of the board" and a resolution to enter into a contract with her would have been nothing but surplusage and would have been an innovation in the case of this particular board as shown by the records. In the case of School District v. Edmonston, 50 Mo.App. 65, is a case which decided this question upon a statement of facts almost identical with those here involved. The clerk drew up a contract, it was signed in duplicate by the clerk but the president of the board refused to sign it. The court, on pages 68, 69, said: "An examination of the proceedings of the board relating to her employment satisfies us that they were regular, and that plaintiff's objections" (in this case the board sought an injunction to prevent defendant teacher from carrying on the school) "urged thereto are not well taken. A majority of the board acted and the record shows such action to have been well taken. It became the duty of the president of the board to sign the contract, witnessing the employment made by the board, regardless of his individual judgment or view of the propriety of the board's action so long as it was legally taken." Going on further in the same case, the court said: "Plaintiff seeks a court of equity, to restrain defendant from teaching a school for the reason that she has not a legal contract, the illegality arising from the non-performance of a duty which the president of the board should perform, by signing." After a teacher has been employed by the board of directors of an independent district and the contract has been signed by himself and the secretary, the president of the board cannot refuse to approve and file the contract because the teacher is not of good moral character and not fit to teach, since these are matters for the board to determine. "In case the board breaks the contract before commencement of such services, the teacher need not immediately seek other employment, but may insist on the contract, and tender her services at the stipulated time. Farrell v. School District No. 2 of Rubicon Tp., 98 Mich. 43, 56 N.W. 1053.

Katherine Halterman, of Joplin, and W. B. Skinner, of Springfield, for respondent.

(1) A school district is a quasi corporation, and can exercise only such powers as are given it by the statute, and only in the way provided by the statute. Buchanan v. School District, 25 Mo.App. 85; Rudy v. School District, 30 Mo.App. 117. (2) Persons contracting with school directors must take notice of their limited powers and a contract in excess of their powers cannot be enforced. Cheeney v. Brookfield, 60 Mo. 53; Rudy v. School District, supra. (3) School boards have power at a regular or special meeting to contract with and employ legally qualified teachers for and in the name of the district; the contract shall be made by order of the board, shall specify the number of months the school is to be taught, and the wages per month to be paid, shall be signed by the teacher and the president of the board and attested by the clerk of the district, when the teacher's certificate is filed with the clerk. R. S. 1919, sec. 11137. (4) Prior to the Act of 1874, Laws of 1874, page 150, Missouri had no law requiring school teachers' contracts to be in writing, and the case of Wilson v. Board of Education, 63 Mo. 137, was decided on a situation arising in 1872, and is not an authority under the present statute. R. S. 1879, sec. 7046, note. (5) The statute, sec. 11137, R. S. 1919, provides that contracts for the employment of teachers by boards of school directors shall be made by order of the board at general or special meetings of such board, shall be signed by the teacher and the president of the board and attested by the clerk of the district when the teachers certificate is filed with said clerk, who shall return the certificate to the teacher at the end of the term. The validity of such a contract is in no way dependent on the attestation of the clerk, nor can such a contract, otherwise invalid, be made valid by the attestation of the clerk. This provision of the statute is but directory. R. S. 1919, sec. 11137; McShane v. School District, 70 Mo.App. 624; Saleno v. Neosho, 127 Mo. 627; Blades v. Hawkins, 240 Mo. 194. (6) In a parol contract of employment the fact that the services could have been completed within one year after such services were to be commenced does not relieve the contract from the effect of the Statute of Frauds. The year designated by the statute commences from the date of the agreement. Brookfield v. Drury College, 139 Mo.App. 367 and 368. (7) In order to sustain such an action as this it must be made to appear that plaintiff has a contract in writing to teach in the defendant school district's school, made by an order of its board of directors and signed by the president of such board of directors and that the president has suffered damage by not being allowed to perform such contract on her part. R. S. 1919, sec. 11137; School District v. Edmonston, 50 Mo.App. 65; McShane v. District, 70 Mo. App., 24; Pugh v. District, 114 Mo.App. 688; Hibbart v. District, 135 Mo.App. 621; McLellan v. Board, 15 Mo.App. 362.

BRADLEY, J. Cox, P. J., and Farrington, J., concur.

OPINION

BRADLEY, J.

Plaintiff, a teacher, sued to recover for an alleged breach of contract. At the close of plaintiff's case the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence, and plaintiff took an involuntary nonsuit with leave. In due time plaintiff filed motion to set aside nonsuit which motion was overruled, and she appealed.

Plaintiff was employed as a teacher in the defendant district for the school year of 1921 and 1922, and her cause is founded upon the contention that she was employed for the following year beginning in September, 1922. On April 24, 1922, the board of directors in lawful...