Benson v. Dist. Tp. of Silver Lake

• Citation: 100 Iowa 328,69 N.W. 419
• Parties: BENSON v. DISTRICT TP. OF SILVER LAKE.
• Decision Date: 11 December 1896
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

100 Iowa 328

69 N.W. 419

BENSON

v.DISTRICT TP. OF SILVER LAKE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 11, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Dickinson county; W. B. Quarton, Judge.

September 23, 1893, the plaintiff entered into a contract in writing, in the usual form, by the terms of which she was to teach the school in district No. 1, of defendant, for the term of nine months, commencing October 2, 1893, and was to receive therefor the sum of $35 per month, to be paid at the end of each month. The contract was signed by the plaintiff, and by the secretary of the defendant's board; also, by “L. E. Benson, Director.” Benson was, in fact, at the time, the president of the defendant's board of directors. The contract was made and signed in duplicate, and left with the president of the board. It was, however, never formally signed by him as president. It was filed by the secretary of the board. Under this contract, plaintiff entered upon her labors, and taught the school for six months. She was prohibited by the defendant from teaching longer. She was fully paid for the time she actually taught. She brings this suit to recover for the three months which she was not permitted to teach. The defendant pleads, among other defenses, that the contract was made without authority of defendant, and in violation of the terms of a resolution which had been adopted by its board of directors, which authorized Benson to employ the plaintiff for the winter term only, being for the period of six months; that the contract was void, it not having been filed with the president of defendant, and not being signed and approved by the defendant's president. To this, plaintiff replied that the defendant had repeatedly recognized the validity of the contract, by making payments thereunder, and by accepting plaintiff's services, with knowledge of its terms, and that it was now estopped from claiming that it was invalid. The cause was, by agreement of parties, tried to the court, without a jury, and a judgment rendered against the defendant for $138.65 and costs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.J. W. Cory, for appellant.

C. M. Brooks, for appellee.

KINNE, J.

1. Of the many questions discussed by counsel, we shall only consider those which impress us as controlling in the determination of the case.

Did the plaintiff have a valid and binding contract with the defendant? By section 1753 of the Code it is provided that “the subdirector, under such rules and restrictions as the board of directors may prescribe, shall negotiate and make in his subdistrict all necessary contracts for * * * employing teachers. * * * All contracts made in conformity with the provisions of this section shall be approved by the president, and reported to the board of directors, and said board, in their corporate capacity, shall be responsible for the performance of the same on the part of the district township.” This contract was made on behalf of the district township, by a proper person. It was not formally approved by the president, and it does not appear that it was ever filed by him, or reported to the board of directors. Clearly, his failure to report the contract to the board would not render it invalid. That was a duty the law enjoined upon the director, for a failure to perform which the teacher was in no way responsible. Nor do we think that the failure of the president of the board to file the contract should prevent recovery. It was left with the director making it. He was, in fact, the president of defendant's board. If he approved the contract, it was his duty to file it.

Is the contract of no validity because not formally approved by the president of the board? As we have seen, the law required such contracts to be thus approved, and we have held that, if such a contract is not approved, it is not binding upon the district. Gambrell...