Board of Ed. of City of Bartlesville, Washington County v. Montgomery

• Decision Date: 08 September 1936
• Docket Number: 25476.
• Citation: 60 P.2d 752,177 Okla. 423,1936 OK 473
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF BARTLESVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, v. MONTGOMERY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

60 P.2d 752

177 Okla. 423, 1936 OK 473

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF BARTLESVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, v. MONTGOMERY.

No. 25476.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

September 8, 1936

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In order to constitute ratification or estoppel to deny the validity or the terms of an alleged contract, it is essential that the acts relied upon for ratification or estoppel must be had and done with full knowledge of the facts.

2. In an action to recover money judgment, when the evidence most favorable to plaintiff, together with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, is not sufficient to entitle plaintiff to any recovery, it is error to overrule defendant's demurrer to the evidence and to refuse to instruct a verdict for the defendant.

Appeal from County Court, Washington County; Robert D. Waddill Judge.

Action by J. P. Montgomery against the Board of Education of the City of Bartlesville, Washington County, Oklahoma, for breach of contract of employment by reason of alleged wrongful discharge. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Shipman & Lewis, of Bartlesville, for plaintiff in error.

Chas W. Pennel, of Bartlesville, for defendant in error.

WELCH Justice.

Plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, Board of Education, for alleged damages for breach of contract. He alleged that on or about August 15, 1932, one Doud, who was then employed by the school board as head janitor, advised him that the school board had employed him (the plaintiff) as janitor for the ensuing school term, beginning about September 1, 1932, and to continue for the term of ten months, at a salary of $500 payable $50 per month. He alleged that when he was so advised by the said Doud, he agreed to accept such employment for the period of time and upon such basis. He alleged further that he entered upon his duties as janitor and continued therein until the 19th day of November, 1932, when he was discharged, and that such discharge was wrongful and without just cause. Plaintiff further alleged that subsequent to his acceptance of the alleged proposition made to him by Doud, the defendant school board ratified such agreement and contract, and he prayed judgment in the sum of $368.33, the wages for the balance of the school term. The defendant answered by way of general denial. The cause was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff as prayed in his petition.

The defendant, upon appeal, urges that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence and in refusing to instruct the jury to return a verdict for...