Le Claire v. School Dist. No. 28
| Decision Date | 29 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | 5751. |
| Parties | LE CLAIRE v. SCHOOL DIST. No. 28. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Lake County; James M. Self, Judge.
Action by Ceil Le Claire against School District No. 28 for breach of contract. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Walter L. Pope and Clark T. Brown, both of Missoula, for appellant.
Harry H. Parsons and Fred W. Schilling, both of Missoula, for respondent.
This appeal is from a judgment awarding plaintiff damages in the sum of $1,300, with interest, for the breach of her contract of employment as a teacher in the schools of defendant district.
The only specifications of error which are assigned and argued are: (1) That the verdict is contrary to the court's instruction No. 2, and therefore "against the law" and (2) that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict. These specifications are predicated upon the assertion that plaintiff failed to prove performance or tender of performance of her contract and failed to prove nonpayment of her salary.
There is no substantial conflict in the testimony; the evidence adduced, briefly stated, is as follows: School district No 28 of Lake county is an exceptionally large district; it embraces six towns, including Ronan and St. Ignatius, and employed 46 teachers. Two members of the board of trustees resided, at the time the cause of action arose, in the vicinity of Ronan, the remaining members residing in distant parts of the district. The clerk of the board, who was also superintendent of the schools of the district, resided at St Ignatius, 18 miles from Ronan. The plaintiff had been employed by defendant as assistant principal of the Ronan high school for three consecutive years prior to the school year of 1922-1923. The form of contract used by the district contained a provision that "the said board reserves the right to reassign teachers at any time, if the welfare of the school or system seems to require it."
On June 3, 1922, after the close of the school year, the board passed a resolution which reads:
Resolved "that Miss Agnes Fessenden be assigned to the position of assistant principal of the Ronan school, and that the superintendent assign teachers as his judgment warrants." No reason was given for the action taken, and no notice thereof was given to the plaintiff, nor was she then, nor at any other time, assigned to any other position in the district. Learning, through outside rumor, that some such action had been taken, plaintiff consulted the superintendent, who assured her that she had no cause for worry, as she would still have her position. Plaintiff thereupon departed for Seattle where she attended summer school.
On July 21, 1922, the superintendent wrote the plaintiff to the effect that the board had decided not to assign her to her old position, and advised her that:
"If you wish to be considered for any other position in the district kindly advise me and it will be taken up at the next meeting of the board of trustees."
This letter was addressed to plaintiff at Ronan and was not received by plaintiff until after school opened September 11, 1922. At some time subsequent to the closing of school in the spring of 1922 plaintiff evidenced her intention to accept her position for the ensuing year by signing and mailing to the board the usual teacher's contract for the year 1922-1923. This contract was received by the board but, according to the testimony of the clerk, it was "repudiated" by the board.
The plaintiff returned to Ronan on or about September 1, 1922, ready and willing to perform her contract, only to find that the assignment of another to the position of assistant principal had been regularly made, and that every other position in the district had been filled. On September 10th she sought to interview the two members of the board residing in the vicinity; one was away from home, but she did present herself for service in the school to the remaining officer of the district, but was informed that there was no position open to her. Plaintiff thereupon sought a position elsewhere, but without success. Hanson, the superintendent, made no attempt to assign plaintiff to any position, and testified, when called on her behalf, that all positions in the district were filled before the opening of school, the last, a vacancy caused by resignation, being filled on September 8th, and that "had she applied to the board at the opening of school, say September 11th, there would have been no place open for her." On cross-examination Hanson did testify that "if Miss Le Clair had reported to me on September 11th, or at the time school began, I would have assigned her to a school," but it seems clear that this statement referred only to a vacancy which occurred some three weeks after that date.
Neither the plaintiff nor any other teacher had ever theretofore been required to report to the superintendent for duty, nor had plaintiff had any notice that the superintendent had authority, if such was the fact, to assign teachers to any position.
Instruction No. 2, given by the court, reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial