Corum v. Common School District Number Twenty-One, 6214

• Decision Date: 08 July 1935
• Docket Number: 6214
• Citation: 55 Idaho 725,47 P.2d 889
• Parties: MEMPHIS L. CORUM, Appellant, v. COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER TWENTY-ONE, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

47 P.2d 889

55 Idaho 725

MEMPHIS L. CORUM, Appellant, v. COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER TWENTY-ONE, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent

No. 6214

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 8, 1935

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS-BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MEETING OF-TEACHER'S CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT.

1. Meeting of two of three members of board of trustees of school district at home of one on date fixed by statute for holding of regular meeting, at which they agreed to hire plaintiff as teacher for that district, the chairman of the board having failed to attend any meetings but one following his election, held a legal meeting of board giving validity to contract subsequently entered into with plaintiff (I. C A., secs. 32-303, 32-601, 32-602, 32-607, 32-615 (16)).

2. Where written contract of employment was entered into by board of trustees of school district with school-teacher prior to annual school meeting at which a change in personnel of board occurred, school-teacher could recover thereon although contract was to be performed subsequent to annual meeting (I. C. A., sec. 32-615 (1) ).

3. Contract of employment of school-teacher agreed to at regular meeting of board of trustees, but not reduced to writing and executed until after adjournment, held valid, enabling school-teacher to recover thereon.

4. Contract of employment of school-teacher stipulating a salary in excess of revenue of the district provided for that year held valid, since cost of employing teachers was an ordinary and necessary expense authorized by general laws of state (Const., art. 8, sec. 3).

APPEAL from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, for Nez Perce County. Hon. Miles S. Johnson, Judge.

Action for damages for breach of contract. Judgment for respondent. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions. Costs awarded to appellant. Petition for rehearing, denied.

Cox, Martin & Ware and R. Hubbard, for Appellant.

Where the school district is governed by a board of trustees of three members and the term of the trustees expires each year at the time of the annual meeting of the school district, the board is a continuing body and a valid contract to employ a teacher for a term commencing after the annual school meeting may be entered into before such meeting. (Tate v. School Dist. No. 11, 324 Mo. 477, 23 S.W.2d 1013, 70 A. L. R. 771; Taylor v. School Dist. No. 7, 16 Wash. 365, 47 P. 758; Splaine v. School Dist. No. 122, 20 Wash. 74, 54 P. 766; School Dist. No. 9 v. Gigax, 69 Colo. 161, 170 P. 184.)

Edward C. Butler, for Respondent.

A board of school district trustees have no authority to enter into a contract with a school-teacher, the performance of which is to commence in the future. (Smith v. School District, 1 Penn. (Del.) 401, 42 A. 368; Stevenson v. School Directors of District No. 1, 87 Ill. 255; Independent School Dist. v. Pennington, 181 Iowa 933, 165 N.W. 209.)

BUDGE, J. Givens, C. J., and Holden and Ailshie, JJ., concur. Morgan, J., did not sit with the court nor participate in the decision.

OPINION

BUDGE, J.

Respondent, Common School District Number Twenty-one, maintains a school at Spalding, Nez Perce county. On the last Monday in March, 1932, a date specified by law as a time for the holding of a regular meeting of the board of trustees of a common school district, C. J. Foss and T. R. Roberts, trustees of the district, having theretofore received an application from appellant for employment as a teacher by Common School District Number Twenty-one, met at the home of Foss and considered appellant's application together with others, and having theretofore advised appellant that her application was being considered, agreed to hire appellant to teach for the ensuing year at the rate of $ 90 per month plus $ 5 per month for janitor work, said employment to begin on the sixth day of September, 1932. Not having the usual forms of contract provided by the State Board of Education, Roberts, who also acted as clerk of the board, was directed to secure the same, and, after having secured the contract forms a contract in triplicate was filled out, signed by Roberts and Foss on behalf of the school district, and was forwarded to appellant on April 2, 1932. The contracts were received by appellant on April 4, 1932, and were then signed by her, one copy being retained by her and the other two copies being returned to Roberts, who retained one copy and delivered the other to the County School Superintendent. At the times heretofore mentioned Eli Hickman, T. R. Roberts and C. J. Foss were the duly elected and qualified trustees of said school district, and appellant at all times was authorized to teach in the common schools of the state.

At the annual school meeting held on the third Saturday of April, 1932, one Margaret Watson was elected trustee to succeed T. R. Roberts, and was also elected at the organization meeting of the board as clerk thereof. Mrs. Watson, by letter dated May 12, 1932, notified appellant that her contract theretofore entered into as above stated was irregular and void, to which letter appellant replied on May 17, 1932, that she expected to perform her contract and would expect the school district to do likewise. Appellant appeared at the schoolhouse of the district on September 1, 1932, having been advised that school would start on that day, and again appeared on September 6, 1932, the date stipulated in the contract that school would start, but was refused permission to teach, both by the teacher in charge of the school and by the trustees of the school district.

The foregoing are the material facts disclosed by the record and are sufficient, we think, to present the questions here for determination.

Appellant brought this action to recover the sum of $ 855, alleged damages sustained by her by reason of the failure upon the part of the trustees of said school district to permit her to carry out the terms of the contract heretofore referred to. The cause was tried to the court, judgment was entered for respondent, appellant's complaint was dismissed, and this appeal was taken from the judgment.

Appellant assigns and relies upon seven assignments of error which we will not discuss seriatim, but we will seek to point out wherein, in our opinion, the trial court erred in dismissing appellant's complaint and in entering judgment in favor of respondent.

It is first contended that on the last Monday of March, 1932, when Roberts and Foss, at the home of Foss, agreed between themselves that they would hire appellant to teach for the ensuing year, they did not enter into an agreement as trustees of the school district such as could later form the basis of a valid contract later reduced to writing and executed and delivered by Roberts as clerk of the board of trustees to appellant. The court in its findings found, among other things, that the agreement entered into between Roberts and Foss, while at the Foss home on the last Monday of March, 1932, was not entered into by them as trustees of said school district, but was entered into between them as individuals. From the entire evidence in this case we have concluded that the court was in error in this respect. Common school districts, when validly organized and existing, are bodies corporate (I. C. A., sec. 32-303), and are governed by a board of trustees--a continuous body. (I. C. A., secs. 32-601, 32-602.) I. C. A., sec. 32-607, provides that:

"The regular meetings of the board of trustees shall be held on the last Mondays of March, June, September and December. Special or adjourned meetings of said board may be held from time to time as the board fixes and determines; in case of special meeting, written notice thereof being given to the members at least twenty-four hours prior to said meeting. A quorum in board of trustees of common and joint common districts for the transaction of business shall consist of any two trustees; . . . ."

Subdivision 16 of I. C. A., sec. 32-615, provides:

"It shall be the duty of each member of the board of trustees to attend all meetings of the board of trustees, both regular and special."

It is clear from the record before us that Roberts and Foss, a quorum for the transaction of...