Daugherty v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Philippi Dist

• Decision Date: 18 May 1920
• Docket Number: (No. 3931.)
• Citation: 103 S.E. 406
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: DAUGHERTY . v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PHILIPPI DIST.

103 S.E. 406

DAUGHERTY .

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PHILIPPI DIST.

(No. 3931.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

May 18, 1920.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Circuit Court, Barbour County.

Action before a justice of the peace by H. C. Daugherty against the Board of Education of Philippi District. Trial in circuit court and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Murphy & Brandon and Wm. T. George, all of Philippi, for plaintiff in error.

W. Bruce Talbott and J. Blackburn Ware, both of Philippi, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, P. To a judgment in favor of defendant, the board of education of Philippi district, plaintiff was awarded this writ of error. The action was begun before a justice of the peace and tried in the circuit court. Plaintiff sued to recover for extra costs of building a schoolhouse, claimed to have been caused by a change of the school-house site, after the contract was made between plaintiff and the board to build the schoolhouse on another location for a fixed price of $1,095. The contract contemplated building on the site of an old schoolhouse, and after the contract was signed by plaintiff and the president of the board of education, and after plaintiff had assembled some of the material on the ground, and had begun work upon the foundation at the old site, two members of the board met with plaintiff on the ground and told him they had decided to build on another lot about 1 1/2 miles distant from the old site. The president of the board was one of the two who then met with plaintiff, and plaintiff testified that they agreed to pay him, in addition to the contract price, the extra cost to him occasioned by making the change in location but admits no specific sum was then agreed upon. Only two members of the board were present, and there is no evidence that the third member had notice of the time and place of that meeting. Mr. A. G. Shaffer, president of the board and one of the two who were present, testifies that the only change made in the written contract was the interlineation in it of the words "on new lot purchased from E. R. Dyer, " to which alteration, he says, plaintiff agreed, and then promised that, as soon as he went home, he would insert the same interlineation in his copy of it; the contract being executed in duplicate and each party being provided with a copy. The record kept by the secretary of the board contains no minutes of this meeting nor of any change made in the written agreement. It is contended by defendant there was no legal meeting, and the board is not bound by any such agreement alleged to have been made between plaintiff and the two of its members. However, plaintiff completed the building on the new location, and the board paid him the contract price and $87.50 in addition thereto. But plaintiff claims there is $100.40 yet due him and brought This suit to recover that amount. Plaint...