Davis v. Sch. Directors.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1879 |
| Citation | 92 Ill. 293,1879 WL 8522 |
| Parties | J. B. DAVISv.SCHOOL DIRECTORS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Perry county; the Hon. AMOS WATTS, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. HAMMACK & DAVIS, and Messrs. MURPHY & BODY, for the appellant.
Mr. E. V. PIERCE, and Messrs. T. T. & D. W. FOUNTAIN, for the appellees, cited Stevenson v. School Directors, 87 Ill. 255, as showing a want of proper authority in the employment of the appellant as a teacher. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action brought before a justice of the peace, by appellant, to recover on a contract to teach school for appellees for three months at $33.33 per month. On a trial before the justice plaintiff recovered a judgment for $80. Defendant perfected an appeal to the circuit court of Perry county, where a trial was had by the court and a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff appeals to this court and asks a reversal.
It appears, from the evidence, that one Luke, a director of the school district, on the 25th of March, 1876, saw appellant and told him the directors wanted him to teach, when appellant informed him what his price was, and it was agreed they should at a future time meet and enter into a written contract, which they did about the 5th of the following April. When the written contract was entered into and executed, Ballheimer, another director, was present and participated in executing the agreement. But Mangin, the other director, was not present, nor was he notified or consulted, nor did he know of the intention to employ appellant. The agreement was to employ him for three months at $33.33 per month, and the school to commence on the 17th day of April, 1876.
The regular election for a director was not held on the first Saturday in April, the time fixed by law, but it occurred on the 15th day of that month, when Baul was elected in the place of Luke, who went out of office. On the 17th appellant applied to Luke for the keys of the school house to commence the term, but was informed that Baul had been elected in Luke's place, and that Baul and Mangin had the keys. Appellant then saw them, and was informed that they had determined to have no summer school, as it was not wanted by the people, a majority of whom had so voted at the election of Baul as director. Appellant offered to teach, but Baul and Mangin declined to receive his services. It appears that on the 25th of March, 1876, Luke and appellant verbally agreed upon the terms of employment, and that they should be reduced to writing; that appellant at that time had no certificate of qualification, but obtained one from the county superintendent two days after. It was a second class certificate, which he held unrevoked on the 5th of April when the contract was executed.
Conceding that the teacher at the time of his employment must have the necessary certificate of qualification that extends through the entire term of his employment, still the question arises whether appellant did have such a certificate when this contract was entered into by the parties. We apprehend no one would contend that one director, without consultation with and without authority from one or both of the other directors, could make a legally binding contract for the employment of a teacher; nor is it by any means conceded that he could with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hostrop v. Board of Jr. College Dist. No. 515, Cook and Will Counties and State of Ill.
...255, 257-258 (1877), and on the principle that one board should not be able to bind a later board, Id., at 258-259; Davis v. School Directors, 92 Ill. 293, 296 (1879). In the case at bar, the board, prior to the April 1970 board election, purported to extend plaintiff's contract until June ......
-
Freeport Water Company v. City of Freeport
...subsequently asserted contract would not be controlled by such policy. In Stevenson v. Scholl Directors, 87 Ill. 255, and in Davis v. School Directors, 92 Ill. 293, it was held that a school board could not make a contract for the employment of teachers to extend beyond the current year, an......
-
Libertyville Ed. Ass'n v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 70, Lake County
...select the teachers they shall desire, for the terms to be commenced after their organization." (87 Ill. 255, 258-59.) In Davis v. School Directors (1879), 92 Ill. 293, two members of a local board (without informing the third member), entered into a contract to employ a teacher for a three......
-
Burns v. Thompson
... ... and not a regular meeting. The notice of a special meeting of ... the directors of a corporation should be in writing, and ... should definitely state its objects. Beach, Pub ... ...