Dukes v. Smoak
| Decision Date | 13 July 1936 |
| Docket Number | 14331. |
| Citation | 186 S.E. 780,181 S.C. 182 |
| Parties | DUKES v. SMOAK et al., Trustees of School Dist. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Orangeburg County Court; B. H. Moss, Judge.
Action by Burnelle Lenaire Collins Dukes against Gary Smoak, Edgar Hutto, Marion Byrd, Trustees of School District No. 18 of Orangeburg County. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Zeigler & Brailsford, of Orangeburg, for appellants.
W. B Martin, of Orangeburg, for respondent.
At a meeting of the board of trustees of school district No. 18 of Orangeburg county, held on April 6, 1935, a faculty was elected for the Branchville schools, located in said county and a motion was made and carried which provided that the marriage of a woman teacher would disqualify her as a teacher in that school. The plaintiff-respondent, who before her marriage was Burnelle Lenaire Collins, was elected to teach the sixth grade. The superintendent of the schools, Mr Lynch, was instructed by the trustees to notify all of the teachers of their election, and inform them of the condition that marriage subsequent to such election would disqualify a woman teacher.
Within a few days after the board meeting, Mr. Lynch, according to his testimony, pursuant to his instructions, advised the teachers (several of whom were unmarried women) of their re-election and of the condition as to marriage.
The plaintiff was married on the 18th day of July, 1935, prior to the opening of the school on the first Thursday in September. She was thereupon notified by the trustees that her marriage constituted a breach of her contract and disqualified her as a teacher in the Branchville school, and she was denied the right to teach therein. The board elected another teacher in her stead, who taught for the school session of 1935-36, and was paid for her services by the board.
The plaintiff brought this action for damages for breach of the contract of employment for the school year 1935-36. The defendants interposed a general denial, set up the statute of frauds as a bar, and pleaded that the marriage of the plaintiff after her election disqualified her as a teacher in the Branchville school, both under the resolution adopted by the board of trustees, and under the express condition of her contract of employment.
Upon trial, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal to this court upon several exceptions, assigning error to the county court in overruling the motion of the defendants made for a nonsuit, a directed verdict, and a new trial, and charging error committed in the instructions given to the jury.
The plaintiff contended in the trial below that she was not notified of her re-election as a teacher in the Branchville school until May 11th, and that she accepted the offer of employment on that date, thereby completing the contract; that she was not told of the marriage restriction adopted by the board of trustees, and for this reason she was not bound by it. She testified, however, that she knew of the provision prior to her marriage on July 18th, but not officially. The burden was upon the plaintiff to prove the existence and terms of the contract she alleged, and its breach. In order to do this, resort was necessarily had to the minutes of the meeting of the school board of April 6, 1935, showing the election of the teachers. Pursuant to notice served upon the defendants, the minutes were produced, and the respondent offered in evidence only the parts of the minutes which were deemed pertinent and applicable to her case, but leaving out that portion providing for the marriage disqualification. Thereafter the defendants introduced in evidence all of the minutes of the meeting of April 6th, which read as follows:
"April 6, 1935.
The Board of Trustees of the Branchville Public Schools held a meeting on the afternoon of April 6 at 4 o'clock for the purpose of electing teachers.
The Superintendent was asked to make a report in regard to the work done by each teacher and accepted as information.
It was then decided to pay each lady teacher a bonus of four dollars per month for nine months ($36.00), Mr. Bonnett a bonus of fifty dollars, Mr. Lynch a bonus of One Hundred Dollars, provided funds are sufficient.
A motion was made to elect the faculty as a whole with the following provisions: Mrs. Noble subject to the acceptance of the County Board.
A motion was made and carried that any lady teacher who married at once became disqualified as a teacher in the Branchville Schools.
The faculty is to consist of the following (we omit names of other teachers), Sixth Grade, Miss Collins.
The salary for the lady teachers was set at the state schedule; Mr. Bonnett one hundred per month for nine months; one hundred and sixty dollars for ten months.
Over objection, the respondent testified that she accepted and made a contract with appellants, and that no conditions were attached to the contract. This was on May 11th. The contract was for nine school months; she was to start teaching on the first Thursday in September, and continue for nine months-until the last week in May or the first week in June. She further testified that they agreed to pay her...
To continue reading
Request your trial