Eastman v. School Dist. No. 1 of Lewis and Clark County
| Citation | 180 P.2d 472,120 Mont. 63 |
| Decision Date | 18 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | 8700. |
| Parties | EASTMAN v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 29, 1947.
Appeal from District Court, First District, Lewis and Clark County William R. Taylor, Presiding Judge.
Action by Violet M. Eastman against School District No. 1 of Lewis and Clark County, Mont., and others for a declaration of plaintiff's rights and status as a teacher in the schools of the district for the school year of 1945-46. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Reversed with instructions.
Edmond G. Toomey, Ralph J. Anderson, Forrest H Anderson, and Albert C. Angstman, all of Helena, for appellants.
Lester H. Loble, of Helena, H. C. Hall, of Great Falls, and Henry Loble, of Helena, for respondent.
Sid G Stewart, of Anaconda, Thomas C. Colton, of Billings, Leif Erickson, of Helena, and H. J. Freebourn, of Butte, amici curiae on petition for rehearing only.
Respondent, Violet Eastman, plaintiff in the lower court, brought suit against school district No. 1 of Lewis and Clark county, Montana, and against the trustees of the district, seeking a declaration of her rights and status as a teacher in the schools of said district for the school year of 1945-1946. The case was tried to the court without a jury. The court made its findings and conclusions in favor of the plaintiff and entered judgment that she had been re-elected by operation of law to the position of teacher in said school district No. 1 for the school year 1945-1946. Defendants appeal from that judgment.
The following facts material to the determination of the case are established by the evidence: Miss Eastman, who will be hereafter designated as the plaintiff, is a school teacher, the holder of a Bachelor of Arts degree and a secondary life certificate authorizing her to teach in grades six to twelve in any school in the state of Montana. Plaintiff first started teaching in school district No. 1 of Lewis and Clark county in the year 1938. She continued to teach in said position continuously up to the school year of 1944-1945 under successive contracts of employment with the trustees of the school district. On April 25, 1945, plaintiff received from the defendant school board a letter written on the letterhead of said board which, omitting only the names of the trustees which were printed on the letterhead, reads as follows:
The above letter was sent to the plaintiff by the secretary of the school board pursuant to the following action of the trustees of said school district, as appears from the minutes of said board of April 24, 1945. Following is a copy of the portions of said minutes material to this case:
'Helena, Montana--April 24, 1945
'A special meeting of the Board of Trustees of Helena School District No. 1 was held this evening in the board room. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Young at 7:30 P. M. Notices of this meeting were mailed to each member of the board through the regular United States Mail April 21, 1945, after the call at the close of the meeting on April 19, 1945.
' Roll Call Members Present Trustees: F. E. Young, Mrs. Malcolm Bowden, John Carlson, Jr., S. A. Douglass, H. W. Larson, R. A. Neill and J. A. Woodard. Also present were Supt. Carleton, Clerk McBride, and James Poor, Building Superintendent.
' Purpose of the Meeting The Chairman stated that this special meeting was called for the purpose of considering salaries of supervisors and to act on the matters of Violet Eastman's and Earl Fahland's contracts, and any other business to come the attention of the board for its consideration.
The above special meeting of the school board was called by the chairman of the board at the request of six members thereof following the adjournment of a previous regular meeting of the board held on April 19, 1945. Notices of the said special meeting were mailed to each member of the board on April 21, 1945. Upon the trial of the case the court admitted in evidence certain memoranda or rough drafts of the minutes of the school board of its meetings of April 19th and April 24, 1945. The court also permitted the notes of the school board's stenographer who wrote them up before they were entered in the minute book to be read in evidence. This evidence was offered for the purpose of impeaching the official minutes of the school board, the material parts of which have been herein set out. Appellants assign their admission as error.
Questions presented. Two controlling questions are presented by this appeal.
First, did the notice of April 25, 1945, which was sent to plaintiff by the defendant school board substantially comply with the requirements of section 1075, Revised Codes of Montana 1935?
Second, are rough drafts of the minutes of a school board meeting which were prepared by its secretary or by a stenographer employed by the board, in attendance at a meeting of the board, admissible to contradict the recitals of the official minute book of the board?
We will first consider the sufficiency and effect of the notice. Section 1075, Revised Codes, reads in part as follows:
'After the election of any teacher or principal for the third successive year in any school district in the state, such teacher or principal so elected shall be deemed re-elected from year to year thereafter at the same salary unless the board of trustees shall by a majority vote of its members on or before the first day of May give notice in writing to said teacher or principal that he has been re-elected or that his services will not be required for the ensuing year.' The question presented is whether the notice given plaintiff by the school board that it ' decided not to renew your contract' is substantially the equivalent of the notice required by section 1075, namely, a notice that 'his services will not be required for the ensuing year.'
It would almost seem that the very asking of the question is sufficient to indicate its answer without reference to decided cases involving similar facts. Section 1015 reads in part as follows: Under this statute no person can be employed to teach in the public schools without a contract with the board of school trustees. The so-called teachers' tenure act (sec. 1075, Rev.Codes) which is operative after the third consecutive year of a teacher's employment does not do away with the necessity of having a contract as required by section 1015. The only effect of said section 1075 is to renew the teacher's existing contract for another year by operation of law, after her election for the third consecutive year unless the notice specified in said section is given. Therefore, whether a teacher is the holder of a written contract for her first year's service or whether her contract has been extended by operation of law under section 1075, the situation is the same. The teacher is still employed under a contract, a teacher cannot be employed, he cannot perform services as a teacher, he cannot draw pay from the school district without a contract. Accordingly, because a person's right to teach in the public schools of Montana is created by contract, rests upon contract and ceases upon expiration of the contract, it would seem that no holder of an A.B. degree, who had spent seven years in the teaching profession, could by any possibility have failed to understand that a notice to her that her employers, the school board, 'had decided not to renew her contract' meant that her services would no longer be required. Obviously defendant did understand that her services were no longer required as is evidenced both by her letter to the board and also by the promptness with which she instituted this action to protect her asserted rights.
The commendable diligence of counsel on both sides of this cause has supplied us with numerous authorities both from our own court and from other jurisdictions bearing upon this question. These cases are indicative only of the principles of law by which this appeal must be governed since none of them involve the use and effect of the very identical words 'the board decided not to renew your contract.' We do not consider it necessary to review in detail all of the cases cited in the briefs of counsel which involve facts materially different from those we are considering. Such cases are: Smith v. School District, 115 Mont. 102 139 P.2d 518; McBride v. School District, 88 Mont. 110, 290 P. 252; LeClair v. School District, 74 Mont. 385, 240 P. 391; Moses v. School District, 107 Mont. 300, 86 P.2d 407; Day...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Bonner v. District Court of First Judicial Dist. in and for Lewis and Clark County
... ... as chairman thereof effective as of April 1, 1949 ... [122 ... Mont. 469] On April 1, 1949, the respondent Craighead, as ... United ... States, 189 U.S. 311, 23 S.Ct. 535, 47 L.Ed. 828; ... Compare Eastman v. School District No. 1, Mont. 180 ... P.2d 472 ... The ... concluding ... ...