Edwards v. School District No. 73 of Christian County

• Decision Date: 03 September 1927
• Citation: 297 S.W. 1001,221 Mo.App. 47
• Parties: REBA EDWARDS, RESPONDENT, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 73 OF CHRISTIAN COUNTY, APPELLANT. [*]
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

297 S.W. 1001

221 Mo.App. 47

REBA EDWARDS, RESPONDENT, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 73 OF CHRISTIAN COUNTY, APPELLANT. ^[*]

Court of Appeals of Missouri

September 3, 1927

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Christian County.--Hon. Fred Stewart, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

G. Purd Hays for appellant.

(1) Petition fails to state a cause of action. Roberts v Anderson, 254 S.W. 723; Hunter v. Sloan, 195 Mo.App. 69, 73. (2) Plaintiff failed to prove that she had any contract to teach the school. The law requires the contract to be in writing and signed by the parties and gives the form of the contract in the school law. Sec. 11137, R. S 1919. (a) In this case there was no contract ordered by the board, to be drawn by the clerk, none was drawn, made or signed by anyone. Sec. 11137, R. S. 1919, requires the contract to be signed by the parties contracting. (b) The teacher testified that she had no contract and no contract was made, that the board asked her to have her certificate indorsed by Mr. Boyd, County Superintendent of School, but she did not. (c) The board selected Miss Reba Edwards to teach the school, but that is all that was done. She was never notified by the clerk or the board that she had been selected and no contract was ordered by the board and none was made. No services were rendered the district as the school was not to commence until August 2, 1926 and the plaintiff sued the district on June 4, 1926. She could not have taught any part of the term as claimed in her petition. In the case of Baxter v. School District of Miller, 266 S.W. 760 at loc. cit. 761, the court held that where the contract was ordered by the board and the clerk prepared the contract which was signed by the teacher and the president of the school board refused to sign it that it was a contract but in this case the board did not order a contract, made, drawn or make any order--just selected her as teacher, which does not meet the requirements of the law. (3) The court should have given the peremptory instruction for the defendant District. Skirvin v. McKamey, 237 S.W. 858. (4) There are no damages in this case. The court holding that there was a contract awarded the full contract price for the full eight months at $ 70 per month or $ 560, while the plaintiff offered to show that she did not get a school and did testify to that it was excluded by the court and on evidence was offered and none given to prove how much she was damaged, if any, by reason of her failure to teach the school. That the suit was prematurely brought as it was filed on the 4th day of June, 1926, and the school was not to begin till the 2nd day of August, 1926.

Omer E. Brown and Page & Barrett for respondent.

(1) The court cannot consider the bill of exceptions in this case. The bill of exceptions must be filed at the same term of court at which it is taken, or within such time thereafter as the court may by an order entered of record allow. Sec. 1460, R. S. 1919. The bill of exceptions must be filed during the term at which the case is finally disposed of, unless the time for filing same be extended as required by statute. Hassinger v. Pye, 10 Mo. 156; Durman v. Coon, 119 Mo. 68; Wilson v. Deweese, 123 Mo.App. 587; Simpson v. Scroggins, 182 Mo. 560; Goodhart v. Kinney, 137 Mo.App. 449. Unless all the statutory steps are taken with reference to the taking and filing exceptions, the appellate court will not consider the bill. State ex rel. v. Field, 37 Mo.App. 83. Where the record showed that the trial occurred on December 15, 1906, and that the bill of exceptions was filed in April 30, 1907, and did not show any leave to file the bill, nothing was before the court for review, except the record proper, and if the petition will support the judgment, it must be affirmed. Wade v. Alexander, 226 Mo. 92. (2) A contract for the employment of a teacher "shall be signed by the teacher and the president of the board and be attested by the clerk of the district, etc." Sec. 1137, R. S. 1919. But "the contract required . . . shall be construed under the general law of contracts." Sec. 1138, R. S. 1919. No formal writing signed by the parties is necessary. The minutes of the action of the board will bind the district. Wilson v. Board of Education Lee's Summit, 163 Mo. 137. It is only necessary that the school district and the teacher be equally bound in writing; this may be done by the board in its minutes, and the signing of a contract by the teacher. Baxter v. School District of Miller, 266 S.W. 760; School District v. Edmonston, 50 Mo.App. 65. Section 2164, R. S. 1919, is a part of the general law relating to contract with school districts as well as certain municipalities; and the holdings of the courts with reference to this section is decisive of the case at bar. Written bids duly signed and a resolution accepting the bid, constituted a written contract for street improvement, and was a sufficient compliance with this section. Prior v. Paxton, 141 Mo.App. 175. A county court entered an order of record employing an accountant to audit the books of the county officers setting out therein the terms of the employment and the person employed filed his written acceptance, such was a sufficient compliance with the statute. Blades v. Hawkins, 133 Mo.App. 328. A city ordinance authorizing the sale of a telephone franchise and the acceptance of the purchaser by giving bond constitute a sufficient writing and acceptance. City of California v. Tel. Co., 112 Mo.App. 722. (3) Breach of contract: Where a party to an executory contract repudiates it before time for performance, the promisee may sue at once for damages. Eddington v. Cockrell, 286 S.W. 405; Mfg. Co. v. McCord, 65 Mo.App. 507; Gabriel v. Brick Co., 57 Mo.App. 520. (4) Recovery for breach of contract: The refusal of the defendant to permit performance of the contract by the plaintiff is equivalent to performance of the contract for the purpose of maintaining an action, and the contract price is the measure of damages, unless it be shown by the defendant that the actual damages were less. McManama v. Dyer, 176 S.W. 1101; Laswell v. Handle Co., 147 Mo.App. 497, 527; Rose v. Railroad, 146 Mo.App. 215.

BRADLEY, J. Cox, P. J., and Bailey, J., concur.

OPINION

BRADLEY, J.--

This is an action by a teacher for damages for the breach of an alleged contract to teach a school. The cause was tried before the court without a jury and plaintiff recovered judgment for $ 560, the contract price, and defendant appealed.

Plaintiff is a teacher and alleges that she had a contract with defendant district to teach an eight months term of school at a salary of $ 70 per month and that defendant breached this contract by refusing to permit her to teach the school. Two propositions are presented by defendant, viz.: (1) Did plaintiff have a valid contract? and (2) if so, was the suit prematurely filed?

Plaintiff, respondent here, makes the point that there is nothing here for review except the record proper. This contention is based upon the fact that the bill of exceptions was not filed during the term at which judgment was rendered and no leave granted at the judgment term to file a bill of exceptions. In other words, it is contended that in order to preserve for review matters belonging in a bill of exceptions the appellant must either file the bill at the judgment term or get leave at such term to file, and that where neither of these steps is taken there is nothing for review except the record proper.

This cause was tried, judgment rendered, motion for a new trial filed and overruled and appeal taken, all at the September term, 1926. The bill of exceptions was filed at the January term, 1927. No leave was asked or granted at the judgment term to file a bill of exceptions.

A bill of exceptions may be filed at any time before the appellant is required by the rules of the appellate court to which the appeal is taken to serve the abstract of the record, and it is not a necessary prerequisite that the trial court grant leave to file during the term at which the exceptions were taken. [Sec. 1460, R. S. 1919; State ex inf. v. Sweaney, 270 Mo. 685, 195 S.W. 714; State ex rel. v. Hartmann, 278 S.W. 1045.]

Did plaintiff have a valid contract? April 2, 1926, plaintiff, a legally qualified teacher, made written application to the board of directors of defendant school district for a position as teacher in the district and specified the length of the term and the salary desired, to-wit, $ 70 per month. April 10th thereafter defendant's board of directors in session made this order of record: "Board of Directors met April 10, 1926, District No. 73, County of Christian and State of Missouri, and agreed on Reba Edwards for teacher for the term of eight months starting the first Monday in August, second day, for seventy dollars per month." In addition to placing the order of record the directors signed a separate written paper which was a copy of the order placed of record.

May 25, 1926, Walter Wilcox, president of the board, notified plaintiff by registered mail that the board was not going "to hire you to teach this school for the coming term." May 29th thereafter the board met and by an order of record attempted to rescind its action of April 10th employing plaintiff. Plaintiff refused to accept the purported rescission and on August 2nd, the day the school commenced, she went to the district and offered to teach the school, but another teacher was then employed and plaintiff's offer was refused.

Section 11137, Revised Statutes 1919, provides that a teacher's contract "shall be made by order of the board; shall specify the number of months the school is to be taught and the wages per month to be paid; shall be signed by the teacher and the...