Gosnell Special School Dist. No. 6 v. Baggett

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Smith
• Citation: Gosnell Special School Dist. No. 6 v. Baggett, 290 S.W. 577 (Ark. 1927)
• Decision Date: 24 January 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 123.)
• Parties: GOSNELL SPECIAL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 6 v. BAGGETT et ux.

Page 577

290 S.W. 577

GOSNELL SPECIAL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 6 v. BAGGETT et ux.

(No. 123.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 24, 1927.

Rehearing Denied February 21, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mississippi County; G. E. Keck, Judge.

Action by Charles S. Baggett and wife against Gosnell Special School District No. 6. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and case dismissed.

Crowder & Cooper, of Blytheville, for appellant.

Harrison, Smith & Taylor, of Blytheville, for appellees.

SMITH, J.

Two sets of school directors assumed to act for Gosnell special school district No. 6 of Mississippi county, and each set of directors employed teachers to teach the school of the district. These conflicting claims led to the case of Stafford v. Cook, reported in 159 Ark. p. 439, 252 S. W. 597.

C. S. Baggett and his wife had been employed by one set of directors to teach the school, but they were denied the right to do so by the other directors, who were installed as a result of the decision of this court in the case just referred to. Baggett and his wife brought this suit to recover damages for the breach of their contract, and from a judgment in their favor is this appeal.

A number of defenses were interposed by the school district, but we will discuss only one of them, as we find it decisive of the case.

It appears that, before the institution of the present suit, the directors who prevailed in the litigation involving the title to the office brought suit in the chancery court against Baggett and his wife to enjoin them from teaching the school under the contract which forms the basis of the present suit. It was alleged in that suit that the plaintiffs were the directors of the school district, and, as such, were in charge of its affairs and had employed teachers who were ready to begin the school, but that Baggett and his wife had unlawfully and wrongfully taken charge of the schoolhouse and were asserting the right to possession thereof for the purpose of teaching school. There was a prayer that Baggett and his wife be enjoined from interfering with the school.

An answer was filed by Baggett and his wife, in which all the allegations of the complaint were denied. It was there also denied that the plaintiffs were school directors, or had employed other teachers, or that the defendants there (the plaintiffs here) were unlawfully or wrongfully in possession of the school.

A temporary restraining order was granted in that case, which was later made permanent, wherein Baggett and his wife were enjoined from teaching the school or otherwise interfering with it. The decree of the chancery court granting this relief was offered in evidence.

Objection was made to the introduction of this decree in evidence upon the ground that it appeared to have been rendered by consent of the attorneys, who then represented the directors who had employed Baggett and his wife when such consent was not given. But the decree cannot be thus collaterally attacked. It must be taken at its face value and given such effect as it purports to have.

It is also insisted that the decree does not sustain the plea of res adjudicata, for the reason that the defendants in the injunction suit (the plaintiffs here) did not seek in that suit to recover compensation for the breach of their contract to teach the school, the contract here sued on; and the case of Gardner v. Goss, 147 Ark. 178, 227 S. W. 25, is cited in support of that contention.

We think the plea of res adjudicata is well taken, and that the case of Gardner v. Goss, supra, does not decide to the contrary. In that case, the de facto directors had discharged Gardner, a teacher, and we held that the directors had the power and authority to do this, whether that authority had been properly exercised or not, and that, having discharged him, they were entitled to an injunction against him to restrain him from interfering with the school. In a suit at law, Gardner...