Gray v. School Dist. No. 73

• Decision Date: 13 September 1929
• Docket Number: No. 28001.,28001.
• Citation: 20 S.W.2d 657
• Parties: GRAY v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 73 OF CLAY COUNTY et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

20 S.W.2d 657

GRAY v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 73 OF CLAY COUNTY et al.

No. 28001.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

September 13, 1929.

Rehearing Overruled October 14, 1929.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; Ralph Hughes, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Fred J. Gray against School District No. 73 of Clay County and others. From a judgment for the defendants, plaintiff appeals. Transferred to Court of Appeals.

Wm. Bush and James S. Summers, both of Kansas City, for appellant.

Lawson & Hale, of Liberty, for respondents.

RAGLAND, J.

Appellant (plaintiff) states her case as follows:

"Appellant is suing for compensation for services rendered as school teacher, as employee of Consolidated School District No. 1, Clay County, Missouri. She taught school for nine months during the school year of 1923-1924, and for the month of September, 1924, pending litigation involving the dissolution of said Consolidated School District. Said Consolidated School District was organized in 1913 and continued to function as a district and conduct schools within the territory until October 1, 1924, at which time the Supreme Court held said District to have been dissolved by an election held on the 3rd day of May, 1923, said judgment being reported in Volume 305 of the Missouri Reports at page 297. In this decision, Judge Woodson dissented and held that the Consolidated District had not been dissolved. One fact is certain that the election was very close and the contest was bona fide. Those opposed to the dissolution refused to participate in the meeting and the question at issue was whether the required two-thirds of taxpayers and qualified voters of the district had voted at the election in favor of dissolution. After the election the Consolidated District continued to conduct schools, and those opposed to the Consolidated District organized the common school districts Nos. 51, 63 and 64, and undertook to open schools in the common school districts and certified their tax levies. The directors of the Consolidated District filed a quo warranto proceeding in the Supreme Court to oust the common school districts from interfering with the school property, and upon filing of the suit the Supreme Court issued its order enjoining the defendant common school districts and their directors from conducting schools or interfering with the school property, and maintaining the status quo until the determination of the litigation. The county clerk refused to recognize the tax levy made by the Consolidated District but accepted and ran the tax levy for the common school districts, and the taxes were collected in the territory for the common school districts that had been organized and in the balance of the territory as unorganized territory. The Consolidated District had no tax money to pay the school teachers but had plenty of confidence and unbounded faith in the justice of their cause. The school teachers were loyal to their trust and remained at the post of duty without pay. Their financial distress falls within the field of judicial notice. Awaiting expectantly the early termination of their difficulties by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the pending litigation, they continued their services until the first of October, 1924, at which time the Supreme Court finally rendered judgment, and held the Consolidated District to have been dissolved.

"Not having received any compensation for her services as school teacher, the appellant filed this suit to collect from the defendants comprising the territory of the former Consolidated...