Griggs v. School District No. 70
Decision Date | 06 July 1908 |
Citation | 112 S.W. 215,87 Ark. 93 |
Parties | GRIGGS v. SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 70 |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; J. W. Meeks, Judge; reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Appellant sued appellees in justice's court for breach of the following contract:
Appellant in his complaint sets up the contract, alleged that he taught one month, for which he was paid by appellees. That he began on the second month, taught two days, and was then locked out by appellees and compelled to discontinue the school although he was at all times ready to carry out the contract on his part, and continued to attend at the place where the school was to be taught from day to day till the end of the term of three months in order to perform his duties under the contract; that at the end of the three months he demanded of appellees $ 80 for the two months' salary due him, which they refused to pay.
Appellees filed no written pleading, but their contention in both the justice's and circuit courts, as stated by them in their brief, was that the contract sued on was not the contract made with the appellant; that such contract did not embrace the agreement that was really made; that the contract under which the appellant was to teach the school required that he should teach one month, or until the children of the district should he needed in the crops, whichever should first happen and that they had paid him for the one month, and were not liable further; and that they had fully complied with their agreement with the appellant; that he had no legal contract with the school district.
The appellant adduced evidence tending to support the allegations of his complaint. The appellees, directors, admitted that they had each signed the contract in evidence, that appellant had taught one month under it, and that they had accepted his services, and paid him for same, and over the objection of appellant they were then permitted to show "that the real agreement was that the appellant was to teach one month, or until the children were needed in the crops, and then was to suspend the school until after the crops were laid by." The court over the objection of appellant declared the law as follows:
The appellant duly saved his exceptions to the court's ruling. The court refused to give the following prayer asked by appellant, to-wit: "You are instructed that you are not to consider in this cause any of the oral testimony adduced in regard to the alleged vacation in the term of school; but that...
To continue reading
Request your trial- A. H. Andrews Co. v. Delight Special School District
-
McRae v. Farquhar & Albright Co.
...66 L. R. A. 812. The statutory requirement rather than the intention of the parties is controlling. 184 U.S. 524. See also 137 N.Y.S. 384; 87 Ark. 93; 108 Minn. 322; 122 N.W. Mandamus will not lie against the Governor at all. I Ark. 570; 18 R. C. L. 199; 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 500; 40 L R. A. ......
-
Little v. Arkansas National Bank
...in due course. This can not be done either in law or in equity. 36 Ark. 293; 49 Ark. 285-7; 66 Ark. 445; 67 Ark. 62; 78 Ark. 574-577; 87 Ark. 93. It is alleged in this paragraph that the notes were illegal and void and contrary to public policy because the district had no insurable interest......
-
Griggs v. School Dist. No. 70
...112 S.W. 215 ... SCHOOL DIST. NO. 70, RANDOLPH COUNTY, et al ... Supreme Court of Arkansas ... July 6, 1908 ... Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; J. W. Meeks, Judge ... Action by Jake Griggs against school district No. 70 of Randolph county and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial ... Appellant sued appellees in justice court for breach of the following contract: "Teacher's Contract. State of Arkansas, County of Randolph. This agreement ... ...