Guilford Sch. Tp. v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 07 February 1902
• Citation: 28 Ind.App. 355,62 N.E. 711
• Parties: GUILFORD SCHOOL TP. v. ROBERTS.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

28 Ind.App. 355

62 N.E. 711

GUILFORD SCHOOL TP.

v.ROBERTS.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

Feb. 7, 1902.

Appeal from circuit court, Hendricks county; Thomas J. Cofer, Judge.

Action by Alice E. Roberts against Guilford school township. Judgment was entered for plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant a new trial it appeals. Reversed.

Hogate & Clark, for appellant. Adams & Enloe, for appellee.

COMSTOCK, C. J.

The complaint in this cause avers, in substance, that on the 1st day of September, 1899, the appellee was employed to teach the sixth grade of pupils in the school at Plainfield, Ind., for the sum of $2.25 per day; that appellee was the holder of a license authorizing her to teach school in Hendricks county, Ind.; that she entered into a written contract with the township trustee to teach, and signed her name to said contract as Alice E. Thomas (a copy of said contract is filed with the complaint); that she commenced to teach, and so continued until the 2d day of January, 1900, when she was discharged, and permissionrefused her longer to teach; that she had been ready and willing at all times to teach and comply with her said contract; that there is due her $150.75, being the amount due her from the time she was discharged until the close of school. The appellant answered in three paragraphs. The third paragraph is as follows: “The defendant Guilford school township, for a third paragraph of answer, says that it admits the allegations in the complaint that are material to be true. But the defendant says that, in order to induce the defendant to enter into said contract, plaintiff represented that she was an unmarried woman; that the defendant believed said representations to be true, and was induced thereby to enter into said contract; that, if defendant had known that said representations were false, it would not have entered into said contract; that said representations were false, and the plaintiff at the time she made said representations knew them to be false; that as soon as defendant learned that said representations were false it rescinded said contract.” The second is substantially like the third, but sets out more at length and in detail the circumstances and facts under which the township was induced to enter into said contract in suit. The first is a plea of payment. A demurrer was overruled to the second and third paragraphs of answer, and the cause put at issue by general denial. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $150.75. The court overruled appellant's motion for a new trial. This is the only error assigned.

Appellant asked that the judgment be reversed upon the ground that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the evidence and is contrary to law. The only defense...