Hart v. School District No. 39
| Decision Date | 06 May 1924 |
| Parties | JENNIE DE HART, Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 39, ST. LOUIS COUNTY MO., Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County--Hon. G. A Wurdeman, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
E. H Wayman for appellant.
(1) The contract between plaintiff and defendant was a contract in every sense of the word, and was equally binding upon both parties thereto. Rudy v. School District, 30 Mo.App 113; Secs. 11137 and 11138, R. S. 1919. (2) There was no right in the school board reserved by the contract to be relieved of its liability for plaintiff's compensation in case the school was closed for falling off of average daily attendance. (3) Notwithstanding the closing of the school plaintiff's contract was still in force, and the directors of defendant school district had no power to dismiss plaintiff. Sec. 11138, R. S. 1919. (4) Failure of plaintiff to make monthly and term reports is not sufficient to defeat her right to compensation under the contract, because there was nothing for her to report except a condition which was created by the action of the board itself, and of which the board for that reason had knowledge. Rudy v. School District, 30 Mo.App. 121. (5) This court should reverse the cause with directions to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff as of November 27, 1922, for $ 288 and costs. Sec. 1514, R. S. 1919.
C. L. Shotwell for respondent.
(1) Defendant was authorized by statute to close the school. Sec. 11145, R. S. 1919. (2) Defendant is a creature of the laws of Missouri and all statutes of this State with reference to the employment of teachers must be read into the contract between plaintiff and defendant. Isenhour v. Barton County, 190 Mo. 163; Zellars v. Surety Company, 210 Mo. 86; Henry County v. Salmon, 201 Mo. 136; Construction Co. v. Gilsonite Construction Co., 281 Mo. 629; Kansas City v. Youmans, 213 Mo. 151; State ex rel. v. Henderson, 145 Mo. 329; Bank v. State Bank, 45 Mo. 528; Wanschaff v. Benefit Society, 41 Mo.App. 206; McClure Brothers v. School District, 79 Mo.App. 80. (3) When a school is closed by authority of law the teacher is not entitled to compensation for the time it is closed. Gregg School Tp. v. Henshaw, 132 N.E. 586. (4) Plaintiff did not make the reports required by her contract and by the laws of Missouri and is not entitled to recover. Sec. 11227, R. S. 1919; Hall v. School District, 24 Mo.App. 213. (5) In the construction of statutes courts seek the true intent and meaning of the Legislature. Grimes v. Reynolds, 94 Mo.App. 576.
On the 17th day of July, 1920, plaintiff, Jennie De Hart, a colored school teacher, was employed by the school board of defendant school district to teach the school for colored children in said district, under a contract entered into between the plaintiff and said school board, witnessing as follows:
"That the said Jennie De Hart agrees to teach the public school of said District for the term of eight months, commencing on the 13th day of September, 1920, for the sum of $ 48 per month, to be paid monthly, and that for services properly rendered and reports correctly made, according to law, said Board agrees to issue warrants upon the St. Louis County Treasurer in favor of the said Jennie De Hart for the amount of wages due under this agreement."
Under this contract plaintiff taught the school for colored children in said district for two school months. During the first month the average daily attendance was less than one scholar per day, and during the second month the average daily attendance was one scholar per day. At the close of the second month the school board ordered the school discontinued for the remaining six months of the term, and this action is to recover the wages for said remaining six months. The trial resulted in a judgment for defendant, and from this judgment the plaintiff appeals.
There is but one question presented for decision upon this appeal, and that is as to the right of the plaintiff to recover the wages provided for in the contract for the time during which the school was discontinued by order of the school board. The question must be determined in the light of sections 11138 and 11145, Article 2, Chapter 102, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1919.
Section 11145 is as follows: "When there are within any school district in this State fifteen or more colored children of school age, as shown by the last enumeration, the board of directors of such school district shall be and they are hereby authorized and required to establish and maintain within such school district a separate free school for said colored children; . . . Provided, that in case the average daily attendance of colored children for any one school month shall be less than eight, then said board of directors may discontinue such school for a period not to exceed six months at any one time."
The contract involved here must be deemed to have been made with reference to the provisions of this section. Such provisions must be read into the contract and the parties thereto must be held to contract with a view to such provisions. [Gregg School Township v. Hinshaw, (Ind. App.) 132 N.E. 586; Henry County v. Salmon, 201 Mo. 136, l. c. 162, 100 S.W. 20; Zellars v. Surety Co., 210 Mo. 86, l. c. 92, 108 S.W. 548; Webb-Kunze Const. Co. v. Gilsonite Const. Co., 281 Mo. 629, l. c. 634, 220 S.W. 857.]
The discontinuance of the school by the school board was expressly authorized by this section, and, since its provisions must be read into the contract, such discontinuance of the school was, in legal effect, authorized by the contract.
Plaintiff's counsel contend, however, that the authority of the school board in relation to the teacher's contract as prescribed by the statute is expressly defined and limited by section 11138, which is as follows:
And counsel insist that by the express inhibitions of this section the school board is without power or...
To continue reading
Request your trial