Hull v. Independent Sch.-Dist. of Aplington

• Decision Date: 09 February 1891
• Citation: 82 Iowa 686,48 N.W. 82
• Parties: HULL v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL-DISTRICT OF APLINGTON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

82 Iowa 686

48 N.W. 82

HULL

v.INDEPENDENT SCHOOL-DISTRICT OF APLINGTON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 9, 1891.

On rehearing. For former report, see 46 N. W. Rep. 1053.

BECK, J., dissenting.

*82GRANGER, J.

In a petition for rehearing, complaint is made that this court, in its original consideration of the case, assumed certain facts not authorized by the record, and we briefly notice some of the points made. The opinion states that each member of the school board knew when the school commenced, and that the plaintiff was there as a teacher under a contract made with the president. And, further, that “plaintiff entered upon the discharge of her duties on the 29th of August with the knowledge of all the members of the board.” It is said the court has assumed these facts without proofs, and the petition asks the court “where it gets its authority for the statement.” The authority is derived from certain undisputed facts in the case: First, that the president of the board was authorized to employ teachers with the consent of the board. Second. That in pursuance of such authority the president did make the written contract with the plaintiff. Third. That by virtue of such contract the plaintiff entered the school on the 29th of August, and taught until the 13th of September. Fourth. That it was the duty of the directors to employ and know who were the teachers in the school, and by what authority they were there; and that a failure to do so without excuse involves a disregard of duty, which the court cannot assume against an officer; and in this case there is no attempt to disclaim such knowledge. Appellant's argument indicates a belief that, before a fact in a case can be regarded as established, it must be testified to directly or admitted, for it inquires: “Who testifies to, says, or admits the facts?” Facts may be assumed in judicial proceedings from other facts known in the case when but the single conclusion is consistent therewith. Appellant complains that the court “ignored” the question of excessive damages, and says “it was assigned as error;” but does not say that the assignment was argued, nor was it. And under repeated decisions it was waived, and could not be considered. See Patterson v. Seaton, 70 Iowa, 689, 28 N. W. Rep. 598;Clark v. Town of Epworth. 61 Iowa, 750, 16 N. W. Rep. 219;Beeson v. Railway Co., 62 Iowa, 173, 17 N. W. Rep. 448;Wood v. Whitton, 66 Iowa, 295, 19 N. W. Rep. 907, and 23 N. W. Rep. 675;Wood v. Hallowell...