Kelsey v. School Dist. No. 25 of Custer and Rosebud Counties

• Citation: 276 P. 26,84 Mont. 453
• Decision Date: 04 April 1929
• Docket Number: 6421.
• Parties: KELSEY v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 25 OF CUSTER AND ROSEBUD COUNTIES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Montana

276 P. 26

84 Mont. 453

KELSEY v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 25 OF CUSTER AND ROSEBUD COUNTIES.

No. 6421.

Supreme Court of Montana

April 4, 1929

Appeal from District Court, Custer County; S.D. McKinnon, Judge.

Action by Ione Kelsey against School District No. 25 of Custer and Rosebud Counties. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

George W. Farr, of Miles City, for appellant.

Rudolph Nelstead and H. E. Herrick, both of Miles City, for respondent.

CALLAWAY C.J.

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant school district for breach of contract. The court found for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff holder of a "legal teacher's certificate," by contract in writing agreed to teach defendant's school for nine months commencing September 2, 1924, and taught until the latter part of December, when she was notified by the board that she was dismissed. She appealed to the county superintendent of schools, and her appeal was denied. She did not appeal to the superintendent of public instruction.

The Legislature has conferred upon school boards comprehensive powers and duties, as is seen by a reading of section 1015, R. C. 1921. Every school board has power: "2. To employ or discharge teachers, mechanics, or laborers, and to fix and order paid their wages; provided, that no teacher shall be employed except under resolution agreed to by a majority of the board of trustees at a special or regular meeting; nor unless such teacher be the holder of a legal teacher's certificate in full force and effect. All contracts of employment of teachers, authorized by proper resolution of a board of trustees, shall be in writing and executed in duplicate by the chairman and clerk of the board, for the district and by the teacher. * * * 5. To enforce the rules and regulations of the superintendent of public instruction for the government of schools, pupils, and teachers and to enforce the course of study. * * * 14. To require teachers to conform to the law."

A wide discretion is necessarily reposed in the trustees who compose the board. They are elected by popular vote, and, presumably are chosen by reason of their standing in the community sound judgment, and their interest in the educational development of the young generation which is so soon to take the place of the old.

In certain instances the board may dismiss a teacher before the expiration of the contract. In case of the dismissal of a teacher before the expiration of her written contract, for alleged immorality, unfitness, incompetence, or violation of rules, she may appeal to the county superintendent, "and if the superintendent decides that the removal was made without good cause, the teacher so removed must be reinstated, and shall be entitled to compensation for the time lost during the pending of the appeal." Section 1085, R. C. 1921. This provision of the statute became a condition of the contract as effectively as if expressly written therein. Home State Bank v. Swartz, 72 Mont 425, 234 P. 281; State v. Rosman, 84 Mont. ---, 274 P. 850.

It is made the duty of the county superintendent to "decide all matters in controversy arising in his county in the administration of the school law or appealed to him from the decision of school officers or boards. An appeal may be taken from his decision, in which case a full written statement of the facts, together with the testimony and his decision in the case, shall be certified to the state superintendent for his decision in the matter, which decision shall be final, subject to adjudication or the proper legal remedies in the state courts." Section 966, R. C. 1921. It is made the duty of the superintendent of public instruction to "decide all appeals from the decision of the county superintendent, and may for such decision require affidavits, verified statements, or sworn testimony as to the facts in issue." Id. § 943.

From the action of the board in discharging the plaintiff she had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy-by appeal first to the county superintendent, and, having been unsuccessful in that to the superintendent of public instruction. Peterson v. School Board, 73 Mont. 442, 236 P. 670; Kinzer v. Directors of Independent School District of Marion, 129 Iowa, 441, 105 N.W. 686, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 496, 6 Ann. Cas. 996. It is unquestionably the policy of this state, as declared by the Legislative Assembly, that ordinary school controversies shall be adjusted...