Leahy v. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 12 of Greenfield

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtESCHWEILER
Citation217 N.W. 293,194 Wis. 530
PartiesLEAHY v. JOINT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 12 OF TOWNS OF GREENFIELD AND LAKE.
Decision Date10 January 1928

194 Wis. 530
217 N.W. 293

LEAHY
v.
JOINT SCHOOL DIST.
NO. 12 OF TOWNS OF GREENFIELD AND LAKE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 10, 1928.


Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; August E. Braun, Circuit Judge.

Action by Inez Leahy, by guardian, against the Joint School District No. 12 of the Towns of Greenfield and Lake. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Action for teacher's salary for school year 1924-25. A Miss Schultz had taught defendants' school for two years preceding July, 1924, and before the annual school district meeting, held July 7, 1924, she had spoken to two of the school board, and the three members had informally discussed the matter of her continuing for the next season, but no formal contract to that effect, oral or written, had been made.

At such annual meeting, attended by some fifteen persons, including, apparently, the three then members of the school board, the following recital in the minutes of the meeting was all that appears to have been done or attempted in the matter of a teacher, to wit:

“Miss Schultz rehired as teacher for coming year at same salary.”

One of the then directors was defeated for re-election. In August, the plaintiff, an emancipated minor and with conceded qualifications, applied to two members of the board and was told she might teach the coming school year. On August 22d a written contract to that effect was signed by plaintiff and two members at an alleged special meeting of the board, attended by but the two members, and written notice whereof had been signed by but one, instead of the statutory requirement (section 40.24), by two members. On the opening of school September 2d plaintiff obtained the key and presented herself at the schoolhouse ready and willing to teach. She then learned for the first time that Miss Schultz, who also so appeared, relied upon her alleged contract of July 7th. Such contention was supported by one member of the board there present. The two other members were then called, and after discussion they informed the plaintiff that some legal means would be taken to put her in possession of the school.

On September 11th a regularly called meeting of the school board was held. All three members were present, the one favoring Miss Schultz leaving, however, before any formal action was taken. A formal contract in compliance with the statute and in the usual and approved form was then authorized and signed by plaintiff and the school board, by the two members, for the then commencing school year.

October 12th an action was commenced by the district to restrain Miss Schultz from teaching, and November 17, 1924, a permanent injunction was denied. At a meeting of the district on December 1st it was decided to proceed no further with such action, and the minutes of the July 7th meeting, supra, were approved. Miss Schultz continued to teach all of that school year.

Demand was made on plaintiff's behalf for the salary during the same period. June 3, 1925, this action was commenced, and on the trial in December, 1926, the court dismissed it. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals.

[217 N.W. 293]

James D. Foley and Albert M. Kelly, both of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Waldeck v. Goedken, No. 21
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 30 juin 1978
    ...has characterized the Wisconsin school system from the beginning. 1 As this court once pointed out in Leahy v. Joint School Dist. No. 12, 194 Wis. 530, 533, 217 N.W. 293, 294 (1928): "Just why such a vital and important distinction should be made between the school Page 365 district as......
1 cases
  • State ex rel. Waldeck v. Goedken, No. 21
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 30 juin 1978
    ...has characterized the Wisconsin school system from the beginning. 1 As this court once pointed out in Leahy v. Joint School Dist. No. 12, 194 Wis. 530, 533, 217 N.W. 293, 294 (1928): "Just why such a vital and important distinction should be made between the school Page 365 district as......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT