Loomis v. Coleman

• Decision Date: 31 October 1872
• Citation: 51 Mo. 21
• Parties: LEVI S. LOOMIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. COLEMAN et al., Defendants in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

51 Mo. 21

LEVI S. LOOMIS, Plaintiff in Error,

v.COLEMAN et al., Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1872.

Error to Washington Circuit Court.

G. I. Van Alen, for plaintiff in error.

Reynolds & Relfe, for defendants in error.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff originally brought this suit before a justice of the peace, for two months' wages as a school teacher, against the defendants, who were the school directors.

In the justice's court plaintiff had judgment, but on an appeal to the Circuit Court there was a finding and judgment for the defendants. The record develops the following facts: The plaintiff entered into a written contract with William Jenkerson and Willis T. Bolduc, as school directors of the district, to teach the public school for the term of four months, commencing April 10, 1871, for the sum of $40 a month, to be paid monthly. Jenkerson and Bolduc, together with one Tebo, were directors for the school year ending on the third Saturday in April, 1871, and the contract of employment was signed on the tenth day of April, 1871, after new directors for the district (the defendants) had been elected and qualified for the year commencing the third Saturday in April, 1871. On the tenth day of April, 1871, the day on which the plaintiff commenced teaching, the defendants, acting in their capacity as school directors, went to him and notified him not to teach; that they did not recognize his contract and would not employ him, and that they had already engaged another teacher. Plaintiff told them that he relied upon his contract and would continue to teach. Defendants never had any further communication with him, but they employed another teacher, furnished her a school-house, and had school taught for the four months in the scholastic year, beginning on the third Saturday in April, 1871, for which they gave her a certificate, as required under the contract and the law.

It is very evident that the only question in controversy is whether the contract between the plaintiff and the old board of directors was binding on their successors. Plaintiff insists that because the statute provides (Sess. Acts 1870, p. 158, § 98) that the school year shall commence on the third Saturday of April, therefore the old board continued in office till that time, and could make valid contracts engaging teachers, and thus anticipate the action of the new board. But section 2 of the school law ( id. p. 140) fixes the time for holding the election for...