McClure v. Princeton Re-organized School Dist. R-5 of Mercer and Grundy Counties
Decision Date | 02 December 1957 |
Docket Number | R-5,No. 22667,RE-ORGANIZED,22667 |
Parties | Leafa McCLURE, Appellant, v. PRINCETONSCHOOL DISTRICTof MERCER AND GRUNDY COUNTIES, Missouri, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Herbert S. Brown, Trenton, for appellant.
J. Morgan Donelson, A. B. Walker, Princeton, for respondent.
MAUGHMER, Commissioner.
Plaintiff, a school teacher, seeks damages resulting from the failure and refusal of defendant School District to carry out the terms of a written contract under which plaintiff alleges she was employed as a school teacher for the 1955-56 school year. Defendant responded to plaintiff's petition by filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The trial court sustained defendant's motion, entered judgment dismissing the petition, and plaintiff appealed. We, therefore, must determine if plaintiff's petition did allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against defendant. In deciding that question it is basic that all factual allegations properly pleaded are assumed to be true. This, in turn, requires that the petition be examined in some detail.
Plaintiff's petition alleges (1) that plaintiff was duly employed and acted as a school teacher for Nigh School District No. 85 of Mercer County, Missouri, for the school year 1954-55; (2) that on February 11, 1955, the Nigh School District Board of Directors employed plaintiff as teacher for said school for the school year 1955-56 at a salary of $300 per month for an eight month term as evidenced by a written contract (Ex. B) attached to the petition. It is not disputed that this contract, insofar as form and contents are concerned, was a valid agreement and met all statutory requirements as to its composition; (3) 'that after February 11, 1955 * * * and prior to September, 1955, Nigh School District No. 85 of Mercer County, Missouri, was merged into the Princeton Consolidated School District C-2, which, on or about December, 1955, merged with other school districts and reorganized under the name of Princeton Re-organized School District R-5 of Mercer and Grundy Counties, Missouri'; (4) that defendant failed and refused to carry out the contract to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $2400.
Plaintiff asserts that a corporation or a consolidated school district absorbing another district succeeds to both its assets and liabilities. In Abler v. School District of St. Joseph, 141 Mo.App. 189, 124 S.W. 564, 566, this court applied such rule to a school district with these words: . To the same effect is this quotation from the Supreme Court of Missouri in State ex rel. Consolidated School District No. 8 of Pemiscot County v. Smith, 343 Mo. 288, 121 S.W.2d 160, 162: . In Boswell v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 8, Mo.App., 10 S.W.2d 665, it was squarely held that where a school teacher had a binding contract with a school district, a consolidated district, absorbing such district, was bound to carry out the contract. See, also, Section 165.290, V.A.M.S. We accept the conclusion announced by these authorities and hold it applicable to this case.
The real and vital issue on this appeal revolves around whether or not plaintiff's written contract made February 11, 1955, was beyond the authority of the Nigh District Board and, therefore, void. Plaintiff says that the Nigh District Board at the time had full authority to make such a contract. Defendant contends that: (1) a school teacher cannot be lawfully employed or re-employed until after the annual school meeting which is held on the first Tuesday in April of each year, and (2) plaintiff does not claim 'that she was not properly notified as provided in Section 163.090 by Princeton Consolidated School District C-2 (this defendant) of a termination of her old contract', and that this 'leaves her in a position of attempting to recover in the face of the prohibitory provisions of Section 163.080 RSMo 1949 [V.A.M.S.]'.
Since our decision involves in a high degree, interpretation of two statutes on the subject 'Conduct of Schools', we set out the pertinent provisions of those statutes. Section 163.080, V.A.M.S. provides in part: 'The board shall have power, at a regular or special meeting called after the annual school meeting, to contract with and employ legally qualified teachers for and in the name of the district'. Section 165.200, V.A.M.S. fixes the date of the annual school meeting as the first Tuesday in April of each year. From Section 163.090, V.A.M.S. we also quote in part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jenkins by Agyei v. State of Mo.
...districts. See Lewis County C-I School Dist. v. Normile, 431 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Mo.1968) (en banc); McClure v. Princeton Re-organized School Dist., 307 S.W.2d 726, 727-28 (Mo.Ct.App.1975); Lynch v. Webb City School Dist. No. 92, 373 S.W.2d 193, 200 (Mo.Ct.App.1963). See also Taylor v. Board o......
-
Division of Employment Sec. v. Taney County Dist. R-III
...177 (Mo.1875). See also Lynch v. Webb City School Dist. No. 92, 373 S.W.2d 193, 200 (Mo.App.1963); McClure v. Princeton Re-Organized School Dist. R-5, 307 S.W.2d 726, 728 (Mo.App.1957). The Commission ruled that chapter 162 RSMo exclusively governs the disposition of a lapsed school distric......
-
Lynch v. Webb City School Dist. No. 92, 8194
...district would be bound to carry out the obligations of the original Webb City District. McClure v. Princeton Reorganized School Dist. R-5 of Mercer and Grundy Counties, Mo.App., 307 S.W.2d 726, Mo.App., 328 S.W.2d The individually named defendants were sued as officers and representatives ......
-
McClure v. Princeton Reorganized School Dist. R-5 of Mercer and Grundy Counties, R-5
...one month prior to the formation of Reorganized District C-2. This cause was here on a prior appeal and our opinion is reported in 307 S.W.2d 726, 729. The trial court had dismissed plaintiff's petition on the ground that it did not state a cause upon which relief could be granted. We held ......