McClure v. Princeton Reorganized School Dist. R-5 of Mercer and Grundy Counties, R-5

• Decision Date: 05 October 1959
• Docket Number: No. 22963,R-5,22963
• Citation: 328 S.W.2d 65
• Parties: Leafa McCLURE (Plaintiff), Respondent, v. PRINCETON REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICTOF MERCER AND GRUNDY COUNTIES, Missouri (Defendant), Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 65

328 S.W.2d 65

Leafa McCLURE (Plaintiff), Respondent, v. PRINCETON REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT R-5 OF MERCER AND GRUNDY COUNTIES, Missouri (Defendant), Appellant.

No. 22963.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Oct. 5, 1959.

A. B. Walker, Princeton, for appellant.

Herbert B. Brown, Trenton, for respondent.

CAVE, Presiding Judge.

In a trial before the court without a jury, the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant in the amount of $2,400 for an alleged breach of a teacher's contract for the school year 1955-56. From this judgment, the defendant perfected its appeal.

A general statement of the facts is advisable. On and prior to January 1, 1955, there existed in Mercer County 43 rural school districts, one of which was Nigh School District No. 85. There were other districts with which we are not concerned.

On January 31, 1955, a petition was filed for the purpose of consolidating said 43 districts into a reorganized district. An election was held on the following March 14th and the vote favored the consolidation. An interim board of directors was elected, and on April 7th, at the regular school election, a new board of directors was elected. This reorganized district was designated 'Consolidated District C-2'. Subsequent to the events giving rise to this cause of action, Consolidated C-2 became a part of Reorganized School District R-5, the defendant in this case. This subsequent reorganization is of no importance relative to the issues on this appeal, except that defendant R-5 will be required to pay the judgment if affirmed. There is no dispute about that being correct.

The material facts giving rise to this suit are: That plaintiff had a teacher's contract with the Nigh District for the teaching year of 1953-54, which was entered into on April 13, 1953; and that on April 7, 1954, she was again employed by the Nigh District for the school year of 1954-55, which would end in April, 1955. However, on February 11, 1955, the board of directors of Nigh District entered into a written contract with her to teach the Nigh School during the year of 1955-56. This is the contract upon which the suit is founded. It will be observed that this contract was entered into about 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 that the contract of February 11th 'amounted to compliance on the part of both parties with the notice required by Section 163.090;' hereafter quoted. We also held that, according to the petition, plaintiff was a regularly employed teacher in the Nigh School at the time of the execution of the contract of February 11th; that on that date she was re-employed for the following school year; that the contract was not an orginal employment; and that there was nothing in the pleadings to indicate that plaintiff's re-employment contract had been terminated by giving her proper notice in writing. The cause was remanded and tried before the court resulting in a judgment for plaintiff. On this appeal the principal question is whether the contract of February 11th was legally terminated.

In an effort to terminate the contracts of the teachers in the districts which were merged into Reorganized District C-2, the board of directors entered in its records the following, as of April 11, 1955: 'The secretary of the board was ordered to record a copy of the letter which was sent to the teachers of schools which will be closed due to consolidation, in the minutes of the secretary's book'. The letter therein referred to was also made a part of the record and reads: 'Since your District is now a part of Consolidated School District No. C-2 of Mercer County, Missouri, and will no longer be operated as a separate school, therefore in accordance with Section 163.090 Mo.Revised Statutes of 1949 [V.A.M.S.], you are hereby notified that your services as a teacher are no longer required and your last year's contract as a teacher is not renewed but please feel free to apply for a position in the Consolidated District if you desire employment as a teacher for the coming school year.' This letter was signed by the president of the board; was sent to all the teachers interested; and it is admitted that plaintiff received her letter on April 12th.

The question is, Did this order and letter legally terminate plaintiff's contract of February 11th? Statutory authority for terminating a contract of a teacher is found in Section 163.090.

This section, among other things, provides: '* * * It shall be the duty of each and every board having one or more teachers under contract to notify each and every such teacher in writing concerning his or her re-employment or lack thereof on or before the fifteenth day of April of the year in which the contract then in force expires. Failure on the part of a board to give such notice shall constitute re-employment on the same terms as those provided in the contract of the current fiscal year; and not later than the first day of May of the same year the board shall present to each such teacher not so notified a regular contract the same as if the teacher had been regularly re-employed. Any teacher who shall have been informed of re-election by written notice or tender of a contract shall within fifteen days thereafter present to the employing board a written acceptance or rejection of the employment tendered; and failure of a teacher to present such acceptance within such time shall constitute a rejection of the Board's offer. Any contract given a teacher may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of the teacher and the board. When the board of directors of any school district deems it advisable to close the school and send the pupils elsewhere rather than employ a teacher, said board of directors shall have power to terminate any contract continued under the provisions of this section by giving the teacher written notice of such termination not later than the first day of July next following the teacher's re-employment.' (Italics ours.)

This section was specifically referred to in plaintiff's contract, and also in the order of the board, and became a part of each. In our prior opinion we held that plaintiff's contract of February 11th was re-employment, not an original employment, and was within the provisions of this section.

The last sentence of this section provides in substance that the board of directors of a school district shall have the right to terminate any teacher's re-employment contract; (a) if the board deems it advisable to close the school and send the pupils elsewhere; and (b) if written notice thereof is given the teacher not later than July 1, following. This provision applies to plaintiff's contract of February 11th, as held in our prior opinion.

Plaintiff seems to contend that the board of directors of Consolidated District C-2 could not terminate her contract because Section 165.290 provides that when a number of districts...