McLaughlin v. Bd. of Educ. of Fordson Sch. Dist. of City of Dearborn

• Decision Date: 08 December 1931
• Docket Number: No. 221.,221.
• Citation: 239 N.W. 374,255 Mich. 667
• Parties: McLAUGHLIN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FORDSON SCHOOL DIST. OF CITY OF DEARBORN.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

255 Mich. 667

239 N.W. 374

McLAUGHLIN

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FORDSON SCHOOL DIST. OF CITY OF DEARBORN.

No. 221.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 8, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Frank L. Doty, Judge.

Action by Emery McLaughlin against the Board of Education of the Fordson School District of the City of Dearborn. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Davidow & Davidow, of Detroit, for appellant.

C. E. Gittins and D. I. Albaugh, both of Detroit, for appellee.

FEAD, J.

The action is for damages for breach of a contract of employment.

March 23, 1927, defendant board of education, then differently constituted in personnel, at a regular meeting adopted a resolution that plaintiff ‘be given a contract as superintendent of schools of the City of Fordson, for a term of three years, beginning July 1, 1927,’ at a stated salary. There was dissension in the board and the resolution was adopted by a vote of three to two after a resolution had been defeated by a like vote to renew the contract of the then superintendent.

April 2d a contract of employment was executed by plaintiff and by the president, secretary, and treasurer of the board. It was not presented to the other members for signatures.

June 22, 1927, the contract was produced by the secretary at a meeting of the board with four members present, two of plaintiff's supporters and two opposing him. By unanimous vote a resolution was adopted ‘that the contracts for the new superintendent as received this date be laid on the table.’

June 30th a trustee who had opposed plaintiff, by letter signed by him as acting president, notified plaintiff of the resolution of June 22d and suggested the advisibility of his not occupying the position until matters became more settled. Earlier in the spring this trustee had sought to induce plaintiff to remain away until after the July election. On neither occasion did the member claim the hiring was not legal nor did he have authority from the board for addressing plaintiff.

Plaintiff replied that his contract required him to commence work on July 1st. He did so. He performed the duties of the office until July 13th, attended at least one meeting of the board as superintendent, took the minutes without objection, and, at another meeting, objection was made to his presence by only one member. The circuit judge properly found: ‘The plaintiff performed his duties for a period of ten to twelve days without interruption and with the knowledge of the school board and the school district and did so by virtue of his agreement with the defendant.’

At the election of July 11th, the personnel of the board changed, and, at a meeting on July 13th, plaintiff's contract was repudiated as illegal and the former superintendent reinstated. Plaintiff notified the board that he insisted on his contract and held himself ready to perform it. The suit is for the difference between the contract compensation and his earnings. Plaintiff had judgment on trial before the court without a jury.

The statutes do not cover the situation at bar. C. L. 1915, § 5917 (r), relied on by plaintiff, applies only to teachers' contracts. C. L. 1915, § 5919, fifth, urged by defendant, adopted from the Primary School Law, C. L. 1915, § 5688, is directory of the duties of the secretary and not determinative of the validity of contracts. Farrell v. School District, 98 Mich. 43, 56 N. W. 1053.

Boards of education, like other corporate boards, execute their powers at meetings lawfully called and held unless otherwise authorized by statute. Hazen v. Lerche, 47 Mich. 626, 11 N. W. 413. The officers have such powers only as the statute expressly or impliedly grants. 35 Cyc. 899. Neither by statute nor...