McNolty v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Town of Morse

• Decision Date: 21 February 1899
• Citation: 102 Wis. 261,78 N.W. 439
• Parties: MCNOLTY v. BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF TOWN OF MORSE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

102 Wis. 261

78 N.W. 439

MCNOLTY

v.BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF TOWN OF MORSE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 21, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Ashland county; John K. Parish, Judge.

Action by Arthur McNolty against the board of school directors of the town of Morse. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

This is an action against the school district by a school teacher to recover for five months' wages. The facts appearing upon the trial were that the plaintiff taught the defendant's school from September 1 to November 25, 1896, under a written contract, and was paid therefor. Just prior to the expiration of this term's service, the plaintiff claims that he had a talk with the secretary of the school board, and that the secretary promised that he should teach six months more if his teaching was satisfactory, and that after this talk the secretary made out a written contract for said six months, and that he saw said contract in the possession of the secretary, signed by the president and secretary, but that it was never delivered to him, and he never signed it. The president of the board denies signing any such contract, and the fact appears without dispute that the executive committee never considered the question as to the additional six months' service, and never ordered the making of any contract therefor. The plaintiff taught for one month after the expiration of his written contract, namely, up to the 21st of December, and was paid for that month, and a few days afterwards was discharged, and he brings this action to recover damages for the refusal to allow him to teach during the remaining five months. A motion for nonsuit was overruled, and a motion to direct a verdict for the defendant was denied, and exceptions duly taken to the rulings. A special verdict was rendered favorable to the plaintiff, which is not necessary to be set forth in detail, and judgment rendered thereon for the plaintiff for $216.50, from which the defendant appeals.Cate, Sanborn, Lamereux & Park, for appellant.

Tomkins & Merritt, for respondent.

WINSLOW, J. (after stating the facts).

A verdict for the defendant in this case should have been directed, because there was no legal contract between the parties after the expiration of the first three months of service. This school was operated under the township system, and the employment of teachers was in the hands of the executive committee, composed of the president,...