Myers v. Indep. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1924
• Docket Number: Case Number: 13341,Case Number: 13354,Case Number: 13340,Case Number: 13345,Case Number: 13355
• Citation: 230 P. 498,1924 OK 824,104 Okla. 51
• Parties: MYERS v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, CONSOLIDATED NO. 1, COMANCHE COUNTY. COOK v. SAME. MYERS v. SAME. PERKINSON v. SAME. ANTRIM LUMBER CO. v. SAME.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1924 OK 824

230 P. 498

104 Okla. 51

MYERS v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, CONSOLIDATED NO. 1, COMANCHE COUNTY.

COOK v. SAME.

MYERS v. SAME.

PERKINSON v. SAME.

ANTRIM LUMBER CO. v. SAME.

Case Number: 13354

Case Number: 13345

Case Number: 13355

Case Number: 13341

Case Number: 13340

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 30, 1924

Syllabus

¶0 1. Schools and School Districts--Teachers--Contracts--Entire and Not Separable.

Where a school district board enters into a contract with a teacher prior to the annual meeting, and prior to the approval and allowance of the estimate for current expenses by the excise board, and such contract is approved by the county superintendent and is in all other respects regular and lawful, such contract is entire and not separable under the provisions of section 10367, Comp. Stat. 1921, and the total of such contract becomes an obligation of the district if within the limits of the estimate when made and approved by the excise board. The fact that the school district board thereafter carelessly or ignorantly exhausts the appropriation for other purposes before completion of the teachers' contract and then refuses payment "for want of funds" cannot militate against the teacher's right to compensation for services performed under the contract. In legal contemplation the total amount of such a legal contract is always on hand and reserved until lawfully paid out in discharge of the obligation of the district under the contract.

2. Same -- Approved Estimate--Contracts Beyond Debt Limit.

It was the purpose of the Legislature in providing for approved estimates for current expenses of school districts to fix a limit beyond which school boards might not legally incur indebtedness and which would operate as notice to all persons dealing with such boards. When the total of valid contracts, wholly or partially performed, together with all other expenditures made by a school board, equal the amount of the approved estimate for current expenses in any fiscal year, the limit of legal indebtedness of the district has been reached, and any person thereafter contracting with such board is charged with knowledge of the invalidity of its acts and is precluded from recovery against the district.

Stevens & Cline, for plaintiffs in error.

S. I. McElhoes and J. A. Diffendafer, for defendant in error.

LOGSDON, C.

¶1 Only one question is presented for determination by these various proceedings. Each involves the legality of certain indebtedness contracted by consolidated school district No. 1, Comanche county, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1920, and ending June 30, 1921. It is stipulated and agreed that for the fiscal year involved the excise board of Comanche county, on August 14, 1920, approved an estimate for current expense for this district of $ 6,599, and that no supplemental estimate was ever made. It is further stipulated that the teacher's contract of I. J. Myers was entered into May 24, 1920, that it is regular in all respects, that he performed the services contracted to be performed, and that the amount claimed is the correct amount remaining unpaid under his contract. Against the validity of plaintiff's claim it is urged by defendant district that before the completion of plaintiff's services as teacher under his contract the estimate made and allowed by the excise board for current expenses of the district had been exhausted, and that, therefore, the balance due plaintiff under his contract was in excess of the funds appropriated, and is an illegal claim and charge against defendant district. The trial court so held. There can be no argument upon the proposition that under the provisions of section 26, art. 10, Const., and section 8638, Comp. Stat. 1921 (S. L. 1910-11, ch. 80, sec. 9), school district boards are prohibited from incurring any indebtedness, or acknowledging, allowing, and paying the same, in excess of the income and revenue appropriated for that purpose during any fiscal year. Shannon v. State ex rel. Davidson et al., 33 Okla. 293, 125 P. 1106; Fairbanks-Morse Co. v. City of Geary, 59 Okla. 22, 157 P. 720; Carey-Lombard, Young & Co. v. Hamm et al., 61 Okla. 174, 160 P. 878; Threadgill et al. v. Peterson et al., 95 Okla. 187, 219 P. 389; Lacy et al. v. Board of Education of School Dist. A, City of Anadarko, 98 Okla. 237, 224 P. 712. Was this claim in excess of the income and revenue of the district as estimated and appropriated by the excise board for that fiscal year? The answer to this question is determinative of this case, and of the other four consolidated with it. By section 10472, Comp. Stat. 1921, all applicable laws relating to school districts are extended over consolidated districts where no special provision is made. As there is no special provision for the employment of teachers by boards of consolidated districts, section 10367, Comp. Stat. 1921, applies in this case. This section authorizes the board to contract in writing with teachers, specifying the wages to be paid by the week or month, and names the causes for which a teacher may be dismissed. The next provision of the section reads:

"Whenever any person shall make and enter into a valid contract with such district board to teach school in such district, such contract shall be binding upon such teacher until he has been legally discharged therefrom according to law or released therefrom by such district board in regular session; and until such person shall have been thus discharged or released, he shall not have authority to make and enter into any valid contract with any other district board or board of education in the state of Oklahoma to perform services as teacher or instructor for a period of time covered by an existing valid contract which said person has made."

¶2 The clear purpose and intention of this provision is to make the teacher's contract entire and indivisible, thus removing the temptation to breach or jump the contract through offers of higher compensation elsewhere. It is the legislative method of securing uninterrupted conduct of the schools, efficiency of school work, and stability in the relations of teachers and district boards. It is clearly a matter of public policy. This section next prohibits the district boards from paying money or issuing warrants to teachers for services except under a valid contract as previously defined, and includes an anti-nepotism clause. It next authorizes the board to make contracts with teachers at any time after March 1 each year, and prior to the annual meeting, and requires the teacher to hold a valid certificate in the county of the contract. The next provision is the one in dispute in this case. It reads:

The contract so entered into before the annual meeting shall be binding upon the

...