Oakes v. Simrell

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Smith
• Citation: Oakes v. Simrell, 71 S.W. 1060, 98 Mo. App. 163 (Mo. App. 1903)
• Decision Date: 02 February 1903
• Parties: OAKES v. SIMRELL et al.

71 S.W. 1060

98 Mo. App. 163

OAKES v. SIMRELL et al.

Court of Appeals at Kansas City, Missouri.

February 2, 1903.

SCHOOL-TEACHERS—CONTRACTS—VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT—APPEAL—REVIEW— NO CAUSE OF ACTION.

1. If a petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, it is error apparent upon the face of the record to render judgment thereon reviewable on appeal.

2. Rev. St. § 9767, provides that a board of school directors shall have no power to dismiss a regularly qualified teacher who has been employed under a contract for a specified number of months. Held, that an attempted dismissal by a board under such circumstances was of no effect, and the failure of teacher to finish the term was a voluntary abandonment of the contract, precluding a recovery against the district.

Appeal from circuit court, Cedar county.

Action by J. A. Oakes against W. A. Simrell and others, as directors of school district No. 3, township 35, range 25, of Cedar county, Mo., a corporation. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

W. C. Hastin and Cole & Burnett, for appellants. Thos. L. Nelson and W. C. Crawford, for respondent.

SMITH, P. J.

The court below gave judgment for plaintiff on a petition which was as follows: "Plaintiff states that W. A. Simrell, R. F. Winton, and James Belk are the board of directors of school district No. 3, township 35, range 25, of Cedar county, Missouri, the defendant herein, and that said defendant is, and was at all the times hereinafter mentioned, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Missouri, and having capacity, through its board of directors, to sue and liable to be sued as a corporation. Plaintiff, for his cause of action, states that (he is, and was at all times hereinafter mentioned, a legally qualified school-teacher, and that) on the 20th day of March, 1902, the defendant, the school district aforesaid, by its legally authorized officers, entered into a written contract with plaintiff to teach the public school in said district for a term of three months beginning the 24th day of March, 1902, at the sum and price of thirty dollars per month, to be paid monthly. And plaintiff further says that in pursuance of said contract, and in compliance with the terms of said contract on his part, he taught said public school two weeks of said term, and was afterward discharged, and prevented from further continuing to teach the balance of said term, by the defendant's said...