Ottinger v. School District No. 25

• Decision Date: 05 February 1923
• Docket Number: 141
• Citation: 247 S.W. 789,157 Ark. 82
• Parties: OTTINGER v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

247 S.W. 789

157 Ark. 82

OTTINGER v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25

No. 141

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 5, 1923

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Dene H. Coleman, Judge; reversed.

Judgment in favor of plaintiff.

E F. Duncan and H. P. Cleveland, for appellant.

The court should have instructed the jury as to any evidence that tended to prove a breach of his contract, which occurred under a previous contract. 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, p. 85. Evidence of a similar crime committed at some other time than that alleged does not prove the crime alleged. 7 Ark. 470; 7 Ark. 474; 39 Ark. 340. Proof of bad conduct cannot be proved by specific acts. 67 Ark. 112. School board could not discharge for cause without notice and a hearing. 57 Ark 237; 68 Ark. 526; 27 Ark. 61; 81 Ark. 194; 14 Col. App. 311; 59 P. 385; 45 Ark. 124; 89 Ark. 258; 95 Tenn. 532; 32 S.W 631; 150 Pa.St. 78; 24 A. 348; 238 S.W. 9; 170 S.W. 561. Defendant districts discharged the plaintiff. 194 S.W. 32; 78 Ark. 336; 79 Ark. 220; 68 Ark. 226; 51 Mich. 539. If the contract was invalid in the making, it was ratified. 81 Ark. 143. The court should have instructed the jury on the question of notice. 82 Ark. 179; 84 Ark. 415; 87 Ark. 607; 84 Ark. 4.

Fred M. Pickens, for appellee.

OPINION

HART, J.

A. E. Ottinger sued School District No. 25 of Jackson County, Ark., to recover $ 250 alleged to be due him for a breach of contract to teach school. The directors of the school district denied that they had committed a breach of the contract sued on.

It appears from the record that the school directors of School District No. 25 of Jackson County, Ark., entered into a written contract with A. E. Ottinger to teach a common school in said district for the term of seven months, commencing on the 5th day of July, 1920, and agreed to pay him therefor the sum of $ 125 for each school month. After Ottinger had taught the school for five months, the directors discharged him and refused to let him teach the remaining two months. Ottinger asked the directors upon what grounds they discharged him, and they refused to tell him. They told him that if he brought suit for the balance alleged to be due him, they would give their reasons for his discharge in defending the suit.

Ottinger was unable to secure another school for the remaining two months of his contract, and sued the district to recover his salary for two months.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant school district, and the plaintiff, Ottinger, has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

The main reliance made by the plaintiff for a reversal of the judgment is that the undisputed evidence shows that he was discharged without cause, and that he was entitled to a directed verdict in his favor.

The law applicable to cases of this sort was well stated by Judge HEMINGWAY in School District v. Maury, 53 Ark. 471, 14 S.W. 669. In discussing a contract made by a school teacher with directors to teach a school, the learned justice said:

"If the defect arises from the failure of the teacher to carry out his undertakings, the keeping of the school in the way that the law contemplates demands that he be required to comply with his contract. This contract necessarily implies that he is competent to teach properly, and that he will conduct himself in a moral and skilful manner in discharging his undertakings. If he cannot or will not do either, he violates the contract, and its termination comes through his breach. We do not mean to say that every act of immorality would be a breach of the contract to justify its termination; but it would be such whenever, from the character or notoriety of the act, it impaired the services of the teacher in properly instructing or advancing the pupils. A teacher might properly instruct, yet his character for morality be so notoriously bad that he would lose the respect of his pupils and fail to advance them. He would not then be a competent teacher, though there were no defects in his learning or facility to impart it."

The undisputed evidence shows a valid contract to teach the school for seven months, and that the plaintiff was discharged by the directors after he had taught five months. The directors seek to justify their act in discharging the plaintiff on the grounds that he permitted the schoolhouse to become dirty, and also that he would chew tobacco during school hours and spit through the screen windows.

With regard to the first ground, the plaintiff testified that the inhabitants of the district...