Park v. Independent School Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 04 December 1884
• Citation: 21 N.W. 567,65 Iowa 209
• Parties: PARK v. THE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, PLEASANT GROVE TWP., DES MOINES COUNTY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

21 N.W. 567

65 Iowa 209

PARK v. THE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, PLEASANT GROVE TWP., DES MOINES COUNTY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 4, 1884

Appeal from Des Moines District Court.

PLAINTIFF alleges in his petition that in the month of September, 1882 he entered into a contract with defendant to teach its school for a term of 34 weeks, for which service defendant agreed to pay him at the rate of $ 45 per month; that he entered upon the performance of his duties under said contract on the fourth of September, and continued therein until the eighteenth of that month, when the defendant's board of directors wrongfully and illegally discharged him, and refused to permit him to further perform said contract; that he thereupon appealed from the order of said board to the county superintendent, and upon the hearing of said appeal the action of the board of directors was reversed; that the defendant then took an appeal to the superintendent of public instruction, who, upon a hearing, affirmed the action of the county superintendent, and he alleges that, in consequence of the illegal act of the defendant in refusing to permit him to perform said contract, he lost the greater portion of the time covered by it, being unable to procure other employment and he asks damages therefor. Defendant denies that it wrongfully or illegally terminated said contract, or refused to permit plaintiff to perform the same, and alleges that he resigned his position as teacher of said school, and refused to continue in said employment. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

REVERSED.

Hall & Huston, for appellant.

J. T Illick, for appellee.

OPINION

REED, J.

The evidence given on the trial shows that, on the morning of the eighteenth of September, the members of defendant's board of directors appeared at the school house, and informed plaintiff of certain rumors affecting his character and conduct as a teacher, which were current in the district. No formal action was taken at that time, but in the afternoon of the same day the members of the board came together again at the school house, and in plaintiff's presence examined some of the pupils of the school touching the subject of said rumors. The result of this meeting was that plaintiff ceased to teach the school, and the chief question of controversy between the parties is as to what action was taken at that time.

Plaintiff's claim is that the board of directors then assumed to discharge him, while defendant's claim is that he tendered his resignation, and that the only action of the board of directors was to accept the same. Within the time provided by section 1829 of the Code for taking appeals from decisions or orders of the board, plaintiff filed his affidavit with the county superintendent, setting forth the fact of his employment to teach said school, and alleging that he had been discharged from said employment by the board of directors without any just reason, and without a full, fair, and impartial investigation of the case, and without being permitted to make any defense. The county superintendent gave notice of the appeal to the secretary of the board of directors, as required by section 1832 of the Code, and fixed a time for the hearing thereof. The secretary filed with the superintendent what purported to be a transcript of the record of the meeting of the board on the eighteenth of September. This paper recited that plaintiff on that day tendered his resignation as teacher of said school, and that the same was accepted by the board, but it did not have attached to it the certificate of the secretary that it was a correct transcript of the record, or that it correctly stated the action of the board on the occasion in question. On the hearing of the case, the superintendent rejected this paper as evidence of what had been done, on the ground that it was not properly authenticated, and permitted the parties to introduce parol evidence on the question; and on the evidence before him he found that the board had discharged plaintiff, and that its action in doing so was irregular, in that he had not been accorded a legal hearing; and he made an order reversing its action.

I. On the trial in the district court, plaintiff was permitted against defendant's objection, to introduce in evidence the record of the order made by the county superintendent on the hearing of the appeal. Defendant offered in evidence the record of the meeting of the board of directors on the eighteenth of September. It also offered parol evidence tending to prove that plaintiff was not discharged from said school, but that he resigned, and his resignation was accepted by the board of directors; but, on plaintiff's objection, all this evidence was excluded, and the court instructed the jury "that the record of the proceedings before the county superintendent was conclusive upon defendant, and that it determines that plaintiff's discharge was wrongful and illegal." These several rulings constitute the ground of the first assignment of error argued by counsel. The position urged by counsel is that the board of...