Rice v. School District No. 20, Bradley County

• Decision Date: 14 July 1913
• Citation: 159 S.W. 29,109 Ark. 125
• Parties: RICE v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 20, BRADLEY COUNTY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

159 S.W. 29

109 Ark. 125

RICE v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 20, BRADLEY COUNTY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 14, 1913

Appeal from Bradley Circuit Court; E. E. Williams, Special Judge affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This was an action by G. A. Rice against School District No. 20 of Bradley County for the collection of $ 180 alleged to be due him upon a contract to teach school for said district. The case was tried before a jury, impaneled for that purpose, and a verdict was returned in favor of the school district and this appeal is prosecuted to reverse the judgment rendered thereon.

The complaint alleged that appellant was a regularly licensed teacher of Bradley County and that he had entered into a contract with the directors of the appellee school district to teach a school for said district for three months during the summer of 1912 at a salary of sixty dollars per month. That at the time for opening the school he appeared at the schoolhouse and began school, according to his contract, when the school directors came to the schoolhouse with another teacher and ordered him to desist teaching and give up possession of the schoolhouse, and thereafter refused to allow him to perform his contract. The answer denied all the material allegations of the complaint and specifically denied that any contract had been made with appellant. The controverted points in the case are, whether or not all of the directors were present and participated at a meeting of the directors, at which appellant was employed to teach, and whether or not the law was correctly declared in regard to the necessity for such a meeting.

Appellant testified that he had applied to a Mr. Morgan, who was one of the school directors for the school, but Morgan had declined to consent to his employment, although the other two directors were willing that the school should be given to him. Appellant further testified that in company with the other two directors he went to the home of Morgan to consult with him about the employment of a teacher and the preparation of the notices for the annual school election. That when they arrived at Morgan's house they found him at work in his barn and when they went out there they were told by him that he did not want to discuss the school question at his house and that he did not want appellant to have the school. Appellant further testified that Morgan was asked his objections to the appellant as a teacher and answered these questions by stating his objections to appellant, and that one of the directors said: "Well, we can fix up the school notices," and that Morgan assented that this should be done and appellant filled in the blanks in the notices and after they had been prepared, one director asked the other if he had the school contract with him, and upon its being produced, these two directors signed the contract and presented it to Morgan, who refused to sign it and also refused to sign the notices, although a few days later he did sign the notices. The two directors, who signed the contract, testified and substantially corroborated appellant.

Morgan testified that appellant and the other directors came to his house and found him at work in his barn, and when they stated the object of their visit, he declined to participate in the meeting which they attempted to hold, and that he stated the would not consider the question of the employment of a teacher until the annual school meeting was held. And he denied having any knowledge whether the notices of the school election were prepared at that time or not, although he admits that a few days later he signed the notices of the school election, and at the time of this meeting discussed the question of moving the schoolhouse and whether anything should be said upon that subject in the notices, when they were prepared.

The court gave an instruction asked by the district as follows "The court instructs the jury that where a party, a member of the board of school directors, had no notice in writing of the time, place and purpose of a meeting, and two members of the board went to the field where the third director was at work, and the third director was present for the purpose of carrying on the work of his farm, and not for the purpose of a meeting of a board of school directors and did not participate in the proceedings of said board, and if you believe from the evidence in this case two of the directors of School District No. 20 attempted to make a school contract with G. A. Rice, under the conditions just set out, the contract made by the said two directors was illegal, and did not bind the district, and if you find that the alleged contract was made under the conditions above set...