Rivers v. School Dist. No. 51, Noble County

• Decision Date: 23 April 1918
• Docket Number: 6534,6537.
• Citation: 172 P. 778,68 Okla. 141,1918 OK 235
• Parties: RIVERS v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 51, NOBLE COUNTY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

172 P. 778

68 Okla. 141, 1918 OK 235

RIVERS v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 51, NOBLE COUNTY.

Nos. 6534, 6537.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

April 23, 1918

Syllabus by the Court.

Contracts made between teachers and officers of a school district for teaching district schools for a term extending beyond the time when the term of such officers will expire are not, for that reason, invalid; but where, on account of insufficient funds available to support the term provided for in said contracts, the electors of the district at the next annual school meeting, contrary to said contracts fixing the term of school at "eight months or less, limited to the funds available for the school year of 1913-14," fix it for eight months and reduce the number of salaries fixed in the contracts to conform to the funds available to support the said term, held, that the contracts, being inconsistent with the decision of said electors, were invalid; that the contracting teachers cannot recover thereon, but such of them as taught in lieu of other teachers later contracted with by the succeeding officers of the district pursuant to the decision of the electors at said meeting are entitled to recover the salaries fixed therein for the teachers in lieu of whom they taught.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

The court can consider no question sought to be brought up on cross-appeal, where more than six months have expired since the judgment before said cross-appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.

Error from County Court, Noble County; L. B. Robinson, Judge.

On rehearing. Affirmed.

For former opinion, see 156 P. 236.

P. W Cress, of Perry, for plaintiffs in error.

Henry S. Johnston, of Perry, for defendant in error.

TURNER J.

This suit was brought by Alpha Rivers as plaintiff below, who will hereafter be referred to as plaintiff, on a written contract of employment as a teacher in district No. 51, a rural school. At the same time, Anna Campbell, Myrtle Lane, and Elsie Roads each brought a suit practically identical in all the details and purposes against the same defendant. By agreement of counsel, the proof in this case is to apply in the others, and the decision in the one shall control all of them.

For a cause of action plaintiff set out that she had on April 28 1913, entered into a written contract with the officers of said school district, to wit, C. W. Swearingen, director, H. Schubert, clerk, and M. H. Whaley, treasurer, by the terms of which she was employed to teach in the school the following school year at a salary of $50 per month; and she sued for this salary for the months of September, October, and November, 1913; that she had taught these three months, and payment according to the contract had been refused. The defendant, school district No. 51, set up numerous defenses, including the following: (1) That the contract was invalid because not made at a meeting of the board, with notice to the members, and as a board action; (2) that Schubert, at the time of signing the contract, lacked mental capacity; (3) the plea that the contract sued upon had been adjudicated to be invalid, and the plaintiff perpetually enjoined from asserting any right to teach under the same by a decree of the district court which had not been appealed from, and had therefore become final.

The cause was tried to the court, and a decision rendered against the right of plaintiff to recover on the contract; but that this particular plaintiff and Anna Campbell were entitled to pay for the three months at the rate of $40 per month, not because of the contract sued on, but because they had been employed to teach these three months by filling vacancies in the teaching corps employed by the new board. The other two plaintiffs, Roads and Lane, were denied a recovery. All, however, appeal, claiming rights under the contract held invalid. A brief statement of some of the material facts seems necessary, and it follows:

In April, 1913, the school board consisted of two rival factions. A majority of the members made the contracts with the four teachers for the next year, fixing their salaries at $60 and $50 respectively. June 3, 1913, the electors of the school district met in the annual school meeting, and provided for an eight months' school, but decided to pay $50 and $40 per month salaries for the places these plaintiffs claim the right to fill; the electors also refused to vote any additional levy of funds, which would have been necessary if the higher salaries were to be paid. At this meeting, the personnel of the official board was also somewhat changed. Before the fall term of school opened, the new board, claiming that the contracts involved were invalid because the amounts to be paid were in excess of the school funds provided at the annual school meeting, employed new teachers for these four positions at salaries named by the electors. School opened with the new teachers in charge, and was run about a week, when the four teachers involved here went to the school and tried to, and probably did, take charge of the various rooms; at least for a time each room had two teachers in it, both claiming authority. The new board then appeared on the scene and put the old teachers out. At this juncture, C. W....