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

• Decision Date: 29 February 1916
• Docket Number: 6534-6537. [a1]
• Citation: 156 P. 236
• Parties: RIVERS v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 51 OF NOBLE COUNTY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

156 P. 236

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

Nos. 6534-6537. ^[a1]

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

February 29, 1916

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1916.

Syllabus by the Court.

One who causes a suit in equity to be filed, in which her alleged contract and its threatened violation is set up as the basis of the relief prayed, and who verifies the petition and accepts the benefit of a temporary injunction, is to all intents and purposes a party to the action, although not named as such in the pleadings; and such person is, in a later suit on the same contract, concluded and estopped by a final judgment in the former suit in equity which canceled the contract.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from County Court, Noble County; L. B. Robinson, Judge.

Four actions, one by Alpha Rivers, one by Anna Campbell, one by Myrtle Lane, and one by Elsie Roads, all against School District No. 51 of Noble County. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

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

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

BREWER C.

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 W. 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: (2) That the contract was invalid, because not made at a meeting of the board, with notice to the members, and as a board action; (3) that Schubert at the time of signing the contract lacked mental capacity; (4) 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 is as 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 here 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. Swearingen, a hold-over member of the board, filed a suit in equity in the district court, naming the school district as plaintiff, signing the petition, "C. W. Swearingen, Director of School District No. 51, Noble County, Oklahoma," and making the other directors and the four new teachers defendants, and asking that they all be enjoined from interfering with the contracts involved here. In this petition plaintiff herein and the other three plaintiffs are mentioned by name, and their contracts with the old board, and their rights to teach, and the threatened violation of such contracts and rights by the other members of the board and the new teachers are fully set out as a basis for the injunctive relief asked. This petition in equity is verified by this plaintiff and the other three plaintiffs, who make oath that "she has read the above and foregoing petition, knows the contents thereof, and that the statements therein contained are true." One of the plaintiffs, it appears, also made affidavit of the absence of the district judge, as a basis of authority for the county judge to act. A temporary injunction was issued on this petition by the county judge, thus invested with authority, temporarily protecting the rights of plaintiffs. The defendants in that suit--the members of the school board and the new teachers--answered and pleaded over, bringing into the case the contracts affecting both the old and new sets of teachers, among other things, and the case was tried by the district court, and the contracts here involved were held invalid, and these plaintiffs were perpetually enjoined from claiming rights thereunder. The court, as has been stated, found against the validity of the contracts, but refused to find that this former adjudication bound the plaintiffs and estopped them from maintaining these suits. This refusal was excepted to, and the action of the court is brought here by the school district in a cross-petition in error, based upon the findings of fact of the court in the record, and the evidence offered on the plea of former judgment in the trial court, which appellant refused to embody in the case-made, and which was suggested as an amendment and refused by the court, but is brought here in the case-made upon the cross-appeal.

On the defense of estoppel the court in its findings said:

"Considering defenses numbered 4, * * * it is first contended by plaintiff that the above judgment is not binding on her, because she was not a party to that action. This contention has much force, though the question lies on the border line of doubt. The original issue tendered to the district court was by a petition in the name of the district by Swearingen as director, against Nichols and Woodside and all the teachers hired by them, for the possession of the school property in order that Alpha Rivers, plaintiff in the case at bar, and Elsie Roads, Anna Campbell, and Myrtle Lane, plaintiffs in similar actions pending in this court, might be put in possession by plaintiff, and thereby permitted to teach under their several contracts. In a sense these teachers were the direct beneficiaries of that action in case of its success, though not appearing of record as parties thereto. In further progress of that case the electors at a special meeting appointed D. J. Linden to represent the district in this litigation, and the district court adjudged his appointment to be valid, and recognized him as representing the district in place of Swearingen. Linden

...