Rudy v. School Dist. of Poplar Bluff

• Decision Date: 27 March 1888
• Citation: 30 Mo.App. 113
• Parties: JULES L. RUDY, Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF POPLAR BLUFF, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

30 Mo.App. 113

JULES L. RUDY, Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF POPLAR BLUFF, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

March 27, 1888

APPEAL from the Butler Circuit Court, Hon. J. G. WEAR, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

GEO. H BENTON, for the appellant: The authorized and executed contract made with a school teacher cannot be broken by the school directors on the ground that the levy made at the annual meeting of the school district for a teachers' fund is insufficient to raise the amount needed. Rev. Stat 1879, secs. 7031-46; Wilson v. Board, 63 Mo. 137; McCutchen v. Windsor, 55 Mo. 149; Arnold v School District, 78 Mo. 226; 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp. [3 Ed.] sec. 24; Buchanan v. School District, 25 Mo.App. 85; Frazier v. School District, 24 Mo.App. 250; Armstrong v. School District, 19 Mo.App. 462. The plaintiff in this case was entitled at least to recover the amount admitted to be due the teachers' fund for the year covered by his contract. Rev. Stat., sec. 7073.

I. M. DAVIDSON and HOUCK & KEATON, for the respondent: This school district is a quasi -municipal corporation, and the powers of its corporators and directors are minutely prescribed and limited by law. Rev. Stat., sec. 7021; Buchanan v. School District, 25 Mo.App. 85. The directors had no power to make a contract in this case, and allow the school district to become indebted in this manner and purpose to an amount exceeding the income and revenue provided for the year 1885; and their action was to that extent, at least, " " " " ultra vires, " illegal, unconstitutional, and void. Const. of Mo., art. 10, sec. 12; Board v. Patten, 62 Mo. 444. And the above provision of the constitution was, and is, self-enforcing, being a prohibition. Householder v. City, 83 Mo. 488. This contract being void in part, is illegal and void in toto, and plaintiff can recover nothing--no part of the money afterwards collected. Sumner v. Summers, 54 Mo. 340; McDonald v. Wagner, 5 Mo.App. 56; McCoy v. Green, 83 Mo. 620, 632; 1 Wait on Actions and Defences, p. 106, sec. 14. The district is not estopped from defending against this contract--the plaintiff acted at his peril in making the contract. Cheeney v. Brookfield, 60 Mo. 53, 54; Board v. Railroad, 74 Mo. 163, 167. And when the funds failed the contract failed also. Hall v. School District, 24 Mo.App. 213, 219. The plaintiff cannot recover on account of his failure to make monthly and term reports for the time sued for. Rev. Stat., sec. 7071; Acts 1885, p. 241, sec. 1. The directors could not legally draw a warrant nor could the county treasurer pay it. Rev. Stat., sec. 7073; Acts of 1885, p. 242, sec. 1; Hall v. School District, supra. It is only where the plaintiff has been prevented from performance by the wrongful acts of the defendant that he is entitled to recover. Fitzgerald v. Haygood, 50 Mo. 516, 524; Hall v. School District, supra.

OPINION

THOMPSON J.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace to recover damages for the breach of a contract. On trial anew in the circuit court it appeared from the evidence that the defendant, by its directors, entered into a written contract with the plaintiff to teach its district school, for the period of ten months, at a salary of seventy-five dollars per month; that the plaintiff entered upon the discharge of the duties required by the contract, and taught the school until eight months of the term of the contract had expired, when the directors closed the school. This they did by adopting and entering upon their record the following resolution:

" April 9, 1886.

Whereas, it appears that the levy made for school purposes for the year 1885, is not sufficient to sustain a ten months school, it is, therefore, ordered that the school close on the sixteenth day of April, 1886, for the want of funds to pay the teachers, and that written notices be given each teacher, by the clerk, notifying them of said fact.

E. C. LACKS, Pres."

Thereupon, five days notice was given by the directors, to the plaintiff, of their intention to close the school,--that is, a notice was given to him on Monday, under which the last day of school was the following Friday. He made the teacher's report, as required by the statute, for the eight months taught by him, including the months of March and April, but neglected to make any report for the month of May, for the reason that the school was closed and he had nothing to report. He received pay for the eight months during which the school was in session, and brings this action for his salary for the remaining two months provided for in the contract.

As the cause originated before a justice of the peace, there was no defensive pleading; but the defence set up by the evidence was, that the directors had closed the school because there were not sufficient funds in the treasury. The evidence in support of this defence was to the effect that, at the previous annual school meeting, as recited in the record thereof, " it was decided by the meeting that there be a ten months' school ordered for the next year, ending June 30, 1886; " and that it was also " ordered that thirty-five cents on each one hundred dollars valuation of property be levied for teachers' wages, and twenty-five cents on each one hundred dollars assessed valuation for incidental expenses, for the next scholastic year." The treasurer of the school board testified that all the moneys due the teachers' fund had been paid out on accounts due for salaries for the eight months, except about one hundred and five dollars; that, at the time when the schools were closed, all the moneys due that fund had not been collected; that between three and four hundred dollars were subsequently paid in by the collector after the school year had expired, all of which was paid out for salaries except about one hundred and five dollars, as above stated. The bill of exceptions recites that this was substantially the whole testimony, the evidence for the defendant being only cumulative.

At the close of the testimony the plaintiff requested the court to declare the law as follows:

" The court declares it to be the law that the legally authorized and executed contract of the school directors of a district with a teacher cannot be broken by the said directors for the reason that enough money cannot be collected into the appropriate fund under the levy made at the annual meeting to meet the obligation incurred under the contract, and that in this case the plaintiff is entitled to recover."

This declaration the court refused to give, and the plaintiff excepted. The court thereupon, sitting as a jury, made a finding and entered judgment for the defendant.

There is no question that a school district is a quasi corporation, and that the powers of its corporators and directors are prescribed and limited by statute ( Buchanan v. School District, 25 Mo.App. 85), and, also, it may be added, by such provisions of the constitution of the state as are self-enforcing. Nor is there any doubt that a person entering into a contract with a school district, through its directors, must, at his peril, take notice of the limited powers of the directors, and if he enters into a contract with them in excess of their powers, no recovery can be had by him thereon. Cheeney v. Brookfield, 60 Mo. 53.

But the statute relating to schools empowers the qualified voters of the district, at the annual meeting, by a majority of votes cast " to determine the length of time, if any, in excess of four months, that the public schools of the district shall be kept open and order the proper estimate made therefor-- provided, that the entire estimate for such purpose shall at no time exceed one per centum, for any one year, of the assessed valuation of the property subject to taxation within the district." Rev. Stat., sec. 7031, sub-div. 4. This, as already seen, was done by the qualified voters of the defendant district in the present case, according to their record, they fixing the term during which the school should be maintained at ten months.

Another section of the statute empowers the board of directors to contract for the services of teachers in the name of the district, in the following language: " The board shall have power to contract with and employ legally...