Sch. Town of Milford v. Powner

• Citation: 26 N.E. 484,126 Ind. 528
• Parties: School Town of Milford v. Powner.
• Decision Date: 15 January 1891
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

126 Ind. 528
26 N.E. 484

School Town of Milford
v.
Powner.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 15, 1891.

Appeal from circuit court, Decatur county; S. A. Bonner, Judge.

Ewing & Ewing, for appellant. W. A. Moore and J. A. Marshall, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This opinion, in which we all concur, was prepared for the court by the late Judge Mitchell, and expresses the views and judgment of the court.

The school town of Milford was sued by Eva M. Powner, to recover damages for the breach of a written contract alleged to have been entered into with the plaintiff by the duly elected and qualified board of school trustees of the town, whereby the plaintiff was employed to teach the primary department of the schools for a term of 30 weeks, for a stipulated compensation. The plaintiff avers, in substance, that she was duly employed by the school board as a teacher; that she was ready and willing to enter upon her engagement and fulfill her contract, but that, before the opening of the schools, the board of school trustees were changed by the election of two new members; and that the board as reorganized repudiated the contract with the plaintiff, and employed another teacher in her place; and that the plaintiff had not been able to obtain other like employment, whereby she had sustained damages, etc. It is conceded that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, within the ruling in Reubelt v. Town of Noblesville, 106 Ind. 478, 7 N. E. Rep. 206.

Among other things, the school corporation answered that the persons who assumed to enter into the contract with the plaintiff on behalf of the town were not duly elected and qualified school trustees, but were mere usurpers, and that they acted by usurpation as trustees for a period of six years prior to the making of the contract. It is averred that while so acting,

[26 N.E. 485]

with knowledge that the town board was about to elect a legal school board, and that the patrons of the school were opposed to the employment of the plaintiff, and for the purpose of forestalling the action of the new board which was about to be elected, the old board, constituted as above, entered into the contract mentioned in the complaint, which it is alleged they did without any meeting, and while members of the board were not in session. This answer does not confess and avoid the complaint. It is averred in the complaint that the plaintiff was duly employed by the legally elected and qualified school trustees of the...