School Dist. No. 1 v. Teachers' Retirement Fund
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Bean |
| Citation | School Dist. No. 1 v. Teachers' Retirement Fund, 163 Or. 103, 95 P.2d 720 (Or. 1939) |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1939 |
| Parties | SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, MULTNOMAH COUNTY <I>v.</I> TEACHERS' RETIREMENT FUND ASSOCIATION |
See 24 R.C.L. 612
17 C.J.S. Contracts, § 212
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.
Action by School District No. 1, Multnomah County, against the Teachers' Retirement Fund Association of such district and others for a declaratory judgment establishing the validity of waivers of claims against the association for disability benefits. From a judgment overruling named defendant's demurrer to the complaint, such defendant appeals.
REVERSED.
John D. Galey, of Portland (Beckman & Galey, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
Grant T. Anderson, of Portland (Ralph H. King, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.
The defendant, The Teachers' Retirement Fund Association, hereafter referred to as the association, was incorporated in 1912 as an Oregon nonprofit corporation, pursuant to chapter 280, Oregon Laws, 1911, now section 35-2701, Oregon Code 1930, et seq. By virtue of section 35-2706, Oregon Code 1930, as amended in 1929, all teachers employed by the plaintiff, hereafter referred to as the district, after July 1 1929, automatically became members of the defendant association.
By section 35-2707, Oregon Code 1930, the district is bound to pay to the association such sums of money as may be required to enable the association to pay to each member of the association annuities in accordance with said section, which provides in part as follows:
On or about May 25, 1936, the board of directors of the district duly adopted a rule that required every applicant for a teaching position in the schools of its district to take a medical examination from one or more designated medical examiners as a condition precedent to his or her employment as a teacher, which rule has not been abrogated. The purpose of the rule is claimed by the district to be two-fold: (1) To determine a prospective teacher's physical qualifications to discharge the duties of a teacher, and (2) to determine whether such prospective teacher suffers from some existing physical impairment likely to result in permanent disability at any time. In those instances where such an examination revealed a physical condition which then constituted or might thereafter cause a physical disability, the district required the execution by the applicant of an instrument of waiver, whereby the applicant agreed to "waive any and all claim for disability benefits from the Teachers' Retirement Fund Association for any illness or disease arising from or connected with any impairment" mentioned in connection with the examination.
The association asserts that these waivers are void. The district commenced this declaratory judgment proceeding to establish their validity. The trial court overruled the defendant's demurrer to the complaint, holding that the waivers were valid. The association submits that the waivers in suit are contrary to public policy and therefore void.
The district contends that it is empowered to employ teachers and to make rules and regulations for the government of the district under and by virtue of section 35-1315a, Oregon Code Supplement, 1935; that the power to employ teachers and make rules and regulations for the government of the district conveys implied power to determine by reasonable means an applicant's physical qualifications to discharge the duties of a teacher, since the power to employ cannot be intelligently exercised otherwise; that an applicant may be physically incapable of discharging such duties or he may be the carrier of communicable tuberculosis, or other communicable diseases, in which case the public health is directly concerned; that the power to employ teachers, and to make rules and regulations for the government of the district, conveys implied power to determine an applicant's desirability from the standpoint of the financial obligation the district will assume thereby. Whenever a teacher of the district becomes disabled to the extent that he or she is and probably will be unable thereafter to discharge the duties of his or her employment, the law provides disability benefits for such teacher payable out of funds of the district: § 35-2707, Oregon Code 1930, Oregon Laws 1939, ch. 287.
1. It is assigned that the court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to the complaint. The defendant association contends that the waivers in suit are contrary to public policy and therefore void; that a private right given for the public good cannot be waived contemporaneously with its first application to the facts: Motor Contract Co. v. Van Der Volgen, 162 Wash. 449, 298 P. 705, 79 A.L.R. 29, and note p. 33; Federal Nat. Bank v. Koppel, 253 Mass. 157, 148 N.E. 379, 40 A.L.R. 1443; Alcolea v. Smith, 150 La. 482, 90 So. 769, 24 A.L.R. 815; Peugh v. Davis, 96 U.S. 332, 24 L.Ed. 775. An anticipatory waiver of this kind is to be distinguished from an executed waiver: De Boest v. Gambell, 35 Or. 368, 58 P. 72. The donee of a private right created by statute for the public good has not the legal power to waive such right: Bunker v. Coons, 21 Utah 164, 60 P. 549, 81 Am. St. Rep. 686; Glendale v. Coquat, 46 Ariz. 478, 52 P. (2d) 1178, 102 A.L.R. 837; Cato v. Grendel Cotton Mills, 132 S.C. 454, 129 S.E. 203, 41 A.L.R. 439, 441.
2-4. The requirements of a statute enacted for the public good may not be nullified by private contract: Central R. Co. v. Mauser, 241 Pa. 603, 88 Atl. 791, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 92. Statutory contracts of the public with individuals may not be varied by private contract: Lukens v. Nye, 156 Cal. 498, 105 P. 593, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 244, 249, 20 Am. Cas. 158; Murphy v. Prendergast, 164 N.Y.S. 213, 99 Misc. 326. The statute creating the disability annuity was enacted for the public good within the meaning of the foregoing rule: Zumpfe...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Welker By and Through Bradbury v. Teacher Standards and Practices Com'n
...agreement." McKinney v. Employment Division, 21 Or.App. 730, 737, 537 P.2d 126 (1975). See, e.g., School Dist. No. 1 v. Teachers' Retirement Fund, 163 Or. 103, 110, 95 P.2d 720 (1939) (contractual waiver of statutory entitlement to disability benefits held invalid; waiver was "inimical to t......
-
Board of Educ. of Louisville v. City of Louisville
... ... of defendants respecting retirement payments to teachers on ... the retirement roll ... Sess., Chapter 1; now Section 4506b-1 et seq., Statutes, ... school district in which the local system was operated ... Wiemer v ... Commissioner's Sinking Fund, 124 Ky. 377, 99 S.W ... 242; Ingram's Adm'r ... ...
-
Boyer v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...(8th cir.) 198 F.2d 456, 464; Foreman v. Holsman, 10 Ill.2d 551, 554, 141 N.E.2d 31, 61 A.L.R.2d 1303; School District v. Teachers Retirement Fund Ass'n, 163 Or. 103, 95 P.2d 720, 723, 96 P.2d 419, 125 A.L.R. 720, The judgment of the Appellate Court, First District, is affirmed. Judgment af......
-
W. J. Seufert Land Co. v. Greenfield
...also Rosenkrantz et al v. Barde, 107 Or. 338, 214 P. 893 (1923) (agreement for collusive bidding); School Dist. No. 1, etc. v. Teachers' Retirement Fund, 163 Or. 103, 110, 95 P.2d 720 (1939) (agreement to waive disability claim as condition of annuity); and Lane v. Brotherhood hood of L.E. ......