School Dist. No. 25 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY v. Stone

• Decision Date: 08 January 1900
• Citation: 14 Colo.App. 211,59 P. 885
• Parties: SCHOOL DIST. NO. 25 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY v. STONE.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

59 P. 885

14 Colo.App. 211

SCHOOL DIST. NO. 25 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY v. STONE.

Court of Appeals of Colorado

January 8, 1900

Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county.

Action by Mary E. Stone against school district No. 25 of Jefferson county for breach of a contract of employment as a school teacher. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.to do her any injustice, sent for the county superintendent of schools, who upon careful examination concurred with the board that she was incompetent and incapable, and that thereupon the board in the exercise of its best judgment and discretion dispensed with the services of plaintiff, states no defense and was properly stricken out.

Henry B. O'Reilly, for appellant.

George N. Hurd and D.J. Davies, for appellee.

WILSON J.

The plaintiff sets forth in her amended complaint that she was duly authorized to teach school in the county of Jefferson under and by virtue of a license or certificate issued to her by the county superintendent of schools of said county; that about September 10, 1894, she entered into a contract in writing with the defendant school district, whereby she was employed and agreed to teach the school in said district for the term of seven months commencing on the 10th day of September following; that by virtue of said agreement she entered upon her employment on the day stipulated, and continued to discharge her duties as teacher until about the 30th day of November following, when the defendants, without any reasonable cause, and without the preferment of any charges, and without a hearing, discharged her, and dismissed her from her position, and refused to employ her for the remainder of said term. She prayed judgment for the amount of her salary for the remainder of said term in accordance with the contract. The certificate to teach, which was one of the second grade, signed by the superintendent of schools of Jefferson county, was set forth in the complaint, and also the contract, which appears to have been signed by two members of the board of directors of the school district,--the president and secretary. The answer denied plaintiff was ever duly or lawfully authorized to teach school in Jefferson county; denied that the district entered into any agreement with her to teach school as averred, but admitted the signing of the contract by its president and secretary; and denied that plaintiff was discharged without reasonable cause, or without the preferment of any charges against her, or without a hearing. For a further answer, the defendant alleged that the examination referred to in her certificate was had and taken in Arapahoe county by the superintendent of schools of that county, and not by the superintendent of Jefferson county and alleged that the contract of employment was not executed or agreed upon at any adjourned or special meeting of the board of directors. The following clauses in defendant's answer were stricken out upon motion of plaintiff, and upon this defendant predicates error: "(5) That plaintiff was never examined as to her capabilities or qualifications as a teacher in any of the departments of learning prescribed by statute at the county seat of Jefferson county, or elsewhere in said county, at any regular quarterly examination, or at any special examination, by the or any superintendent of schools of said county, or by any deputy of such superintendent, as by law required, or at all. (6) That she never held a first-class certificate issued by the or any superintendent of schools of any county in Colorado or other authority." "(8) That the certificate on which she relies herein was issued by mistake, and through misapprehension of the law regulating and controlling the issuance of such certificates." "(10) That, shortly after plaintiff's employment as aforesaid, defendant was advised of her incompetency and incapacity to teach the school of said district, and determined to discharge her but, fearing to do her any injustice, sent for the county superintendent of schools, who, upon careful and conscientious examination, concurred with the board of defendant in its determination that she was so incompetent and incapable; and that thereupon the board of defendant, in the exercise of its best judgment and discretion, dispensed with the services of plaintiff." Judgment was for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

The court did not err in striking out the clauses in the answer which we have quoted. The only condition precedent to the employment of a teacher in the public schools, as fixed by the statutes, is that she shall have a certificate from the county superintendent of schools of the county, in full force at the date of the employment. Laws 1887, p. 396, § 26. It is true that in enumerating the duties of a county superintendent of schools the statute requires certain examinations by him of applicants for license to teach upon questions formulated by the state superintendent of schools, but it nowhere provides that a certificate issued without the personal appearance of an applicant at the time fixed by law for the regular examinations shall render a certificate issued to such applicant, and regular upon its face, void. It is not necessary to discuss the effect upon this certificate, or upon the contract in question, of the fact alleged by defendant, and not denied by plaintiff, that the examination referred to in her certificate was had and taken by the superintendent of schools of Arapahoe county and not by the superintendent of Jefferson county. The certificate was regular and valid upon its face, and this was all that was required, under the law, to authorize the defendant to enter into a contract with the plaintiff. Both the certificate and contract were valid and binding upon all parties until the former was annulled or revoked in the proper manner, and in some proper proceeding. The law does not require the certificate to be in any special form, nor to contain a statement that the applicant has passed an examination...