School District No. 18 v. Davies

• Decision Date: 09 April 1904
• Docket Number: 13,599
• Citation: 76 P. 409,69 Kan. 162
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 18, OF KEARNY COUNTY, KANSAS, v. LEWIS DAVIES
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

76 P. 409

69 Kan. 162

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 18, OF KEARNY COUNTY, KANSAS, v. LEWIS DAVIES

No. 13,599

Supreme Court of Kansas

April 9, 1904

Decided January, 1904.

Error from Kearny district court; WILLIAM EASTON HUTCHISON, judge.

Judgment reversed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS -- Dismissal of Teacher -- Act of Board Conclusive. Section 6184, General Statutes of 1901, provides for the employment of teachers and the manner of employing them in the district schools of the state. It also provides for the dismissal of teachers, the causes for which they may be dismissed, and the manner in which they may be dismissed; and where the district board, in conjunction with the county superintendent, dismisses a teacher, as provided by said section, such act of dismissal is final and conclusive, in the absence of fraud, corruption, or oppression.

E. R Thorpe, and F. Dumont Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Miller & Hoskinson, for defendant in error.

ATKINSON J. All the Justices concurring. MASON, J., not sitting.

OPINION

ATKINSON, J.:

On August 10, 1901, school district No. 18, of Kearny county, entered into a written contract with Lewis Davies to teach school for a term of eight months, to commence on September 30 following, at a salary of $ 40 per month, payable at the end of each school month. Davies commenced work under this contract and continued to teach, receiving payment therefor, until January 31, 1902, when he was dismissed by the district board, acting in conjunction with the county superintendent, on a charge of incompetency, cruelty, and negligence.

On May 22, 1902, Davies commenced an action against the district in the district court of Kearny county to recover the sum of $ 150, damages alleged to have been by him sustained on account of his dismissal. In his petition, after alleging the execution of the contract and the entering upon his duties as teacher thereunder, plaintiff averred in substance his willingness and readiness at all times to discharge the duties of teacher and comply with the terms of said contract, and the refusal of defendant to permit him to do so.

Defendant answered admitting the execution of the written contract, and that plaintiff had taught the school thereunder for a period of four months and one week. It averred that plaintiff had received payment for services rendered; that in the conduct of said school plaintiff was incompetent, cruel, and negligent, and that the district board, acting in conjunction with the county superintendent, had dismissed him for incompetency, cruelty, and negligence. The jury awarded plaintiff $ 50, and returned four special findings. The court, upon motion of plaintiff, set aside the general verdict and rendered judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $ 150 upon the special findings.

The record discloses that at a meeting of the district board in conjunction with the county superintendent, on January 31, 1902, plaintiff was dismissed on the charge of incompetency, cruelty, and negligence. There was no claim of fraud, corruption or oppression in the action of dismissal. Defendant, upon the trial, requested the court to give the following instruction:

"If the jury find from the evidence that the school board of the defendant district met in conjunction with the county superintendent of public instruction to consider the matter of complaints made against the plaintiff as teacher of the school of the district, and at such meeting such board and superintendent gave full and fair consideration to the facts of the matter as known to them personally, and also used reasonable diligence to inform themselves upon the subject from such sources as were available, and gave full and fair consideration to such information, and then, in good faith, reached the unanimous conclusion that plaintiff had been so negligent of his duties as teacher that the interest of the school required his discharge, and, therefore, made an order discharging him as such teacher on the 31st day of January, 1902, then plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action."

The court refused to give the instruction requested, and did not instruct the jury relative to the legal effect of the dismissal of plaintiff by the district board acting in conjunction with the county superintendent.

Defendant brings the case here and urges the following assignments of error: (1) The refusal of the trial court to give said instruction, or to instruct the jury relative to the legal effect of the dismissal of plaintiff by the district board acting in conjunction with the county superintendent; (2) the action of the trial court in setting aside the general verdict and entering judgment for plaintiff on the special findings. The view we take of the case requires a consideration of the first assignment of error only.

Section 6184, General Statutes of 1901, provides for the employment of teachers and the manner of employing them in the district schools of the state. It also provides for the dismissal of teachers, the causes for which they may be dismissed, and the manner in which they may...