School District No. 56 v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 24 November 1913
• Citation: 161 S.W. 153,110 Ark. 262
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 56 v. JACKSON
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

161 S.W. 153

110 Ark. 262

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 56 v. JACKSON

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 24, 1913

Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; J. W. Meeks, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

T. W Campbell, for appellant.

1. The contract in evidence was not the contract of the appellant district, and was not binding upon it. 52 Ark. 511; 64 Ark 489; 69 Ark. 159; 73 Ark. 194; 90 Ark. 335.

2. There was no ratification. Cases relied on by appellee to support the theory of ratification, 67 Ark. 236, and 81 Ark 143, are so dissimilar from this case on the facts as not to apply.

S. A. D. Eaton, for appellee.

1. The contract in evidence was prima facie valid, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, the directors are conclusively presumed to have taken all steps necessary to the making of a valid contract. 2 Enc. of Ev. 794, and cases cited; 9 Id. 917; Id. 762; 11 Ark. 228; 79 Ark. 19.

2. Even if invalid in the beginning, the contract was ratified, and the district is bound by it. 81 Ark. 143; 67 Ark. 236; 21 Ark. 554. Appellant, having without objection accepted the services of appellee, is estopped from repudiating the contract, even if it was executed by the directors without proper authority. 36 Ark. 577; 48 Ark. 256; 55 Ark. 113; 87 Ark. 289; 83 Ark. 513.

OPINION

HART, J.

Appellee sued appellant before a justice of the peace to recover a balance alleged to be due her as teacher's salary. The justice rendered a judgment in her favor, and, on appeal to the circuit court, there was a trial before a jury which resulted in a verdict in her favor for the amount sued for; and from the judgment rendered, appellant has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

The facts are as follows: On the 4th day of December, 1911, appellee, Elizabeth Jackson, entered into a written contract with L. I. Bramlett and C. M. McDaniel, directors of School District No. 56 of Randolph County, Arkansas, to teach a school for three months from that date for the sum of $ 35 for each school month. The contract was signed by Bramlett in his field, and by McDaniel at his home about a mile distant from the place where Bramlett signed it. H. H. Wiley, the remaining director, did not sign the contract. Mr. Wiley, however, knew that she began teaching under the contract signed by the other two directors, and sent his boy to the school. After she had taught the school for seven weeks, Bramlett and Wiley, two of the directors, sent her a written notice to stop the school, without giving her any reason therefor. They signed a voucher in her favor for the amount that she had already earned. Two or three days before they sent her this notice, eight of the pupils stayed out of school one afternoon and played on the ice. This was on Friday evening, and on Monday morning, before she went to school, appellee went to see Mr. Wiley about it. Mr. Wiley went to the schoolhouse with her, and, of the boys who had played on the ice, his son, Curtis, was the only one present. Mr. Wiley told her not to punish him, because he was the only one present, and said the next time they left school in that manner to punish them all. After receiving the notice to stop the school appellee ceased to teach it for two weeks, and then resumed and taught the balance of the term. The directors refused to pay her for the five weeks taught by her after they had notified her to quit, and she brought this suit to recover $ 43.75, the balance alleged to be due her under the contract.

This court has held that the members of a board of school directors have no power to act individually, and that it is only when convened and acting together as a board that they represent and bind the district by their acts. School District v. Bennett, 52 Ark. 511, 13 S.W. 132; School District No. 54 v. Garrison, 90 Ark 335, 119 S.W....