School District v. Maury

• Decision Date: 25 October 1890
• Citation: 14 S.W. 669,53 Ark. 471
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT v. MAURY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

14 S.W. 669

53 Ark. 471

SCHOOL DISTRICT v. MAURY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 25, 1890

APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, JOHN S LITTLE, Judge.

Maury sued the school district of Fort Smith for breach of a contract of employment as teacher, alleging that he was wrongfully discharged by the board of directors before his term of employment expired. Defendant answered that plaintiff was discharged for incompetency and immorality. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor defendant has appealed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

J. L Hendricks for appellant.

The court erred in excluding evidence offered to show the incompetency and immoral character of appellee, and in holding that his license was, until revoked by the examiner conclusive as to his competency and good moral character. The board had a right to discharge for immoral deportment, incompetency or breaches of rules and regulations. Mansf. Dig., secs. 6242, 6245, 6266.

T. S. Osborne and E. E. Bryant for appellee.

1. The court properly excluded all evidence to show incompetency or immoral character. The determination of the county examiner is final. Mansf. Dig., sec. 6187; 21 N.W. 554; 21 N.W. 567; 46 Am. Rep., 92; 78 Mo. 226.

2. As to appellee's right to recover and the amount, see 43 Am. Dec., 204 and note; 7 F. 641; 19 F. 59; 65 Mo. 549.

3. The contract was binding. 33 Iowa 105; 74 Am. Dec., 309; 7 N.W. 840; 28 N.W. 105.

4. The board had no authority to discharge a teacher holding a license, and afterwards attack such a teacher's qualifications collaterally in a defense to an action for damages against the district. Mansf. Dig., secs. 6187-8; 27 N.W. 728; 37 N.W. 567.

OPINION

HEMINGWAY, J.

The errors alleged as ground for reversal and urged in the argument are, first, that the court below improperly excluded evidence offered by the appellant, and second, that it erred in its charge to the jury.

1. The appellant offered evidence tending to prove that the appellee was incompetent as a teacher and was addicted to immoral habits and conduct during the time he taught. The court ruled that no evidence so tending would be admitted, for the reason that the license to teach, issued by the county examiner, was conclusive as to the morality and competency of the teacher, and that no question could be made as to either except on a re-examination by the examiner.

It is true that the examiner may summon a teacher for re-examination, and may revoke his license to teach for immorality or incompetency, or "for any other adequate cause." When the license is thus revoked, the authority of the teacher to teach in the public schools of the county ends, and he is compelled to terminate his contract. Mansf. Dig., sec. 6187. But is this general authority of the examiner exclusive of a limited authority in the board of directors? Or may each board declare contracts with it forfeited for breach thereof?

It is the duty of the board of directors, expressly enjoined by statute, to hire suitable teachers (Mansf. Dig., sec. 6265) to establish an adequate number of schools; to keep them in operation; to enforce all necessary rules and regulations for the government of teachers and pupils; and to visit at least twice in each year each school, and observe the discipline, mode of teaching and progress of pupils. Mansf. Dig., sec. 6266. The duty to hire teachers is not discharged by the hiring of immoral or incompetent persons, although they may have obtained a license to teach from the examiner. While the board of directors can not go outside of those having license to secure teachers, it should not hire unknown persons, without making inquiry as to their morality and competency, simply because of the license. The duty to establish and keep in operation schools is not met by the employment of teachers and keeping them at a school house; but it demands that suitable persons shall be kept as teachers, and a school maintained adapted to the intellectual and moral advancement of pupils. The duty to visit the schools and observe the discipline, mode of teaching and progress of pupils is not met by visits and observations which merely notes disorder, bad instruction and lack of progress. But the duty to discover defects is enjoined in order that they may be corrected, and the duty implies the power to correct. If the defect arises from the failure of the teacher to carry out his undertakings, the keeping of the school in the way that the law contemplates demands that he be required to comply with his contract. This contract necessarily implies that he is competent to teach properly, and that he will conduct himself in a moral and skillful manner in discharging his undertakings. If he can not or will not do either, he violates the contract, and its termination comes through his breach. We do not mean to say that every act of immorality would be a breach of the contract to justify its termination; but it would be such whenever, from the character or notoriety of the act, it impaired the services of the teacher in properly instructing or advancing the pupils. A teacher might properly...