Scott v. Pendley

• Decision Date: 28 January 1903
• Citation: 71 S.W. 647,114 Ky. 606
• Parties: SCOTT et al. v. PENDLEY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

71 S.W. 647

114 Ky. 606

SCOTT et al. v. PENDLEY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 28, 1903

Appeal from circuit court, Butler county.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by Novella Pendley against George P. Scott and others to restrain defendant Scott from teaching a certain school, and the other defendants, as trustees of the school district from preventing plaintiff's use of the schoolhouse. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

N. T Howard, W. B. Gardner, and J W. Harreld, for appellants.

Guffy &amp Whalin and Taylor & Borah, for appellee.

NUNN J.

On the 1st day of July, 1901, Thomas Baxter, G. W. Doolin, and W. T Blanchett were the trustees of school district No. 71 in Butler county, Ky. and on that day, in the county jail, where Blanchett was confined on a charge of felony, the said Blanchett and Doolin made and executed a written contract with appellee, Pendley, to teach the school for that district for that school year. It is agreed that no call was made for this meeting held in the jail; nor did Baxter, the other trustee, have any notice of same. On the 3d day of July, Blanchett resigned as trustee, and one Galloway was appointed and qualified. On the 5th of said month, and after notice had been served on Doolin, the other trustee, a meeting was called for the purpose of employing a teacher; and at said meeting (Doolin not attending) Baxter and Galloway entered into a written contract with appellant Scott to teach the school. Both appellant and appellee had notice of the contract of each other. On the 25th of July thereafter, appellant Scott commenced to teach the school; and appellee filed this action, setting forth her contract, and obtained a temporary restraining order against appellant and Trustees Baxter and Galloway, prohibiting Scott from teaching the school, and the trustees from preventing her the use of the schoolhouse, and the appellee entered and taught the school. The only question necessary for the court to determine is, was the appellee entitled to teach the school, under her contract?

The Kentucky Statutes (section 4445), in so far as applicable read as follows: "The trustees, in their corporate capacity, at a meeting called for that purpose, shall employ a qualified teacher, agree with him as to compensation," etc. We have not been cited to, nor have we been able to find, any decisions of the court of appeals of Kentucky construing this part of said statutes. We have been referred to an opinion of the supreme court of Arkansas (School Dist. v. Bennett, 52 Ark. 511, 13 S.W. 132), in which case the same question was involved. In that case this language is used: "It is necessary that a contract, to be binding on the district, should be executed at a board meeting at which all the directors are...