Spice Valley Sch. Tp. of Lawrence Cnty. v. Rizer, 27077.

• Docket Nº: No. 27077.
• Citation: 15 N.E.2d 390, 214 Ind. 528
• Case Date: June 07, 1938
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

214 Ind. 528
15 N.E.2d 390

SPICE VALLEY SCHOOL TP. OF LAWRENCE COUNTY
v.
RIZER.

No. 27077.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 7, 1938.

Action by E. B. Rizer against the Spice Valley School Township of Lawrence County, Indiana, to recover upon an indefinite teacher's tenure contract. From the judgment, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court. The case was transferred from the Appellate Court on May 17, 1938, under Baldwin's Ind.St.1934, § 1364.

Affirmed.

[15 N.E.2d 390]

Appeal from Orange Circuit Court; Wilber W. Hottel, Judge.

[15 N.E.2d 391]

Chester A. Davis and Boruff & Boruff, all of Bedford, and Owen S. Boling, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

R. L. Mellen, of Bedford, and Tucker & Tucker, of Paoli, for appellee.

SHAKE, Judge.

The pending motion to dismiss this appeal is hereby denied on the authority of Board of Public Safety of the City of Muncie v. Walling, 1933, 206 Ind. 540, 187 N.E. 385.

Appellee brought an action to recover upon an indefinite teacher's tenure contract. The case was put at issue by a general denial and tried on a second paragraph of complaint. This paragraph alleged that the appellee was a duly licensed teacher under the laws of Indiana; that on September 8, 1929, he entered into a written contract with the appellant to teach for a term of eight months, beginning on September 9th of that year; that pursuant to said contract he did teach during said term; that on September 4, 1930, appellee entered into another contract with said township to teach in its schools, and duly performed said contract; that prior to entering into the contract of September 8, 1929, he had taught in the public schools of said township for more than five years continuously and was, by reason thereof, a permanent tenure teacher; that the township trustee refused to furnish appellee employment as a teacher during the school year beginning in September, 1931, although appellee was at all times ready, willing, able and qualified so to do, and tendered his services to the trustee for that purpose; and that appellee was entitled to recover $1800 on his contract. The contract entered into September 8, 1929, was made an exhibit to the second paragraph of complaint, but the contract of September 4, 1930, was not. There was a judgment against the appellant for $1800, followed by a motion for a new trial, which assigned that the decision was not sustained by sufficient evidence, that it was contrary to law, and that the court erred in excluding appellant's...