State ex rel. Foster v. Griffin, 21640
| Decision Date | 04 February 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 21640,21640 |
| Citation | 246 S.W.2d 396 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. FOSTER et al. v. GRIFFIN. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Harry J. Fair, Trenton, for appellant.
Chas. A. Miller, Trenton, for respondents.
Mandamus by relators to compel respondent, President of the Board of Directors of a public school district, to sign certain warrants in payment of the teacher's salary. Upon the filing of the petition, an alternative writ was issued and served on respondent who filed a motion to quash the writ; pending that motion the alternative writ was amended, and respondent refiled his motion to quash the amended writ, which motion was overruled. Answer and reply were filed and the cause proceeded to trial. Judgment was entered ordering respondent to sign the school warrants. From this judgment, the respondent (appellant here) appealed.
Relators Foster, Hamby, Wynne and Bulyar are four of the five directors of the school district, and relator, Rosalie Hamilton, is the school teacher.
It is stipulated by the parties that no questions will be presented on this appeal, except the questions of law raised in paragraphs 1 and 3 of appellant's motion for new trial. These questions are: that the court erred in overruling the motion to quash the writ because (a) the petition and the first amended writ wholly fail to state a claim against the respondent upon which relief by mandamus can be granted; and (b) that the amended writ does not contain a copy of the petition, and that said writ is broader than the allegations contained in the petition. All evidence is omitted from the transcript.
Appellant's brief abandons proposition (b), and we will confine our discussion to questions raised under proposition (a).
It is conceded that in mandamus proceedings the alternative writ is the first or basic pleading, and that a motion to quash admits all facts well pleaded. State ex rel. Sharp v. Knight, 224 Mo.App. 761, 26 S.W.2d 1011, 1016; State ex rel. Dilliner v. Cummins, 338 Mo. 609, 92 S.W.2d 605, 607; State ex rel. v. Darby, 33 Mo. 1145, 64 S.W.2d 911.
The writ alleges that respondent, Loren Griffin, is President of the Board of Directors of Brimson School District No. 33 of Grundy County, Missouri; that relator, Rosalie Hamilton, a qualified school teacher, made application on April 25, 1950, to the Board of Directors of said School District to teach said school for the ensuing term; that said application is as follows: ; that on said date the Board took the following action, as shown by the minutes: ; that pursuant to said application and minute record of said Board, the teacher was employed; that subsequent to said employment the Board caused to be prepared a written contract on a regular form provided by school authorities. The contract is set out in full in the writ. It is dated August 30, 1950, and, among other things, recites that the school term is for eight months and fixes the salary at $200 per month, to be paid monthly, and that the Board agrees to issue warrants upon the school treasurer for the salary of said teacher. This contract was signed by the respondent (appellant) as President of the School Board, but there is no allegation that it was signed by the teacher. The writ alleges 'that subsequent to the signing of the above instrument by the respondent the said Board caused to be prepared another written contract for signature in words and figures as follows: * * *.' This second contract bore the same date as the first contract and is identical in all respects except that it was not signed by respondent, but was signed by relator, Hamilton, and by the Clerk of the School Board. There is this further difference in the two contracts: on the first, below the place for the signature of the President and teacher, appear these words: '50 hours of college credit at Colorado State College'; while on the second contract appears this notation: 'Rosalie will have 50 hours of college credit at Colorado State College of Education.' The writ alleges that relator, Hamilton, has fully performed her services to the District from the date of employment to the filing of the petition for mandamus; that warrants for the payment of each month's salary had been duly issued and presented to respondent for his signature as President of the Board, but that he failed and refused to sign said warrants, as required by law; that she has not been paid for her services, and that she has no adequate remedy at law; 'that said teacher has been legally employed to teach said school by written instruments, application and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Kopper Kettle Restaurants, Inc. v. City of St. Robert
...marginally in note 7 afford ample authority for our consideration of 'all facts well pleaded' (State ex rel. Foster v. Griffin, Mo.App., 246 S.W.2d 396, 397(2)) in both the petition for the alternative writ and the writ itself. State ex rel. and to Use of Markwell v. Colt, Mo.App., 199 S.W.......
-
Lynch v. Webb City School Dist. No. 92
...'shall be construed under the general law of contracts.' Section 163.100 (now § 168.121; L.1963 p. 284 § 9--12); State ex rel. Foster v. Griffin, Mo.App., 246 S.W.2d 396, 398. Hence, it has been recognized in numerous cases that a teacher's contract need not be 'in any particular form' (Edw......
-
Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co.
...21, 1970, agreement and the supplemental letter agreements, for a contract may be made up of several documents. State ex rel. Foster v. Griffin, 246 S.W.2d 396, 398 (Mo.App.1952). Second, "the consideration for a contract will not be held uncertain if by the application of the usual tests o......
-
Hoevelman v. Reorganized School Dist. R2 of Crawford County, 8887
...the requirements of § 432.070. First Nat. Bank of Stoutland v. Stoutland Sch. Dist., Mo., 319 S.W.2d 570, 573(4); State ex rel. Foster v. Griffin, Mo.App., 246 S.W.2d 396, 398(4 and 6); Edwards v. School Dist. No. 73 of Christian County, 221 Mo.App. 47, 50, 297 S.W. 1001, 1002(2). §§ 162.30......