Tate v. School District
| Decision Date | 03 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 27980.,27980. |
| Citation | 23 S.W.2d 1013 |
| Parties | GLADYS E. TATE v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11 OF GENTRY COUNTY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Gentry Circuit Court. — Hon. John M. Dawson, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
A.F. Harvey and J.W. McKnight for appellant.
(1) A contract by a board of a common-school district, entered into on December 18, 1924, for the employment of a teacher for a term to commence on August 3rd ensuing, is contrary to the public policy of the State, as expressed in Sec. 11210, subdivs. 4, 6, 9, and Secs. 11137, 11138, 11142, 12766, 12820, and 12854, R.S. 1919. Loomis v. Coleman, 51 Mo. 21; Crabb v. School District, 93 Mo. App. 261; Burkhead v. Independence School District (Iowa), 77 N.W. 291; 15 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 963; Ins. Co. v. Ry. Co., 74 Mo. App. 96; 13 C.J. 49. (2) The alleged order of the board of directors and the contract thereunder entered into on December 18, 1924, to pay a teacher $720 for eight months' term of school commencing August 3rd following, violated the provisions of Sec. 12, Art. 10, Constitution of Missouri, in that it creates an indebtedness in 1924, beyond the income and revenue provided to pay the same, and such indebtedness cannot be created until the tax levy has been authorized to pay the same. Trask v. Livingston County, 210 Mo. 595; State, ex rel. Christian Co. v. Gordon, 265 Mo. 181; State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 280 Mo. 686, 218 S.W. 318; 41 A.L.R. 806, note; Burney v. School District, 251 Pac. (Okla.) 737; Wright v. Board of Education, 246 S.W. 43. If a statute creating a corporation and providing for its proceedings shall require such proceedings to be preserved in a record book kept for that purpose, then such record book is the only proper evidence of such proceedings, and such proceedings must be shown by the record book and not by a scrap of paper unattached thereto, nor by parol evidence. Secs. 11220, 11215, 11137, R.S. 1919; Kane & Co. v. District of Calhoun, 48 Mo. App. 408; Surveying Co. v. St. Louis, 68 Mo. App. 187; State v. Lawrence, 178 Mo. 350; State v. Trimble, 309 Mo. 546, 274 S.W. 683; Light & Magnetic Water Co. v. City of Lebanon, 163 Mo. 254; City of Brunswick ex rel. v. Scott, 219 Mo. App. 45, 275 S.W. 994; Carter v. Reynolds Co., 315 Mo. 1233, 288 S.W. 50; Stewart v. Clinton, 79 Mo. 603; State ex rel. v. Ry. Co., 315 Mo. 430, 286 S.W. 363; 34 Cyc. 588. (3) Sec. 11137, R.S. 1919, among other things, says "the certificate must be in force for the full time for which the contract is made." If so, a valid contract cannot be made with a teacher who does not possess such a certificate, which it is conceded in this case she did not possess. 35 Cyc. 1070; 13 C.J. 424; Downing v. Ringer, 7 Mo. 585; State v. Cox, 268 S.W. 89; Live Stock Assn. v. L. & C. Co., 138 Mo. 394; Tri-State Amusement Co. v. Amusement Co., 192 Mo. 423; Howell v. Conn. Fire Ins. Co., 257 S.W. 178; Richards v. Richardson, 168 S.W. (Tex.) 50; Hosmer v. Sheldon School District, 59 N.W. (N.D.) 1035. (4) There being no record entry of the proceedings of the board of December 18, 1924, authorizing the employment of the plaintiff for the term in question, the district was not estopped by the wrongful act of Cottrill and Ward in entering into the contract sued upon; and through its board, as constituted after the annual election could lawfully employ another teacher for the term in question. Mechem on Public Offices, sec. 924; Cheeney v. Inhabitants of Town of Brookfield, 60 Mo. 53; Edwards v. Kirkwood, 147 Mo. App. 617. (5) This being an action in which fraudulent and arbitrary conduct and conduct in derogation of public rights and public welfare, was charged against directors Cottrill and Ward, in attempting to hire the plaintiff as a teacher at the time and under the circumstances in evidence, the court should have permitted to be introduced all of the evidence throwing any light on the motives that prompted the action, and the facts and circumstances under which such action was had; and should have permitted the defendant to show the character of the work done by the plaintiff in conducting the school and the complaints made about the same by the patrons of the school, and the knowledge thereof of directors Ward and Cottrill, at the time of the alleged employment on December 18, 1924. State v. Ry. Co., 286 S.W. 363. (6) Instructions given on behalf of the plaintiff permitted the jury to find for the plaintiff upon oral testimony alone, as to the order of the board directing the employment, and upon the contract alone, without an order of the board directing the employment. They fail to inform the jury as to what acts on the part of the board were necessary in order that there might be an employment; and are a roving commission to find from any source whatsoever that the employment was directed by the Board whether there was any evidence to support such finding. It was the province of the court, and not that of the jury to determine the legality of the execution of the contract in question and whether or not it had been properly authorized by the board. City of Brunswick v. Scott, 219 Mo. App. 45; State v. Trimble, 274 S.W. 683. (7) Even though the plaintiff had no knowledge of the fraudulent purpose and design of Cottrill and Ward to thwart the will of the voters, as it might be expressed, at the ensuing annual election, when she accepted the contract, she ratified the purpose for and the means by which it was secured and the court should have given without modifications defendant's Instruction 0. 13 C.J. 424; Clifford Bank Co. v. Donovan Commission Co., 195 Mo. 290. (8) Plaintiff's Instructions 10 and 11 were erroneous in that they did not require the plaintiff to exercise due diligence in the matter of seeking other employment of a similar character, and this in view of the notice given May 5th, to the effect that the board would not be bound by her alleged employment. There was no evidence to give reasonable hope or expectation that she would be called upon to teach the term in question. Edwards v. School District, 297 S.W. 1001; Matthews v. Wallace, 104 Mo. App. 96; 13 C.J. 651. (9) Even in those jurisdictions which recognize the right of a school board to employ a teacher for a term extending beyond their own terms of office, such employment must be made in good faith and without fraud or collusion. 35 Cyc. 1079-1080; Davis v. Public Schools, 175 Mich. 105, 140 N.W. 1001; Moon v. South Bend, 50 Ind. App. 251, 98 N.E. 153.
E.G. and J.J. Robison for respondent.
(1) A board of directors has the right to employ teachers for a period extending beyond their term of office, or for the term succeeding their term of office, and a succeeding board cannot ignore such a contract or abrogate it without valid reasons therefor. This is especially true when the membership of the board is a continuing one and not all expiring at the same time, a majority holding over during the time so contracted for. Moon v. School City (Ind.), 98 N.E. 153; Farley v. Board of Education (Okla.), 162 Pac. 797; School District v. Gigax (Colo.), 170 Pac. 184; Rivers v. School District (Okla.), 172 Pac. 778; Gardner v. School District (Ark.), 257 S.W. 73; State ex rel. v. Board of Education (W. Va.), 118 S.E. 877; Gates v. Smith School District, 53 Ark. 468, 10 L.R.A. 186; Taylor v. School District, 16 Wash. 365, 47 Pac. 758; Manley v. Scott, 106 Minn. 142, 121 N.W. 628, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 652, note 657; Splaine v. School District (Wash.), 54 Pac. 766; Farrell v. School District (Mich.), 56 N.W. 1053; Town of Pearsall v. Woolls (Tex.), 50 S.W. 959; 35 Cyc. 1079, sec. 4; 24 R.C.L. 579, sec. 27. (2) A contract with a teacher for the approaching school year does not create an indebtedness under the terms of the Constitution. Saleno v. Neosho, 127 Mo. 627; Water Co. v. Lamar, 140 Mo. 145; State ex rel. v. Neosho, 203 Mo. 75; Myers v. School District (Okla.), 230 Pac. 498; Wyckoff v. Force (Cal.), 214 Pac. 489. (3) The paper written by Ward and signed by himself and Cottrill was sufficient minutes of the proceedings of the board of directors. Foreman v. School District (Ore.), 159 Pac. 1155, 1168; Kinney v. Howard (Iowa), 110 N.W. 282; Quisenberry v. School District (Nebr.), 105 N.W. 982; Slaughtersville School District v. Brooks (Ky.), 173 S.W. 305. Even though there was no minute entry made, parol evidence was admissible to show what was actually done at this meeting. German Ins. Co. v. School District, 80 Fed. 366; School Directors v. Kimball, 31 Ill. App. 537; Pollard v. School District, 65 Ill. App. 104; School District v. McBride, 22 Pa. 215; Roland v. School District (Pa.), 28 Atl. 995; Walker v. Edmond (Pa.), 47 Atl. 867; Morgan v. Wilfley (Iowa), 32 N.W. 265; Alvord v. Chester (Mass.), 61 N.E. 263; McShane v. School District, 70 Mo. App. 628; Decker v. School District, 101 Mo. App. 118; Hibbard v. Smith, 135 Mo. App. 728; Page v. Twp. Board of Education, 59 Mo. 264; Kane v. School District, 48 Mo. App. 415. Sec. 11220, R.S. 1919, merely authorizes the clerks of school districts to purchase the necessary supplies. Secs. 11215 and 11137 are briefed as if they constituted a complete plan and were related to each other, but an examination of the sections will show that neither of them has any relation to the other, and only Section 11215 has any bearing whatever on the case. It merely provides that the clerk shall keep a record of the proceedings. There is another principle of law on which plaintiff was entitled to recover even though no minutes of the meeting of the board on December 18, 1924, were made or preserved by the clerk, and it is this, that contracts for employment of school teachers shall be construed according to the general law of contracts. Sec. 11138, R.S. 1919; Baxter v. School District, 266 S.W. 760, 217 Mo. App. 389. If one party is bound by a contract then both are bound, and in this case the plaintiff was bound by the contract entered into between herself and...
To continue reading
Request your trial