Wayne County v. Hopper

• Decision Date: 25 June 1917
• Docket Number: 19489
• Citation: 114 Miss. 755,75 So. 766
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: WAYNE COUNTY v. HOPPER

75 So. 766

114 Miss. 755

WAYNE COUNTY v. HOPPER

No. 19489

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 25, 1917

Division B

APPEAL from the circuit court of Wayne county, HON. R. W HEIDELBERG, Judge.

Suit by H. L. Hopper against Wayne County. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment reversed.

Luther K. Saul, for appellant.

The decision of the court in this suit rests upon the answer to the two questions: Did the board of supervisors have the legal authority to allow the appellee's salary; and can he recover upon a suit of quantum meruit?

Section 4541 of the Code of 1906, is as follows: "It shall be unlawful for a county superintendent, or the trustees of a separate school district, to contract with a teacher who does not hold a license valid for the scholastic year in which the school is to be taught, etc."

Chapter 185 of the Laws of 1914, reads: "That all teachers in agricultural high schools shall pass an examination in the free school studies and in addition thereto an examination on the subjects they are required to teach in said schools etc."

The last sentence of section 2 of chapter 122 of the Laws of 1910, reads: "The tax so collected shall be deposited with the county treasurer to be paid out by him on order of the board of trustees for the high school or high schools."

Section 3 of the same laws places the government and control of the agricultural high schools in five trustees, one of whom shall be the county superintendent of education and they elect teachers and fix salaries, etc.

It will be thus observed at once by this court that the board of supervisors are not charged with the distribution of the funds belonging to the agricultural high school as the law creating such schools places the disbursement of these funds under the direct control of the trustees of these schools,--hence the appellee had no valid claim against the county for his salary.

It will be also observed that the appellee, by his pleadings says that the board of trustees of the agricultural high school had allowed his salary and why he did not present his order to the county treasurer and receive his pay the records does not disclose. Nor does the record show that he did present his order to the county treasurer and that the treasurer refused to pay him. His remedy is against the board of trustees if they refused to allow his salary or if the treasurer refuses to pay him, his suit would be against him. So it follows that this suit cannot be entertained against the county.

I now turn to the second question and call the court's attention to section 4541 of the Code of 1906 and chapter 185 of the Laws of 1914, from the reading of which it will be observed that it does not matter what a person's qualifications as a teacher may be, it is essential and a prerequisite that he must have a license. This is not a condition of the contract, but is a command of the law. See Jackson School Township v. Farlow, 75 Ind. 118. Where a teacher is required to have a license, as by express command of the law, his failure to so have, renders a contract with him void and he cannot recover for services as a teacher nor for damages. See 35 Cyc., 1070 and citations.

Nor can he recover on the contract or upon a quantum meruit. See Goose River Bank v. Willow Lake School Township., 26 Am. St. Rep. 605, 44 N.W. 1002, wherein CORLISS, Chancellor said: "There is no force in the position that the defendant, having received the benefit of the teacher's services is liable. Such a doctrine would defeat the policy of the law, which is to give the people of the state the benefit of trained and competent teachers. The law recognizes only one evidence that that policy has been regarded, the certificate of qualification. If the defendant could be made liable by the mere receipt of the benefit of the services rendered, the law prohibiting the employment of teachers without certificates, and declaring all contracts void made in contravention of that provision would be, in effect, repealed, and the protection of the people against incompetent and unfit teachers, which such statute was enacted to accomplish, would be destroyed."

For a full discussion of this subject I specially cite Schafer v. Johns, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.), page 411, and the notes therein. It has been held that a teacher cannot recover compensation under an illegal contract. 35 Cyc., 1099 and note 83.

The case of Crump v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Miss. 107, does not apply in this case, which upon a casual examination the court will discern.

It is contended by appellee that his duties were many besides that of teaching and also that he was elected "director." The statute creating the agricultural high schools does not give the board of trustees the authority to create high salaried offices, fill them with whomsoever they may choose and pay the holders thereof out of the funds belonging to these schools. It only contemplated the employing of common hands such as servants, etc. If the appellee was not a teacher in the school as the law contemplates, he was then filling an office which the board of trustees had no authority to create and being without legislative authority so to do, the appellee cannot recover for his services. See McGillic v. Corby, 17 L. R. A. (N. S) 1263.

The question might arise that the appellee was a defacto officer of the school and if it does, he cannot recover, because his suit would put into question his legal right to such office. Christian v. Gibbs, 53 Miss. 314; Matthews v. Copiah County, 53 Miss. 715; and Vicksburg v. Groome, 24 So. 306.

I, therefore respectfully insist that the judgment of lower court should be reversed and the appellee's suit dismissed.

Heidelberg & Johnston, for appellee

From the statement of facts, which are admitted, it is shown that the plaintiff was not employed to teach, and was not paid for teaching; that as director, he was employed and performed certain duties, which did not embrace that of teaching, and that these duties were faithfully and efficiently performed, and the board agreed to pay for them, and that these duties, which did not embrace that of teaching, were worth the amount sued for; that while it is true he taught about one-sixth of his time during the school term, that this was a mere incident to his employment as director, and that his contract did not carry with it the duty to teach, that even during the time he was not teaching he was to receive the same salary as that he received when he was teaching.

Counsel for appellant is therefore mistaken when he says that judgment was rendered in favor of the appellee against the appellant for "services rendered as teacher and director of the agricultural high school of Wayne county."

Now, does the fact that the plaintiff performed other duties in addition to those he was employed to perform, for which additional duties he could not recover, debar him of the right to sue for those he was employed to perform, and which he did perform, when these duties were worth and the defendants agree to pay, all he contends for.

The counsel for the appellant has throughout his brief argued the first count of the declaration, when as to this count, he won his contention in the lower court. He seems to evade the second count, as the court knows an agricultural high school requires work other than teaching. The stock must be cared for; the soil prepared, planted and tilled; the dormitory looked after; groceries bought and sold, besides numerous other things. Under the provisions of section 3 of chapter 122 of the Laws of 1910, the last sentence thereof trustees have the authority to elect and fix salaries of teachers and employees. This section is amended by chapter 186 of the Laws of 1914, and by this amendment it is provided that the trustees have the right to elect and fix the salaries of teachers and do all things necessary for the successful operation of the school. The above laws recognize the fact that employees other than teachers are necessary for the carrying on of the school. Surely these provisions authorized the employment of H. L. Hopper as director of said school. The appellee, in his second count, alleges that he was the director of said school; that his duties as such consisted in performing those already enumerated; that he did perform said duties; that the board of trustees was under contract to pay for them; and that they were allowed. Since the services are alleged to be worth one hundred and twenty-five dollars per month, this not being denied by appellant, but necessarily admitted by his demurrer, why isn't the county liable therefor?

As the court will see from the second count of the declaration not only did the appellee perform services as an employee, but these services were accepted and the contract of hire ratified by the board of trustees. In other words, Mr Hopper, the appellee, working under an implied promise to pay, performed services as an...