Wells v. People Ex Rel. Henry Daniels.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1874
• Citation: 71 Ill. 532,1874 WL 8714
• Parties: WILLIAM D. WELLSv.THE PEOPLE ex rel. Henry Daniels.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

71 Ill. 532

1874 WL 8714 (Ill.)

WILLIAM D. WELLS

v.THE PEOPLE ex rel. Henry Daniels.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1874.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Greene county; the Hon. CYRUS EPLER, Judge, presiding.

This was a proceeding by mandamus in the court below, where a peremptory writ was awarded, and the respondent appealed. Messrs. HODGES & BURR, for the appellant.

Messrs. WOODSON & WITHERS, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

The relator entered into a contract with the directors of a certain school district to teach a common school in their district, for the term of six months, at $45 per month. When the contract was made, he had no certificate of qualification as required by law, but obtained one when he had taught about three months of the term. He then learned that he could not lawfully receive his compensation, under his contract, from the school fund, in consequence of not having had the necessary certificate when the contract was made. He thereupon applied to the directors, and they and he, by mutual consent, canceled the former contract, and made a new one, whereby he was to teach a common school, for three months from that time, at $90 per month. His testimony is, that he was unwilling to teach longer at the price first agreed upon, and lose for the time that he had already taught; that he had an opportunity of doing better at other business; that he so informed the directors, and they then agreed to pay him $90 per month to teach three months longer.

It is clear, from the evidence, and not denied in the argument of counsel, that the real purpose in contracting to pay the relator $90 for services which had been before contracted for at $45, was to carry out, indirectly, the original contract. The relator taught the three months stipulated for by the last contract, kept the necessary schedules, which were properly certified by the directors, and filed as required by law. He received, also, orders from the directors upon the respondent, as township treasurer, for his pay, which we will assume were properly presented, and payment thereof demanded from the respondent. The respondent refused to make payment, on the ground of the illegality of the orders. An alternative writ was waived, and, on hearing, the court below awarded a peremptory writ. From this the respondent appealed, and now asks a reversal of that order.

“The board of school directors, though a corporation, are possessed of certain specially defined powers, and can exercise no others, except such as result, by fair implication, from the powers granted.” Glidden et al. v. Hopkins, use, etc. 47 Ill. 529.

They are expressly empowered, by the 48th section of the act entitled “An act to establish and maintain common schools,” in force July 1, 1872, to “appoint teachers, and fix the amount of their salaries,” but this is qualified by the language of the 52d section of the same act, which provides that “no teacher shall be entitled to any portion of the common school, or township, or other public fund, or be employed to teach any school under the control of any board of directors of any school district in this...