Clune v. School District No. 3

Schools and school districts: Hiring of teacher: Validity of contract: Teachers’ certificates: Issuance and annulment: Fraud: Review of superintendent’s action: Teacher's contract: Abrogation: Destruction of schoolhouse: Recovery of agreed salary. 1. Findings by tbe trial court, supported by the evidence, to the effect that the school board of the defendant district met on a certain day, that all members were present, that it unanimously voted to hire plaintiff to teach the school for the term of nine months beginning on a certain day and agreed to pay him a specified sum per month, and that the contract was reduced to writing and signed by all the school officers and by plaintiff, sufficiently show a valid contract of hiring by the board, in spite of some informalities' in the proceedings. 2. Under secs. 451-453, 461, 497, 497a, Stats., the issuance and annulment of teachers’ certificates- is placed under the control of the county and state superintendents, and in an action to recover for services in teaching school, brought against a school district by the holder of a teacher’s certificate duly issued to him by the county superintendent, which certificate had not been annulled and was in full force and effect, no review of the action of the superintendent was proper; hence allegations of the answer to the effect that the certificate was procured by fraud and collusion were properly stricken out. " S. Where a teacher’s contract of employment for a definite term contains no stipulation as to termination of the contract or deduction from the agreed salary in case of the destruction of the schoolhouse by fire or otherwise, no deduction can be made on that account without his consent. 4. A contract of employment made by a school district with a teacher cannot be abrogated or modified by the district without the teacher’s consent. 5. Where after the destruction of the schoolhouse there was talk among the members of the school board of renting a place for the school, and the teacher was obliged to and did hold himself in readiness to comply with the terms of his contract, and, though he made some effort, he failed to obtain another position as teacher, he was entitled to recover the agreed compensation for the term for which he was hired.

Appeal from a judgment of the municipal court of Outa-gamie county: Albeet M. Spenoeb, Judge. This action was brought to recover for services in teaching school in the defendant’s district for the period of nine months commencing on the 6th day of September, 1915, at $45 per month. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was a duly qualified school teacher and held a certificate authorizing him to teach in the public schools in the county of Outagamie, Wisconsin. The defendant denied the allegation that the plaintiff was duly qualified and alleged, among other things, fraud and collusion in procuring his certificate, and set up the specific acts that constitute fraud and collusion. On motion the allegations in the answer setting up fraud and collusion were stricken out. The case was tried by the court and the following findings made: “1. That the plaintiff held a second-grade teacher’s certificate duly issued to him on the 31st day of August, A. D. 1914, by the county superintendent of schools in and for Out-agamie county, Wisconsin, authorizing the plaintiff to teach in Outagamie county for a term of three years from the date thereof, which certificate was not annulled and was in full force and effect, and that the plaintiff was in all respects duly qualified to teach the defendant’s school during the school year 1915 and 1916. “2. That on the 5th day of June, A. D. 1915, the school board of the defendant school district, at a meeting duly held at which all members were present, unanimously voted to hire the plaintiff, and entered into a contract with the plaintiff to teach defendant’s school in said district for the term of nine months commencing on the 6th day of September, A. D. 1915, for which the defendant district agreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of forty-five ($45) dollars per month, and the said contract was reduced to writing and signed by all members of the school board of defendant district and by plaintiff, and a copy of plaintiff’s certificate to teach, together with said contract, was filed with the clerk of the defendant district as the statutes provide; and there Was also signed by the school board of defendant district and plaintiff, Exhibit ‘B,’ and delivered to plaintiff, bearing date May 29, 1915, but was in fact signed by the school board of the defendant and plaintiff on the 5th day of June, A. D. 1915. “3. That the electors of defendant school district at a regular meeting determined to have nine months’ school, beginning the first Monday of September, A. D. 1915. “4. That the plaintiff was at all times ready and willing to teach the school of the defendant district and was ready and willing to comply with all the conditions of his said contract in every respect, and this was made known to defendant. “5. That after the making of said contract and before the commencement of said term, the schoolhouse of said defendant district was totally destroyed by fire. “6. That on the 14th day of August, A. D. 1915, the school board of said defendant district held a regular meeting in conjunction with a. building committee of defendant school district, at which meeting it was decided to let a contract for building a new schoolhouse for said district to the Mielke Construction Company for the sum of twenty-two hundred sixty-five ($2,265) dollars. “1. That the schoolhouse contracted to be built was not constructed, and while the plaintiff was informed by members of the school board of the defendant district at different times that it would rent a room or place for holding school, the defendant never furnished a schoolhouse or room of any kind for plaintiff to teach school in, and prevented the plaintiff from performing the conditions of his said contract, all without any fault or neglect on plaintiff’s part. “8. That the defendant, without just cause or legal right for so doing, breached its contract with plaintiff. “9. That the plaintiff made due demand of defendant for the amounts due him according to the terms of said contract after the same became due and before the commencement of this action, but said demand was refused. “10. That plaintiff did not in any way, either expressly or impliedly, consent to a termination or alteration of his said contract, and held himself in readiness and was willing to teach defendant’s school and perform as provided in and by the terms of said contract, from which employment he was never discharged, and that- during said term he earned no wages in other employment. “11. That nothing has been paid under said contract by the defendant to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of four hundred five ($405) dollars; that the interest thereon from commencement of this action amounts to $8.08.” And found as conclusions of law: “1. That the plaintiff was in all respects duly qualified and authorized to teach defendant’s school during the school year of 1915 and 1916. “2. That said contract entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendant was in all respects' legal and valid, and was breached by the defendant. “3. That the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the defendant in the sum of four hundred five ($405) dollars damages and eight and 8-100 ($8.08) dollars interest, together with the costs and disbursements of this action.” Judgment was entered accordingly in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant, from which this appeal was taken.