From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stricklin v. Copeland

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B
Feb 27, 1933
146 So. 311 (Miss. 1933)

Opinion

No. 30456.

February 27, 1933.

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Whether election of school principal by trustees was conditioned on appointee's making up certain college work held for jury under conflicting evidence.

APPEAL from Circuit Court of Tishomingo County.

W.B. Ellis, of Iuka, for appellant.

It is evident from all the testimony, both for petitioner and defendant that the selection of plaintiff by the trustees was contingent on his preparing himself by acquiring the units required by law.

J.A. Cunningham and Floyd Cunningham, both of Booneville, for appellants.

One of the duties of the county superintendents is to employ for each school under his superintendency, such teacher or teachers as may be recommended by the local trustees, provided such teacher or teachers shall be recommended on or before June 15th of each year.

Section 6570, Code of 1930.

The appellee was never recommended by them as local trustees to the county superintendent prior to June 15th of the year in controversy, because the condition upon which the teacher was elected, and the condition prescribed in the certificates of election was such as to make the recommendation entirely ineffective.

Conditions in a contract, either precedent or subsequent, which are not complied with by the contracting party upon whom the condition is imposed, render the contract unenforceable.

13 C.J., pages 564-565, sections 531-533.

The evidence shows that the appellee has no right of action under the law, and that there is no merit to his claims, either in law or in good conscience, and the peremptory instruction should have been granted, and judgment rendered for the appellants in the court below.

C.L. Sumners, of Corinth, for appellee.

The issue was joined on the question of whether appellee was elected on the condition that he attend summer school and make fifteen quarter hours. The appeal is apparently from the verdict of the jury, and the facts in the case certainly sustain the verdict.

Appellee held a first grade license which was the highest required by law.

Section 8685, Hemingway's Code of 1927.

The trustees of the school had the right and the duty to elect the teachers, and if the teachers were elected and the notice given to the superintendent within the time required by law, it was the duty of the superintendent to contract with the teachers selected by the trustees.

Sec. 8712, Hem. 1927 Code.

Not only is there sufficient evidence in this case to support the verdict of the jury, but in view of all the admissions it would be difficult to find support for the contrary verdict.


The appellant, George W. Stricklin, was county superintendent of education of Tishomingo county, and the other appellants were trustees of the Snowdown consolidated school. B.C. Copeland, the appellee, was the principal of said consolidated school for the term of 1928-1929. On the 30th day of March, 1929, he was re-elected as principal of said school, but there is a dispute as to whether the election was conditional or unconditional.

According to the theory of the appellee, Copeland, he was elected unconditionally. Acting thereon, he drew his certificate of election to be certified to by the county superintendent of education, and the county superintendent refused to contract with Copeland, a licensed, qualified teacher, ready and willing to carry out his contract and teach said school.

According to the theory of the appellants, it was understood and agreed at the meeting at which Copeland was so elected that he would go to college before school opened, and make up fifteen quarter hours. The trustees claimed that they agreed to re-elect Copeland on condition that he would go to college and make up these quarter hours which he lacked in having enough units to give their consolidated school a good standing with the School Accrediting Association of High Schools.

One of the trustees testified that this agreement was made in the presence of Copeland, and that he agreed to it, but, after he left, they discussed the matter and decided it was better to have this agreement in the written certificate to the superintendent of education, and that it was written in said agreement by the trustees after Copeland had gone. This inserted clause reads as follows: "It is agreed that Mr. B.C. Copeland is to go to college and make 15 q. hs. before school opens or his election is null and void." The certificate was written out by Copeland in its original form without this clause, reading as follows:

"Tishomingo County. March 30, 1929.

"This certifies that at a meeting held by the trustees of Snowdown consolidated school district on March 30, 1929, the following teachers were elected: B.C. Copeland, for principal, Mrs. O.B. Edmundson, first assistant, and Miss Lizzie Williams, second assistant. This election was held in accordance with the law as found in section 75, School Code of 1924; `Sec. 75. To Select Teachers. The trustees shall meet annually, on or before the 15th day of July to select a teacher or teachers for their school and they shall at once notify the county superintendent of their selection. If the trustees fail so to report, or if the teacher fails to obtain a license, the superintendent shall appoint a licensed teacher or teachers as the case may be. Any election of teachers by trustees for the ensuing school term, before the annual election of trustees, shall be illegal. It shall be illegal for the trustees to elect, or the county superintendent to appoint, any teacher related within the third degree by blood or marriage to a majority of the trustees. No trustee shall vote for any person as teacher related to him within the third degree by blood or marriage, or who is dependent upon him in a financial way.'

"It is further determined that the school be taught during the winter and summer.

"Witness our signatures this the 30th day of March, 192 . . .

"J.W. Thomas, "Drew Chalmers, "W.H. Yarber, "Trustees."

Copeland's testimony is that he did not make such agreement, and that no mention was made of it for some time after the meeting of March 30, 1929; that he had three years of college training, but that the superintendent would not contract with him, and his information is that the superintendent called the attention of the trustees to the fact that he was not agreeable to the superintendent, and that the school could not get credits to admit its students to other high schools or colleges if Copeland did not qualify.

It is admitted in the record that Copeland had a teacher's license which qualified him to teach the school.

The case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for Copeland on a conflict of evidence as to whether or not the alleged clause was in the contract. Stricklin, the county superintendent of education, admitted that he would not contract with Copeland because he lacked these quarter hours, whatever they may signify in school parlance.

The jury found that Copeland had a valid, unconditional contract to teach the school, and that he did not consent to the insertion of the clause above quoted, and that, as he had a valid license, it was the duty of the superintendent to contract with him.

We do not decide whether the trustees could have imposed such a condition as a condition of making the contract. For the purpose of this discussion, we will assume they could do so.

The case is one for the jury, and by their verdict they have decided in favor of Copeland. The court below entered judgment in favor of Copeland, and its judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Stricklin v. Copeland

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B
Feb 27, 1933
146 So. 311 (Miss. 1933)
Case details for

Stricklin v. Copeland

Case Details

Full title:STRICKLIN et al. v. COPELAND

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B

Date published: Feb 27, 1933

Citations

146 So. 311 (Miss. 1933)
146 So. 311

Citing Cases

Whitehurst v. Smith

That a teacher has a valuable right which entitles him to mandamus, and that mandamus is the proper remedy in…

Crowson v. Crawford

Cited and discussed the following: Brown v. Owen, 75 Miss. 319, 23 So. 35; McGaha v. Curlee, et al., 176…