Dodd v. Board of Education
This text of 167 S.E. 319 (Dodd v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1. . No contract made by a county board of education for the employment of a teacher to serve in the schools under the jurisdiction of the board is legal or possesses any validity, where it is not in writing. Orr v. Riley, 160 Ga. 480 (128 S. E. 669); Ga. L. 1872, p. 64; Michie’s Code (1926), § 1551(94-1/2). Since a county board of education is a political body and has no power other than that conferred by statutory authority, no contract made by the board, which is illegal and invalid because it is not in writing as required by the statute, is, as provided in section 3223 of the Civil Code of 1910 relative to exceptions to the application of the statute of frauds, enforceable against the board, notwithstanding a part performance of the contract by the opposite party thereto. See, in this connection, Jones v. Bank of Cumming, 131 Ga. 191 (62 S. E. 68).
2. In a suit against a county board of education to recover damages for a breach by the defendant of a contract of employment of the plaintiff to teach in the schools, arising out of a discharge of the plaintiff by the defendant before the expiration of the term, where it appeared conclusively, from undisputed evidence, that the alleged contract was not in writing, although the plaintiff had partly performed the contract, the court did not err in granting a nonsuit.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
167 S.E. 319, 46 Ga. App. 235, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodd-v-board-of-education-gactapp-1933.