Manthey v. School District No. 6 of Commonwealth

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Manthey v. School District No. 6 of Commonwealth

82 N.W. 132, 106 Wis. 340, 1900 Wisc. LEXIS 28

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 20, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 82 N.W. 132 (Manthey v. School District No. 6 of Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manthey v. School District No. 6 of Commonwealth, 82 N.W. 132, 106 Wis. 340, 1900 Wisc. LEXIS 28 (Wis. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

WiNslow, J.

The plaintiff is a qualified school teacher, and brought this action to recover damages for the breach of a written contract alleged to have been made by her with defendant’s school board to teach the district school for nine months, commencing September 13, 1897. There was no dispute in the material facts. The contract was in due form, and was signed by the director, treasurer, and clerk of the defendant district, and by the plaintiff, but was never authorized by any vote or at any meeting of the district board. The plaintiff taught six months, and was paid therefor by orders in the usual way, but was then discharged by the board. A verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of damages shown on account of the refusal to allow her to teach for the remaining three months was directed, and judgment rendered on the verdict.

It is clear that the verdict was wrongly directed. The case is identical in its essential facts with the case of McNolty v. School Directors, 102 Wis. 261, and is ruled thereby. The board could only make the contract in the manner provided by sec. 432, Stats. 1898. That section provides that “ no act authorized to be done by the board shall be valid unless voted at its meeting.” The alleged contract in this case was therefore void, and no rights can be based upon it.

By the Court.— Judgment reversed, and action remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WiNslow, J.

The plaintiff is a qualified school teacher, and brought this action to recover damages for the breach of a written contract alleged to have been made by her with defendant’s school board to teach the district school for nine months, commencing September 13, 1897. There was no dispute in the material facts. The contract was in due form, and was signed by the director, treasurer, and clerk of the defendant district, and by the plaintiff, but was never authorized by any vote or at any meeting of the district board. The plaintiff taught six months, and was paid therefor by orders in the usual way, but was then discharged by the board. A verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of damages shown on account of the refusal to allow her to teach for the remaining three months was directed, and judgment rendered on the verdict.

It is clear that the verdict was wrongly directed. The case is identical in its essential facts with the case of McNolty v. School Directors, 102 Wis. 261, and is ruled thereby. The board could only make the contract in the manner provided by sec. 432, Stats. 1898. That section provides that “ no act authorized to be done by the board shall be valid unless voted at its meeting.” The alleged contract in this case was therefore void, and no rights can be based upon it.

By the Court.— Judgment reversed, and action remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.W. 132, 106 Wis. 340, 1900 Wisc. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manthey-v-school-district-no-6-of-commonwealth-wis-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack