McNolty v. Board of School Directors

Wisconsin Supreme Court

McNolty v. Board of School Directors

78 N.W. 439, 102 Wis. 261, 1899 Wisc. LEXIS 41

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 21, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 78 N.W. 439 (McNolty v. Board of School Directors) 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

McNolty v. Board of School Directors, 78 N.W. 439, 102 Wis. 261, 1899 Wisc. LEXIS 41 (Wis. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

A verdict for the defendant in this case should have been directed, because there was no legal contract between the parties after'the expiration of the first three months of service. This school was operated under the township system, and the employment of teachers was in the hands of the executive committee, composed of the president, vice-president, and secretary of the town board of school directors. R. S. 1878, sec. 528. The manner in which a teacher’s contract must be made is contained in sec. 529, as amended by Laws of 1887, ch. 297, as follows: “ The executive committee shall employ so many qualified teachers as they shall deem necessary to give instruction in all the schools under the charge of the board. Each contract shall be in writing; shall be signed by the teacher and by the president and secretary; shall specify the wages per week, month or year agreed upon by the parties, and when completed shall be filed in the office of the secretary of the town' board of school directors, with a copy of the teacher’s certificate attached thereto.” •

It is familiar law that when a board of public officers is about to perform an act requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment the members must all meet and confer together, or must all be properly notified of such meeting, in [264]*264order to make’the action binding. Individual and independent action, even by a majority of the members of the board, will not suffice. Martin v. Lemon, 26 Conn. 192; School Dist. v. Baier, 98 Wis. 22. In the present case, even conceding that the president and secretary of the town board of school directors individually signed a contract for the teaching of the school by the plaintiff for another six months, still no binding contract was made, because the executive committee never authorized such a contract, and the action of two of the three members of the committee would not be sufficient. This consideration seems to dispose of the entire case. There was never a contract made, except the three-months contract. The powers of school-district officers are limited, and can only be exercised as the statute provides, and the plaintiff is legally charged with notice of the extent of such powers and the manner in which they must be exercised.

By the Oourt.— 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.

A verdict for the defendant in this case should have been directed, because there was no legal contract between the parties after'the expiration of the first three months of service. This school was operated under the township system, and the employment of teachers was in the hands of the executive committee, composed of the president, vice-president, and secretary of the town board of school directors. R. S. 1878, sec. 528. The manner in which a teacher’s contract must be made is contained in sec. 529, as amended by Laws of 1887, ch. 297, as follows: “ The executive committee shall employ so many qualified teachers as they shall deem necessary to give instruction in all the schools under the charge of the board. Each contract shall be in writing; shall be signed by the teacher and by the president and secretary; shall specify the wages per week, month or year agreed upon by the parties, and when completed shall be filed in the office of the secretary of the town' board of school directors, with a copy of the teacher’s certificate attached thereto.” •

It is familiar law that when a board of public officers is about to perform an act requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment the members must all meet and confer together, or must all be properly notified of such meeting, in [264]*264order to make’the action binding. Individual and independent action, even by a majority of the members of the board, will not suffice. Martin v. Lemon, 26 Conn. 192; School Dist. v. Baier, 98 Wis. 22. In the present case, even conceding that the president and secretary of the town board of school directors individually signed a contract for the teaching of the school by the plaintiff for another six months, still no binding contract was made, because the executive committee never authorized such a contract, and the action of two of the three members of the committee would not be sufficient. This consideration seems to dispose of the entire case. There was never a contract made, except the three-months contract. The powers of school-district officers are limited, and can only be exercised as the statute provides, and the plaintiff is legally charged with notice of the extent of such powers and the manner in which they must be exercised.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 N.W. 439, 102 Wis. 261, 1899 Wisc. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnolty-v-board-of-school-directors-wis-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack