Hon. Artle Stephens, page 2 

vouchera for a period taught before 

receipt of certlflcate? 

‘C. .Asaumlng that under Article 2882 of 

the' Revised Statutes of Texas that the contract 

between the local school board and teaoher was 

for the. reasons herelnbefore mentioned -void, 

then would the School board be authorized to 

make payment of any reasonable amount to 

compensate such teacher for services actually 

performed9” 

Additional fasts ap&arlng in the letter show 

that the teaaher ln question had sufficient eahool credits 

to entitle him to a high sohool &rtifloate except that 

he had not taken two required aourses In government. &ate 

in the month of August he scoured the position to. teaoh 

provided ha oould secure a oertlflaate and tbereupbn signed 

up for the government cotirses in :Texaa Tech and turned In 

his work to the instructor prior to the opening of the 

sehool year, but it was not aoaepted acl satlsfaotqry by the 

instructor ln oharga. Further delay was ocoaaioned by the 

fact that the Instructor took a leave of .absence from Texas 

Tech and the work submitted by the teacher was not’ aooepted 

and the teacherIe certlfloate. issued by the Department of 

Eduoatlon until about February 1, 1940. 

Please accept &r thanks for the brief which 

you have submitted with your letter of request. 

Artlole 2882, .R.C.S., 1925, reads as follows: 

“The oounty superintendent shall keep a 

record of all oertlflcates held by persone 

teaching In the publla schools of the oommon 

school dietriots and of the independent school 

dletrlcts of his oounty. .Any person who desires to teach in a pub110 free school of a 

common school district shall present his oertlfloate for record, before the approval of his 

~contract. Any person who desires to teach In 

the pub110 schools of an lndppendent school 

district ehall preeent his certificate. to the 

oounty euperlntendent for record before hle 
. . 

Hon. Artle Stephens, page 3 

contract with the board of trustees of the lndependent aohool district shall become valid. 

p tea&W or e.uDerlntendent who does not hold 

3 valid certlfloate shall not be Dald for teachinn or work done before the nrantlnn of a valid 

aertlfioate. eXOeDt for teaohlruz ln such branches 

aa are exemDted under the tellne of this law,” 

-(Underscoring oura). : 

From your letter of requeet it does not appear 

that the teacher In question waa teaching In such exempted branches a8 are referred to In this article. 

Article 291, P.C., 1925, reads ae follows: 

“Any oounty or olty superintendent or 

school trustee who approves any teaoher's 

oontract or vouoher until the person haa 

presented a valid certlfioate ahall be fined 

not lese than twenty-five nor more than one 

hundred dollars.” 

Thls department ruled in an oplnlon, addressed 

to the Ron. L. A. Woode, dated Oat. 18, 1935, Letter 

Book 367, p. 917, that a teaoher’e oontraot entered Into 

under’ facts similar to those set .out above was void. 

In Richards v. RlohardsoQ, .(T. C.A., 1914) 168 9 .W. 

50, the court‘ stated: 

‘That statute .enjoina a duty upon the 

teaoher and afflxea a penalty for failure to 

perform the duty. That penalty la that, unless he has a valid oertlflcate, he ahall 

not be paid out of free school funda. . . 

.‘” . . . Appellant, at the time that be 

entered into the contract with the trusteea, 

had no euoh oertlfloate and In fact had no 

valid aertlflcate for any grade. He.may, 88 

he claipla, have been entitled to such certlr 

flcate, but he had not obtained It. The oertlflcate granded by the county superintendent waB 
. . . 

Hon. Artie Stephens, page 4 

null and void, and the contract founqed 

upon it was null and void. 

.*Not only’does the law provide that 

no teacher who haa not a .valid certificate 

shall receive tltly'.Qf the.fnz?a eohool fund, 

but It la made a mlademeanor for any board 

of trustee8 to approve any oontract until 

the person hae presented a ‘valid oertlfloate. 

g$le 1512 (Pen. Code).Rev. Criminal State. 

A contract made in violation of law 

would be absolutely void. W.&Telegraph Co. 

v. Partlow, 30 Tell. .Clv.‘.App. 599, 7l S.W, 

586; Iioemer v. Sheldon Srrhool Dlatrlot, 4 

N.D. 197, 59 N.W. 1035r 25 SALA. ,383, 50 

Am. .St. .Rep. 639; :Ryan v. -Dakota Co. .Dlfit. 

27 Mlnn. 433, 8 N.W. 146s Xlmball v. .Sahool 

Dist., 23 wash. 520, 63 Pao. 213. Schafer 

v. Johna, 23 N.D. 593, 137 N.W. 481, 42.L.B.A. 

(N..S,) 412; Flanary v. Barr@tt, 146 Ky. .7l2, 

143 S.W. 38 Ann. caa. 1913C, 370. 

* 

. . . 

‘Appellant has not performed any aervloes 

for the money he eeeka to oolleot, but; on 

the other hand, he has reoelved .)llO. of the 

.free school money to which he was not entitled. 

Railway v. Randolph, 24 Tex. >317. 

*The o&glnal oontraot was .vold, beoauee 

repugnant to the statute, and it oould not 

have been ratified and oertalnly cannot be 

vitalized by obtalning,a oertlflcate and endeavoring to have It read a8 though of date 

anterior to the execution of the oontraot. It 

would not matter how competent and well fitted 

he was to teach, nor that he may have been entitled to a flat-class oertifioate; he did 

not have It when he entered Into the oontraot; 

and that Instrument, being null and void In 

ita lnoeptlon, oould not be vitalized and purlfled by any subsequent events, but it ‘ia so 
. . . 

Hon. Artle Stephens - page 5 

;;gzt;$y and lneffeotu81 that nothing can 

.' 

"The statute provides for the employment 

of teaohere who have valid oertlfloatae, and 

It 16 made a crime for a board of trusteea.to 

employ one who haa not a valid certificate, 

and the statute does not say that the trustees 

can employ a pewon to teaoh who la entitled 

to a oertlfloate, nor one who may obtain a 

certlfloate at some future time. The teacher 

must exhibit to the trustees a valid oertifloate, and, aa said by Juatloe Nell1 1n.W.U. 

Telegraph Co. v. Partlow; herein cltedz ‘A 

contra& without suoh a oartlrlcate . . . would 

unquestionably be void.' See, aleo, .Qoose..' 

RI!?& Bank ir. Sohool Township, 1 N.D. 26, 44 N.W. 

1002, 26 Am. 3% Rep. 6053 Bryan v. School Diet. 

111 Mlch. 67, 69 N.W. 74; MoCloakey v. School 

Dlst., 134 .Mioh. 235, 95 &W; 18." 

The statute before the co&z In that oase required 

that a valid oertlflca$e be held and exhlblted before the 

local board of trustees could enter Into the aontraot. The 

present statute raqulras that a valid certlPIaate be held 

and filed with the oount;JI.superintendent before he,shall 

approve the teaoher'a aontract. The approval of 'the '. 

oounty school superintendent la essential to the validity 

of a teaoher'e oontraot made wlth the trua.teea, a common 

~achool district. 

239 3.~. 987. 

Xl11 vs. 'Smlthvllle Ind. School I&3t;.:! 

A. It la our opinion that the te,acher*a 

contract entered Into and approved-under the 

faota presented is void and conwenaatlon may 

not be paid thereunder to the person holding 

euch void oontraot. 

B. The county school superintendent is: .' 

not authorized to approve vauoh&a Issued to 

a person as oinqpeneatlon for teaching In a 

ciommon school district for a period during 

which euoh teaoher did not hold a'valld 

teacher's oert%rlcate, alnoe such approval le 

apeolflcally p*hlbited by law. 

C. A pereon teaching In a ooupon school 
. . . . 

,Hon.. &tie .s tephene - page 6 

district wlthout first having obtained a 

valid teacher’s aertlflaate may not be 

paid a reasonable amottjit ‘Par aervl&M aq$u: 

ally parformed out oP the @blic achoQ1 

Pun& of thie state, for ‘the period. dursng 

wh$oh such teaaher did not hold a valid 

oertlflcate; A$tloZe 2882, R.C,S., 1925,. 

epeolPloally @royld&g that the. teacher. %a11 

. not be paid for t&aching or worgdone “b$P&% : 

the granting of a val~d,oertlPlca,te.JW 

_ 

This. Qp$.ni& d,oe@. E?Qt :aPpl;p tQ teach 

branches -exempted .urM#r th$ car@ qi Art$?i(i 

.19255; and: klated a$Btutqe;. ” 

~oui-8 vei-y : truly 

.’ 

.CCC:ob 

ATpoRNEy. qaa@ OF. TEjtAs 

.& a/ .C,eoil ; C, Canqqaok 

‘+3e,+itant 

IIPW qpr‘-li, 1+0. 

w.. “.& : J!?oore 

F&r~rs~~~~.l~tant Attbrney