The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-02-27
An Important Decision by the Su-
preme Court on a School
Teachers Suit
The Duties OF a Sheriff When
Handling Property Held
Under Attachment
Claims Must lie Paid In order Of Prior-
icy aud the Court Consulted when
In Doubt


versus school District Nc. s AissoulA
county. defendants and appellant Plaintiff
demanded from the school district SloJ Tor
four months service as teacher, under an
alleged contract OF employment bT the
trustees At she rate Of SO per month. In
Abe iustice's court she recovered the SleO
An appeal wss taken 90 the district court,
whore judgment vas given for s24-b0 A
motion for a new trial Was granted and the
hoard appealed from this 10 ths supreme
CONT on the allegation that there was not
.uficient grounds shown 70 Justify granting
q new trial. The supreme eouri aus'ains
this contsntion. being unable 90 mad In the
record a sufficient showing so warrant an
order granting new trial
In passing on the evidence the supreme
court makes some rulings that will be OF
interest TO school trustees. The record dis
closes the fact that in the spriRg OF 1891
plaintiff applied for a position as teacher
for the term beginning the following
septenber. The board did not awe her a
regular position but made her supply
teacher" The entry vas made supply
teacher, May Case. salary per mouth SO.
She served as supply teacher on two occa-
sions the hrst four months OF the term.
seven DAYS in all, claiming no pay for the
remainder Of the term. as she was SICK
Plaintiff claimed that tbs contract con
templatsd hsf engagement for the whole
term az SO q month. whether she rendered
nnv service OF NOT sa she was In readiness
20 teach At any time during the four months
preosdine her illness. The board con-
,endsd that the contract contemplated that
she was engaged TO supply any vacancy
by reason Of sickness. or absence from
other cause. OF any tsasheT. On this point
the supreme court says;
That board OF trustees OF school dis
trict has power, under the Law governing
fts action, 20 bind the district TO par su-
pernumerary teacher q fixed salary While
not rendering service, but merely Wsiting
contingency which might or might not
happen TO require some service, IL eKtremsly /
doubtful. According TO she interp station
Of this contract oontended for by p.aintin
the trustees engaged TO pay her 9iVO Tor
acting as supply teacher during the term
when her services might not be required az
ell, and, as actual experience showed. we're |
only required seven days in -four months
This was the same compensation as was
paid some OF the teachers 10 tho district
for constant service. IL might be proper
enough TO ray those who cans az the
eleventh hour. or came not al ali, equally /
Nth those who have borne the bnrdea aud
the heat Of the day If ths trustees like the
master OF the vineyard. were disposing OF
their own. Bus In our view the Law govern
ing them forbids such munihcence 10 their
stewardship for the people OF their dis-
triet"
Asds from that view OF the case the
court says IL ia hardly reasonable that
plaintiff should conclude from her selee-
tion as supply teacher" that she was
elected TO q sineeure, the principal dutY OF
which was to draw salary equal 10 that
paid tsAehe for constant ssrvios. The
lower court found that pisintih was en-
titled 30 CON pensation for the time So we'd /
81 the rate Of $40 q month. In the opinion I
OF the Supreme court this was the proper
int probation. he case is rsmanded with
Instructions 10 oyer-ruls plaintiff motion /
for new trial.
The other opinion was By Chief Justice /
PembsTton and was in the ease Of ths Mon !
tana Milling company. appellant, versus
Charles n. Jstfe Is, respondent, appeal /
from Lewis and Clarke county. 10 was an |
action for damages brought against sheriff I
Jefferis for neglect to extcuts a wit of /
attach ment. IL vas tried IN the court be- I
low on an agreed statement Of facts. On |
September 10. 1891 the company got judg-
msnt against kuphAl & Schumacher. and
writ OF attachment vas placed in the
sherif's hands. Six other writs against tho
same concern wee already in ths shsrids
hands. The store aud sock Of goods Of
the firm we're attached. The books 81 the
hrm we're IN the store at the time. but we're
not attached BY tho sheriff. Nsithsr d be
attach any MONEYS due the him until sept.
~. and then on wsIts issued IN ths suits OF
Geo. Il Newell Go. and Franklin 81 -
Weigh q Co., placsd ia his hands sept. Il. J
Under these " its tho sheriff collected 4
f269.N for Newell a Go. and McNsagh a. /
20. from tie debtors Of kuphal 4 schu- /
mAchsr. These sums, II paid 10 the Non- /
tana Milling company In order Of priority, /
would have satisfied that concerns judy /
msnt Al he company claimed that the
sheriff was indebted to 10 for the amount OF ]
its iudgment JeffeT!s claimed he was not
liable 10 the company 20 lew on the credits
Of the hrU, not having received any written
ITAeeipe nor information 10 wiring a. con
templated by Law, aud as was done By the
other attaching c.editors OF kuphal D.
Schumacher. On this statement Of facts
tie lower court gave judgment for the de-
PENDANT. From this judgment the appeal
was prosecuted. Tbs supreme court says:
The law Of this state fequires a sheriff,
when a writ CT attachment IS placed IN his
hands without delay 10 attach and safely
keen all she property Of ths defendant. IA
oluding debts named ia the wit MOI OK
smpt from execution, or 90 much thereof as
may be sufficient TO sstisfy the plaintiffs
demand" Tue sheriff oontended that
written notice was sine qaa non 20 the
hIInR of the liability OF tue sheriff for
schumacher. The supreme court
says this was not necessary. lie
had possession Of the books Of
account Of the firm, and all the iuforma-
ton necessary As 10 who we're the debtors
Of the firm. IL was bis duty 10 attach
without delay all property not exempt from
execution, % enough 10 gay plaintiffs de-
mands. Inc debts we're as much property
Of the firm as anything else. IL vas tie
ahofih . duty 20 make reasonable effort TO
IND sufficient property 10 satisfy the A0u-
taxa Mining eompany's demands. his he
ala moi do. Having attached 10 was his
duty TO pay out tho amounts collected ia
the order OF tue priority Of the writs Of at
tHchment IN his hands. On having gar
nianed the debtors and collected the
amounts owing the firm. II he had any
doubt az % how no should proceeded Ia
paying the TnoneT cut be should have
brought 10 into oou and asked for an
ORDER AZ 10 its disposition. In thls wy he
could have projected himself a. we'll IS ths
Montana Milling eompsuy. Ibe Judgment
OF the court below Is reversed and ths
cause renamed vita instructions 70 entor
ludgmsnt IA favor Of plaintiff tas Mon
tana Milling company.