Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-10-20
Androscossin County.

Rescript, Spear, ].
This is an action of assumpslt
| brought by the plaintiff to recover the
sum of $1,000 for services as superlnten-
dent of schools in the city OF Lewiston.
AT the conclusion of the evidence the
| presiding justice directed a verdict IN
favor OF the plaintiff for the sum or
| $40 Upon exceptions to this order the
case comes to the law court. Inc
plaintiff was superintendent OF schools
IN Lewiston in 1907 and 1905 In April
| 1909 he was reelected to the position
for the next following natural school
year at a salary of $4,000 and 800 for
carriage hire. In August 1903 the Lew
iston school board and the plaintiff ex-
| ecuted a contract containing the fol-
| lowing clause:
1.-The party of the first part agrees
that a salary of $4,000 shall be paid to
| the party of the second part In ten
equal monthly payments: hut in case
| the said party of the second part is
discharged. dismissed, superseded by
another, or in any ether manner de-
prived of his office, or interfered with
in the performance of his duties. all
parts of the said salary of $4,000 then
unpaid to the party of the second part
shall Immediately become due and
| payable"
| The plaintiff entered upon the per-
| Torrance of his duties under his APP
| pOintment and in pursuance of his
| contract and continued his services
until Sept. 6, 1909, when he was sum-
1 marily dismissed by the superintend-
ing school committee or school board as
they term themselves in the contract.
The special law under which the COM
mittee acted is found in Chapter 463 Of
as amended by Chapter 129, Private
and Special Laws of 1907, the amended
section reading as follows:
| Section 2. The Experimenting
school committee of said city of Lewis
| ton, may exercise all the powers con-
ferred, and shall discharge all the du-
ties imposed, by law, on superintend-
ing school committees and district
school agents; and they may also APP
point a superintendent of schools and
| truant officers, for such term and with
such compensation as the superintend-
| ing school committee of said city OF
| Lewiston may determine. Such super
intendent may be removed at the
pleasure of said committee, and any
vacancy shall be filled by their APP
pointment."
The plaintiff contends that, under his
contract, having been ready at all
| times to perform his part of the agree
| ment, and a fair construction of the
| law by which the committee was au-
| thoriZed to employ for such term and
with such compensation as they might
''determine,' he is entitled to recover
his salary for the full school year. Did
the statute stop with the above quo
tatiOn there might be much force in
the argument, but it does not. 1t goes
further and places a limitation con-
tingent upon the pleasure of the com
mittee upon the continuance of the en-
ployment of the superintendent what
ever the term specified in the contract
| After conferring power to contract the
| statue contains this express provis-
ion
such superintendent may he re
moved at the pleasure of said commit =
tee. and any vacancy shall be filled
| by their appointment" This clause
confers upon the committee summary
| authority 10 dismiss superintendent
| at any stage Of his services. 1t does
| not require the pr"terment of any
charge CT proffer of any reasons. but
permits action ''at the pleasure of said
| committee" The plaintiffs employ
| ment was for the natural school year
| without any further agreement The
| written contract, would, therefore,
| seem to have been executed for the
sole purpose of defeating the express,
| provision of the statute.
The contract as construed by the
| PLAINTIFF. is in direct conflict with the
statute, and completely inhibits its in
| tended operation. The defendant con-
tends that the contract was ultra wires
| ana that the committee could not thus
| deprive themselves or their successors
of the right to exercise an authority.
| winch might at any moment assume
the form of duty. clearly imposed up
on them by statute. This contention
must prevail. When a contract con-
| i'lctS with statute the former must
ylcld otherwise statutes could be
moclfed or repealed without even the
approving caress of the referendum.
Exceptions overruled.