tendent, N. S. Jones, apprcvedtwo of them before he went cut of office. He was succeededby Xiss Eva Staickland,and she refusedto apwove the seven remain- ing vouchers. The matter ~8s appealedto the county board of education,then to the state supcrtitendent, and finally to the state board of education;the last tw, mentionedsustainingthe county superintendent. No specialtax was levied by sohools1 and 2, with whioh appellantwas connected,but vere run on statemoney alone. Appellantperformedservicesboth as principal and janitor'fornine months, the time for which he was employedby the trustees. Yiss Stricklandresigned Hon. T. M. Trimble,Page 3 (O-2838)
and was suooesdedby appellee. The voucherswere not presentedto her for approval.
"The court foundthat the contractwith appel- lant,for his servicesas janitorwas made to evade the terms of article2780 and article2781, Revised Statutes,whioh provide, among other things,that a teacherholdinga first-gradecertificateshall in no event reoeivemore than $75 a month frcm the pub- lic free schoolfund. The court also found that a man named TristanYmldanadowas also employedas janitorin the same school in which appellantwas employedas principaland janitor, The law could not be evaded in that way, and the vouchers granted by complaoenttrusteeswere properlyrejectedby the county superintendent.It is a preposterousproposi- tion that a countryschool, or two countryschools, would requirethe servioesof two janitors. Ve are oTthe opinionihatit was never intendedthat the principalof a school should be paid tvm salaries , cut of the public free schoolmoney.
"The first sectionof article 2772, Rev. Stats., which is cited by appellant,providesthat the state and county availableschool funds shall be used ex- clusivelyfor the payment of salariesofteachersand superintendents and fees for taking the soholastic cansuo,and we fail to see what aid and comfortthat gives a man who is endeavoringto obtain a part of the schoolfund for servicesas a janitor,vhen he has drawn for the same time pay as principalof the sohool. It is true that in the second sectionof the artiolecited it is provided that a surplusof such state fund may be used to pay janitorsand for other enumeratedpurpopes,but not to increasethe pay of teachers. The other articles snd decisionscited do not sustainthe contentionof appellant.
"The judgmentis affirmed."
In the case cited,the school trustees could not lawfullypay mere than $75.00 to the teacheras salary, and the tNStSeS undertookto give him additionalmoney as janitor. The court held that it could not bs done.
In your situationyou cannot legallypay for group insuranoe with your schoolfunis, and in cur opinionyou wouldbe doing the ssme thing by providingin the contractswith the teachers that they bs required to paythe distriot'spart of the premilrm of the group insurance. Hon. T. M. Trimble,Page 4 (O-2838)
(3) If the trusteesshould provide in their contractsdth the teachers that theymustn.~ea certainpart of thbir salary to pay for premiumson insurance,it would seem that the amount of the so-called salary which was to be used for the paymentof such premiumswould still be public money and, therefore,not availablefor the purohaseof insur- ante. The SupremeCourtof Unnesota, inthe case of State ox rel, Jennisonvs. Rogers,reportedin L.R.A. 58, page 663, involvinga contract betweentrusteesand teacherswhereby a certainamount of the teachers' salarieswas retainedfor-the purposeof