Case Name: Cook v. Ind. School Dist. of North McGregor
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1875-04-27
Citations: 40 Iowa 444
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cook v. Ind. School Dist. of North McGregor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 444–448

Head Matter:
Cook v. Ind. School Dist. of North McGregor.
I. Per Oole, J.; Miller, Ch. J., and Day, J., concurring.
1. Contract: part performance: school district. Where a teacher had made a parol contract with the directors of a school district to teach nine months, and had taught seven, receiving pay therefor, after which he was discharged: Held, that although the contract did not comply with the statute requiring such engagements to be in writing, nevertheless the acceptance of part performance was a ratification, rendering the district liable upon the contract. Following Athearn v. The Ind, School Dist. of JHUlersburg, 33 Iowa, 105.
II. Per Beck, J., dissenting.
2. -: -:-. A verbal contract between a teacher and a school district, being unauthorized by law, is a nullity, and cannot be made of any effect by subsequent ratification. The case differs from Athearn v. Ind. School Dist. of Millersburcj, supra, where the contract was in proper form, and defective only in execution.
Appeal from Clayton Circuit Court.
Tuesday, April 27.
The plaintiff, by bis petition, avers that on June 1, 1872, the- defendant employed the plaintiff to teach its school as principal, at a salary of $900, for tlie usual term, commencing September 2, 1872, and ending June 28, 1873, and tbe plaintiff agreed to teach- therefor. That tlie defendant made a record of such contract iii its book, at the time, as follows: “June 1, 1872, Board of Directors of North McGregor Independent School District met at school house. Members of the Board all present; called to order at eight o’clock, p. m. President George Keen in the chair; minutes of the last meeting read and approved. Unanimously voted to employ "W. E. Cook, as principal, at a salary of nine hundred dollars, for the usual school term of nine months.” That the contract was verbal except the above record. That plaintiff taught the said school under said contract seven months, for which the defendant paid him, according to said contract, $700 in orders on its treasurer, and then discharged the plaintiff, giving no cause therefor; that the plaintiff, at once, notified the defendant in writing that he was ready to teach the remainder of said term and perform his contract, but the defendant refused to permit him to do -so; that the defendant ratified said contracts, and the plaintiff has been damaged by the breach in the sum of $200, for which he asks judgment. The defendant demurred to the petition because the alleged contract was verbal, and the plaintiff has been fully paid for the services actually rendered. The Circuit Court sustained this demurrer. The plaintiff excepted, and appeals.
Woodward- c& Preston and Elijah Odell, for appellant.
Nolle, Natch <& Frese, and Thos. Ufdegraff, for appellee.

Opinion:
Cole, J.
Our statute provides that "all contracts with teachers shall be in writing, specifying the length of time the school'is to be taught in weeks; and such other.matters as may be agreed upon; • and shall be signed by the sub-director and teacher, and be approved and filed with the president, before the teacher, enters upon the discharge of his duties." Section 51, School Laws of 1872. The power to ratify a contract which failed to conform to the provisions of this section, was affirmed in- the case of Athearn v. The Independent School District of Millersburg, 33 Iowa, 105. And it was there also held, that the section applied to independent districts as well as to district townships.' In that case the contract in controversy was not made according to the above quoted section, for that it was not made with the Board of Directors, but was in writing, and signed by the members individually at their several homes, and not as a Board. For that reason the contract itself was conceded to have no force; and it was held that although it was executed without authority upon the part of defendant's officers, and was therefore invalid, yet it could be, and was ratified by the .acceptance of a part performance. That case is authority for reversing this. Here, if the contract was invalid, it has been fully ratified by part performance, and acceptance thereof on both sides.
REVERSED.