as there stated apply equally to the particular public corporation now under consideration. The performance of a contract necessarily involves an expenditure of public moneys and the first principle to be observed is that the purpose for which the contract is made must be one for which public funds are authorized to be disbursed.191 The contract must also be one that the corporation is capable of executing 192 and authorized in the manner provided by law, either by vote of the district 103 or action of officials upon whom this duty may be imposed.194 Contracts must be executed in the manner directed by statute 195 and by those officers whose 191 See § 410 et seq, ante. V. 192 Fluty v. School Dist., 49 Ark. 94, 4 S. W. 287; Morgan v. Board of Education of San Francisco, 136 Cal. 245, 68 Pac. 703. The burden in on a board of education to allege and prove the defense of an ultra vires contract when the contract is sought to be avoided on that ground. Martin v. Jamison, 39 Ill. App. 248. Injunction will lie to prevent the carrying out of an illegal contract. McLaughlin V. Shelby Tp., 52 Ind. 114; Weitz v. Independent Dist. of Des Moines, Iowa 42 N. W. 577; Western Pub. House District Tp. of Rock, 84 Iowa 101, 50 N. W. 551; Grady v. Landram, 23 Ky. L. R. 506, 63 S. W. 284; B. T. Johnson Pub. Co. v. Mills, 79 Miss. 543, 31 So 101; Pomerene v. School Dist. No. 56, 56 Neb. 126, 76 N. W. 414; Brown v. School Dist. No. 6, 64 N. H. 303, 10 Atl. 119; Brown v. School Dist., 55 Vt. 43. A school committee may contract with one of their own number to board a teacher. McCaffery v. School Dist. No. 1, 74 Wis. 100, 42 N. W. 103. See §§ 1078, 1079 and 1083, ante. 193 School Dist. No. 2 v. Stough, 4 Neb. 357; McGillivray V. Joint School Dist., 112 Wis. 354, 88 N. W. 310, 58 L. R. A. 100. An unauthorized act of a school board may be subsequently ratified by the district, See, also, § 663, ante. 194 Van Dolsen v. Board of Educa tion of New York, 29 App. Div. 501, 51 N. Y. Supp. 720; Roland v. Reading School Dist., 161 Pa. 102, 28 Atl. 995. 195 Springfield Furniture Co. v. School Dist. No. 4, 67 Ark. 236, 54 S. W. 217; Jackson School Tp. v. Shera, 8 Ind. App. 330, 35 N. E. 842. Oral contract good when not required to be made in writing. American Ins. Co. v. Willow Dist. Tp., 55 Iowa, 606; Weir Furnace Co. V. Seymour Independent School Dist., 99 Iowa, 115; Broussard v. Verret, 43 La. Ann. 929, 9 So. 905. A verbal extension of a contract is void when the proceedings of a school board are required to be in writing. Globe Furniture Co. v. District 7, 51 Mo. App. 549; Page v. Township Board of Education, 59 Mo. 264. A verbal contract with a school board employing an attorney held valid. Terry v. Board of Edu cation of St. Louis, 84 Mo. App. 21, Coward v. City of Bayonne, 67 N. J. Law, 470, 51 Atl. 490. Where the law does not require the board ot education to advertise for doing work, this of course is not necessary. See, also, as holding the same, Kraft v. Board of Education official duties include the performance of this particular act.196 The subject of ratification of an unauthorized contract has already been considered 197 and also that of an implied liability arising under an unauthorized contract when the articles supplied have been used by the school district or work performed was: properly done.198 $1087. Teachers. Teachers have the general control and government of a school. Different grades or classes are ordinarily established by law and of Weehawen Tp., 67 N. J. Law, 196 Dubuque Female College v. Dubuque Dist. Tp., 13 Iowa, 555; Conklin v. School Dist. No 37, 22 Kan, 521; Jordan v. School Dist. No. 3, 38 Me. 164; State v. Tiedemann 69 Mo. 515; School Dist. No. 25 v. Cowlee, 9 Neb. 53. The acıs of de facto officers will bind the district. O'Neil v. Battie, 61 Hun, 622, 15 N. Y. Supp. 818. Contract made by de facto officer binding. But see White v. School Dist. of Archibald (Pa.) 8 Atl. 443. A de facto school board cannot make a valid contract. 197 Stevenson v. Summit Dist. Tp. 35 Iowa, 462; Western Pub. House v. District Tp. of Rock, 84 Iowa, 101, 50 N. W. 551; Everts v. District Tp. of Rose Grove, 77 Iowa, 37, 41 N. W. 478; Sullivan v. School Dist. No. 39, 39 Kan. 347, 18 Pac. 287; School Dist. No. 39 v. Sullivan, 48 Kan. 624, 29 Pac. 1141; Markey v. School Dist. No. 18, 58 Neb. 479, 78 N. W. 932.. A school district cannot ratify a void contract made by its officers.. Trainer v. Wolfe, 140 Pa. 279, 21 Atl. 391; McGillivray v. Joint School' Dist., 112 Wis. 354, 88 N. W. 310, 58. L. R. A. 100. See Chap. 5, subd. I, & VI, and § 664, ante. 198 Clark School Tp. v. Home Ins.. & Trust Co., 20 Ind. App. 543, 51 N. E. 107; Oppenheimer v. Jackson School Tp., 22 Ind. App. 521, 54 N.. E. 145; White River School Tp. V.. Dorrell, 26 Ind. App. 538, 59 N. E. 867; First Nat. Bank of Crawfordsville v. Union School Tp., 75 Ind.. 361; Bellows v. West Fork Dist. Tp., 70 Iowa, 320; Kagy v. Independent Dist. of West Des Moines, 117 Iowa, 694, 89 N. W. 972; Johnson v. School Corp. of Cedar, 117 Iowa, 319, 90 N. W. 713; Union School Furniture Co. v. School Dist. No. 60, 50 Kan. 727, 32 Pac. 368,. 20 L. R. A. 136; Norris v. School Dist. No. 1, 12 Me. 293; Kreatz v. St. Cloud School Dist., 79 Minn. 14, 81 N. W. 533, 47 L. R. A. 537; Rowel v. School Dist., 59 Vt. 658, 10 Atl. 754; Kimball v. School Dist. No. 8, 28 Vt. 8. Canby V. Sleepy Creek Dist.. Board of Education, 19 W. Va. 93.. the educational qualifications for each grade or class prescribed.199 The fitness of applicants to teach is determined by examinations, and certificates or licenses are given to those successfully passing the examination required for a particular grade.200 Certificates are ordinarily withheld from those not possessing a good moral character.201 The power to require examination for certificates in respect to both educational and moral qualifications necessarily includes the right of revocation of a license for a failure to maintain these standards,202 though notice to the teacher is usually held necessary 203 and if an official illegally revokes a teacher's certificate, a liability may arise to the person injured.204 Examinations may be uniform in their character throughout the state as prescribed by a state superintendent of public instruction or given by a board of education or a county superintendent of schools.20 The acceptance of an order against an individual in payment of a claim against a school district releases it from any liability. Kane V. School Dist., 52 Wis. 502. See, also, §§ 664 et seq., ante. 199 Mitchell v. Winnek, 117 Cal. 520, 49 Pac. 579; Kemble v. McPhaill, 128 Cal. 444, 60 Pac. 1092; School Com'rs of Washington County v. Wagaman, 84 Md. 151, 35 Atl. 85; People v. Howlett, 94 Mich. 165, 53 N. W. 1100; People v. Maxwell, 163 N. Y. 599, 57 N. E. 1120, affirming 50 App. Div. 538, 64 N. Y. Supp. 96. See, also, Id., 169 N. Y. 608, 62 N. E. 1099, affirming 65 App. Div. 265, 73 N. Y. Supp. 527. 200 Keller v. Hewitt, 109 Cal. 146, 41 Pac. 871. A board of education has no right to refuse to issue a certificate after it has determined that an applicant is in every way competent to teach. School Dist. No. 25 v. Stone, 14 Colo. App. 211, 59 Pac. 885; Union School Dist. v. Sterricker, 86 Ill. 595. A certificate cannot be attacked collaterally. Sutton v. School City of Montpelier, 28 Ind. App. 315, 62 N. E. 205 710; Doss v. Wiley, 72 Miss. 179, 16 So. 902; Cruse v. McQueen (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 711; Kimball v. School Dist. No. 122, 23 Wash. 520, 63 Pac. 213. A certificate is not subject to collateral attack. 201 Crosby v. School Dist. No. 9, 35 Vt. 623. A certificate, however, need not contain any statement in respect to the possession of good moral character. Ky. Pub. Acts 1889-90, c. 128, p. 8. 202 School Dist. v. Maury, 53 Ark. 471, 14 S. W. 669; Lee v. Huff, 61 Ark. 494, 33 S. W. 846. An examiner is not liable for damages if he acted in good faith and without malice in revoking a school teacher's license though his decision was erroneous. 203 Lee v. Huff, 61 Ark. 494, 33 S. W. 846; Scheibner v. Baer, 174 Pa. 482, 34 Atl. 193. 204 Love v. Moore, 45 Ill. 12. 205 Kuenster v. Board of Education, 31 Ill. App. 386; Brown v. Inhabitants of Chesterville, 63 Me. 241; Randol v. Sloan, 79 Mo. App. 238; Hill v. Swinney, 72 Miss. 248, 16 So. 497. Examination papers as 206 No discrimination is usually made on account of sex though this may be taken into consideration by school boards in selecting a school principal or superintendent.207 § 1088. Employment; dismissal. To the board of school trustees or board of education in a particular district or for a special college is given the power of making all contracts of employment with teachers.208 They are ordinarily limited to persons holding certificates or licenses to teach or, in other words, legally qualified teachers, 209 though this disqualification may be subsequently removed and the contract ordinarily then becomes a valid one from its inception.210 The pur presented and corrected when marked and license issued cannot afterwards be re-examined and the teacher regraded. People v. Board of Education of New York, 167 N. Y. 626, 60 N. E. 1118, affirming 56 App. Div. 368, 67 N. Y. Supp. 836; Steinson v. Board of Education of New York, 49 App. Div. 143, 63 N. Y. Supp. 128. The city schools of New York are subject to the general state laws. Town School Dist. of Brattleboro v. School Dist. No. 2 of Brattleboro, 72 Vt. 451, 48 Atl. 697. 206 School Dist. No. 13 v. Harvey, 56 Vt. 556. A vote of the school district instructing the committee to hire a certain teacher is advisory only. But see Com. v. Jenks, 154 Pa. 368, 26 Atl. 371. 207 Com. v. Board of Education, 187 Pa. 70, 40 Atl. 806, 41 L. R. A. 498; Com. v. Jenks, 154 Pa. 368, 26 Atl. 371. 208 Section Sixteen Com'rs V. Criswell, 6 Ala. 565; Paterson v. City of Butler, 83 Ga. 606, 11 S. E. 399; Independent Dist. of Eden v. Rhodes, 88 Iowa, 570, 55 N. W. 524; Burkhead v. Independent School Dist., 107 Iowa, 29, 77 N. W. 491. Contracts with the superintendent and teachers limited by law, in duration, to the school year. Golden v. New Orleans School Directors, 34 La. Ann. 354. Teacher's term limited by law to one year. But see O'Brien v. Moss, 131 Ind. 99, 30 N.. E. 894; Rumble v. Barker, 27 Ind. App. 69, 60 N. E. 956. 209 Holz v. School Dist. No. 9, 1 Colo. App. 40, 27 Pac. 15. Disqualification may be subsequently removed. Catlin v. Christie, 15 Colo.. App. 291, 63 Pac. 328; Botkin v. Osborne, 39 Ill. 101; Stanhope v. School Directors, 42 Ill. App. 570; School Directors v. Newman, 47 I. App. 364; Slone v. Berlin, 88 Iowa, 205, 55 N. W. 341; Jackson v. Inhabitants of Hampden, 20 Me. 37; O'Leary v. School Dist. No. 4, 118 Mich. 469, 76 N. W. 1038; Ryan v. Dakota County School Dist., 27 Minn. 433; Jay v. School Dist. No. 1, 24 Mont. 219, 61 Pac. 250; Sproul v. Smith, 40 N. J. Law, 314; People v. Maxwell, 65 App. Div. 265, 73 N. Y. Supp. 527. 210 School Dist. No. 1 v. Ross, 4 Colo. App. 493, 36 Pac. 560; School Dist. No. 4 v. Stilley, 36 Ill. App. 133; Pollard v. School Dist. No. 9, pose of such a provision is apparent. Their powers are usually ample in this respect and no special authority is needed from the voters of the district.211 The power to employ necessarily includes the discretionary right of suspension or dismissal,212 limited, however, by the principle that action of this character can only be for cause and ordinarily after due notice, hearing and upon the pre 65 Ill. App. 104; Libby v. Inhabitants of Douglas, 175 Mass. 128, 55 N. E. 808; Smith v. School Dist. No. 2, 69 Mich. 589, 37 N. W. 567; O'Leary v. School Dist. No. 4, 118 Mich. 469; School Dist. No. 1 v. Edmonston, 50 Mo. App. 65; Blanchard v. School Dist. No. 11, 29 Vt. 433; Holman v. School Dist. No. 4, 34 Vt. 270; Wells v. School Dist. No. 2, 41 Vt. 353; Scott v. School Dist. No. 2, 46 Vt. 452. But see Butler v. Haines, 79 Ind. 575; Bryan v. Fractional School Dist. No. 1, 111 Mich. 67, 69 N. W. 74; Hosmer v. Sheldon School Dist. No. 2, 4 N. D. 197, 59 N. W. 1035, 25 L. R. A. 883. 211 School Dist. No. 10 v. Mowry, 91 Mass. (9 Allen) 94; State v. Smith, 49 Neb. 755, 69 N. W. 114; Com. v. Jenks, 154 Pa. 368, 26 Atl. 371. A rule requiring five years of proved experience as a teacher to render a person eligible to the office of supervising principal is reasonable. Bell v. Kuykendall, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 209, 22 S. W. 112; Watkins v. Huff (Tex. Civ. App.) 63 S. W. 922. A teacher is entitled to appeal to the state superintendent from a decision of a county superintendent refusing to approve the teacher's contract to teach in the county. Cobb v. School Dist. No. 1, 63 Vt. 647, 21 Atl. 957. But see Gilman v. Bassett, 33 Conn. 298. 212 School Dist. v. Maury, 53 Ark. 471, 14 S. W. 669; Pierce v. Beck, 61 Ga. 413; School Directors of V. Dist. No. 2 v. Orr, 88 Ill. App. 648; School Directors v. Birch, 93 Ill. App. 499; Board of Education Stotlar, 95 Ill. App. 250; Robinson v. School Directors of Dist. No. 4, 96 Ill. App. 604; City of Crawfordsville v. Hays, 42 Ind. 200; Rumble v. Barker, 27 Ind. App. 69, 60 N. E. 956. An appeal lies from the decision of the trustees to the county superintendent relative to the dis missal of teachers. School Dist. No. 5 v. Colvin, 10 Kan. 283. Discharge based upon a special contract provision. Armstrong v. Union School Dist. No. 1, 28 Kan. 345; Superintendent of Common Schools v. Taylor, 105 Ky. 387, 49 S. W. 38; Freeman v. Inhabitants of Bourne, 170 Mass. 289, 49 N. E. 435, 39 L. R. A. 510; McLellan v. St. Louis Public Schools, 15 Mo. App. 362; Jones v. Nebraska City, 1 Neb. 176; Draper v. Commissioners of Public Instruction, 66 N. J. Law, 54, 48 Atl. 556; Swartwood v. Walbridge, 57 Hun, 33, 10 N. Y. Supp. 862; Sub-School Dist. No. 7 v. Burton, 26 Ohio St. 421; Moreland v. Wynne (Tex. Civ. App.) 62 S. W. 1093; Gillan v. Regents of Normal Schools, 88 Wis. 7, 58 N. W. 1042, 24 L. R. A. 336. But see Carver v. School Dist. No. 6, 113 Mich. 524, 71 N. W. 859. A school board cannot discharge a legally qualified teacher on the ground of incompetency. Richardson v. School Dist. No. 10, 38 Vt. 602. |