241 Pa. 179 | Pa. | 1913
Opinion by
This was an action in assumpsit brought by Bernard E. Costello, a school teacher, against a school district, to recover a balance of salary alleged to be due for two school years under a written contract of employment. The case was submitted to the jury and the plaintiff was awarded a verdict covering the unpaid salary for nine months in each of the two years, less the amount that he earned in other employments during that time; judgment was entered upon the verdict and the defendant has appealed.
The minutes of the school district show that on July 9, 1908, the proper committee submitted a report in which they said, “We recommend the following teachers...... for the school year 1908-1909, High School......vice-principal, Bernard Costello;” that at the same meeting the finance committee recommended that Bernard Costello be paid a salary of $110 per month; that on July 29, 1908, it was duly moved and seconded “that solicitor Sharpless be instructed to draw contracts with teachers (naming among others Bernard Costello) as follows : with teachers holding a state certificate or permanent, a contract for three years......(the plaintiff was within this class). The roll-call on the motion resulted as follows: (here follows the vote giving the names of the directors and showing a majority in favor of the motion)”; that on August 10, 1908, “it was decided by the Board, to have a writ of mandamus served upon President William Garlin to compel him to sign......the contracts of the faculty of the high school......, as he had heretofore refused to sign them, so as to get the wort in the schools going and to have his signature on the contracts of the faculty aforesaid” (here follows the roll-call showing the vote and that the motion was carried). A written contract was signed by the proper
The evidence shows that the services of the plaintiff were dispensed with; and this without the assignment of any of the causes named in the Act of 1854, supra. In fact, no cause for the discharge was given, and at the trial no justification was attempted; the real defense depended upon being that under the circumstances of the case the board of school directors had no power in law to make the contract with the plaintiff for three years, or if they had such power, then the minutes were insufficient to show a proper authorization of the contract sued upon. This defense is met by our rulings in Toye v. Exeter Boro. School District, 225 Pa. 236, 240. There the plaintiff was elected a school principal “for the incoming year,” after which “motions were made and carried that the principal be elected for the term of three years and that he should receive $100 per month” ; he “was dismissed by the board at the end of the first year” and brought an action to recover the agreed salary for the balance of the term. While that case was decided against the plaintiff upon the ground that the reasons assigned for his discharge were sufficient within the Act of 1854, supra, yet, in dealing with contentions similar to those urged by the appellant in this case, we said, “the defendant......alleges error in the admis
The assignments of error aré overruled and the judgment is affirmed.