"Whatever arrangement existed between the several hundred persons on the substitute list and the City of Saint Paul was one of convenience and contained no contract binding upon either party.
* * * * *
"In the fall of 1935, plaintiff entered into a written contract with the City of Saint Paul, under which she was employed as
an assigned substitute for practically the entire school year, with the exception of some few days; again, in the fall of 1936 a similar written contract was entered into, under which she taught as an assigned substitute during the school year 1936-1937, and in the fall of 1937 a similar contract was entered into under which she taught for the school year 1937-1938. She was not reëmployed in the fall of 1938, and has not been reëmployed to date."
For reversal she places chief reliance upon Hosford v. Board of Education, 201 Minn. 1" court="Minn." date_filed="1937-10-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hosford-v-board-of-education-3510301?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3510301">201 Minn. 1, 275 N.W. 81" court="Minn." date_filed="1937-10-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hosford-v-board-of-education-3510301?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3510301">275 N.W. 81, and McSherry v. City of St. Paul, 202 Minn. 102" court="Minn." date_filed="1938-02-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mcsherry-v-city-of-st-paul-3509197?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3509197">202 Minn. 102, 277 N.W. 541" court="Minn." date_filed="1938-02-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mcsherry-v-city-of-st-paul-3509197?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3509197">277 N.W. 541. As will be seen, neither case fits plaintiff's factual situation for she was not a "person regularly employed" during the necessarily determinative teaching period of 1934-1935, 1 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 2935-1, nor was she "reëmployed" at the end of the three-year "probationary period." Id. § 2935-5. Realizing this difficulty, she sought amended findings. It is claimed that the record compels findings of facts to be as she claims them. A thorough review of the record leaves no doubt that not only was the court justified in making the findings it did but that any finding to the contrary would be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain.
The court rightly disposed of the case, hence its order is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE PETERSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.