delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant school district for breach of contract. The court found for the defendant and plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff, holder of a “legal teacher’s certificate,” by contract in writing agreed to teach defendant’s school for nine months commencing September 2, 1924, and taught until the latter part of December when she was notified by the board that she was dismissed. She appealed to the county superintendent of schools and her appeal was denied. She did not appeal to the superintendent of public instruction.
The legislature has conferred upon school boards comprehensive powers and duties as is seen by a reading of section 1015, Revised Codes 1921. Every school board has power: “2. To employ or discharge teachers, mechanics, or laborers, and to fix and order paid their wages; provided, that no teacher shall be employed except under resolution agreed to by a majority of the board of trustees at a special or regular meeting; nor unless such teacher be the holder of a legal teacher’s certificate in full force and effect. All contracts of employment of teachers, authorized by proper resolution of a board of trustees, shall be in writing and executed in dupli *458 cate by the chairman and clerk of the board, for the district and by the teacher. * * * 5. To enforce the rules and regulations of the superintendent of public instruction for the government of schools, pupils, and teachers and to enforce the course of study * * * . 14. To require teachers to conform to the law.”
A wide discretion is necessarily reposed in the trustees who compose the board’. They are elected by popular vote, and, presumably, are chosen by reason of their standing in the community, sound judgment, and their interest in the educational development of the young generation which is so soon to take the place of the old.
In certain instances the board may dismiss a teacher before the expiration of the contract. In case of the dismissal of a teacher before the expiration of her written contract, for alleged immorality, unfitness, incompetence, or violation of rules, she may appeal to the county superintendent; “and if the superintendent decides that the removal was made without good cause, the teacher so removed must be reinstated, and shall be entitled to compensation for the time lost during the pending of the appeal.” (Sec. 1085, Rev. Codes 1921.) This provision of the statute became a condition of the contract as effectively as if expressly written therein.
(Home State Bank
v. Swartz,
It is made the duty of the county superintendent to “decide all matters in controversy arising in his county in the administration of the school law or appealed to him from the decision of school officers or boards. An appeal may be taken from the decision of the county superintendent, in which case a full written statement of the facts, together with the testimony and his decision in the case, shall be certified to the state superintendent for his decision in the matter, which decision shall be final, subject to adjudication or the proper legal remedies in the state courts.” (Sec. 966, Rev. Codes 1921.) It is made the duty of the superintendent of public instruction to “decide all appeals from the decision of the county super *459 intendent, and may for such decision require affidavits, verified statements, or sworn testimony as to the facts in issue.” (Id., 943.)
From the action of the board in discharging the plaintiff she had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy—by appeal first to the county superintendent, and having been unsuccessful in that, to the superintendent of public instruction.
(Peterson
v.
School Board,
In this case the board of school trustees dismissed the plaintiff, deeming her “not competent to teach.” They had in mind, of course, their particular school. A teacher might be wholly unable to surmount the situation confronting her in one school, while able to teach in another with success. She would be deemed not competent to teach the first school, but competent to teach the second. The law does not intend that a teacher must be retained simply because she has a written contract to teach. If she is not competent to teach, injury to the pupils will result, and schools are established and maintained for the education of the pupils. Someone must judge whether the school is functioning properly. Discretion must be reposed somewhere, and here the law reposes it first in the trustees, and next in the supervising officers elected for their special knowledge of schools and school problems. “That the courts will not interfere with the discretion of school officials in matters which the law has conferred to their,judgment, unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion, or arbitrary or unlawful action, seems to be the unanimous
*460
holding of the authorities.
(State ex rel. Ingersoll
V.
Clapp,
In respect of employing and discharging teachers we say, as was said in Peterson v. School Board, supra: “In this, and all like questions properly coming before them, the members of the board act in a quasi-judicial capacity, and with the proper exercise of their discretion and judgment, the courts will not interfere.” The record here does not show an abuse of discretion on part of any of the school authorities.
The upshot, then, is first, that the plaintiff had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal to the school officers, in whom the law reposes, by reason of their special fitness to decide, the duty of settling the controversy, which remedy the plaintiff did not exhaust; second, no reason is shown why the court should be called upon to interpose its power.
This ease is an illustration of “the law’s delays.” Complaint was filed November 20, 1925, demurrer filed December 28, 1925, amended answer December 2, 1926, reply December 16, 1927. The case came on for trial December 17, 1927. The court, after hearing the testimony, took the matter under advisement until January 30, 1928, when it ordered judgment for defendant, which was entered on the next day. The last brief was filed in this court on March 17, 1929. The entire record embraces less than sixty pages, and the case is comparatively simple. It seems to us apposite to refer to the adage, “Procrastination is the thief of time.”
The judgment is affirmed.