204 N.W. 320 | Minn. | 1925
The school board of a common school district is the exclusive agency for the making of teachers' contracts. G.S. 1923, § 2903; Leland v. School Dist. No. 28,
By the terms of the instrument the employment was for nine months beginning on September 8, 1924. On August 2, 1924, the board notified plaintiff that his contract was void because there had been no meeting of the board. Plaintiff asserted the validity of his contract and now claims that defendant is estopped to urge its invalidity.
Persons contracting with municipal corporations must at their peril inquire into the powers of such corporations. Newberry v. Fox,
The conduct of the two members of the board and the recital in the alleged contract cannot create an estoppel against the municipality. Newberry v. Fox,
On August 30, 1924, at a special meeting of the voters of the school district, a resolution was adopted in form ratifying and confirming plaintiff's alleged contract. It is now sought to sustain the contract by virtue of such ratification. This cannot be done. The sections of the statute above cited provide the only way by which a contract may be made by the municipality. That power is invested in the board alone. The ratification can be made only by the body authorized to make such contract. 28 Cyc. 676; Zottman v. City of San Francisco,
Plaintiff's attack upon the right and title of the treasurer to his office on the ground that he had not filed a bond as provided by law until this controversy arose, is futile. He was at least a de facto officer. He exercised the duties of his office under color of title. His right and title to the office can be attacked only in a proceeding brought direct for that purpose. So far as plaintiff was concerned the acts of a de facto officer were as valid as the acts of an officer de jure, and he must be counted in reckoning a quorum.
Affirmed. *431