*1 DISTRICT, Body WORLAND SCHOOL Corporate Subdivision in and Political County, Wyoming, Appellant Washakie (Defendant below),
Larry BOWMAN, Budd, Dwayne Free Bertel man, Roy Swartz, Appellees (Plaintiffs below).
No. 3680.
Supreme Wyoming. Court of 2,
Oct. Nov. Denied Scott, Worland, Joffe, Elmer Scott & J. appellant. Hitchcock, Laramie,
David N. appel- lees. HARNSBERGER,
Before J., and C. GRAY, PARKER, McINTYRE and JJ. opin- Mr. PARKER delivered the Justice ion of the court. appeal This is an summary judg- from a ment allowing each of four school salary, teachers to recover one-half month’s which had been withheld the defendant authority under claimed of a printed in their contracts of employment, the germane portions of which were:
“Witnesseth: That the teach subjects the Worland School District in a faithful and efficient manner for the school designated District; 1964-1965 keep legally qualified; pursue a program professional improvement; to Policies, observe all Regula- Rules and tions of Worland School District Wyoming. Laws of pur- For the pose of this shall pre-school include a workshop of three days and includes attendance at the state teachers’ convention. .agreed, that this party upon either submis- notice;
sion of (30) days *2 arrangements the dam- to make other the time of the that provided this and submits that is not undone age dis- the may be Teacher colleges have may notice judicially hearing after cause time for any trict around that Trustees; completed their school Board of District before the June graduating from the may supply of teachers the further, Teacher the that scattered, of most have become class will upon agreement this terminate the interviewed and having been them thirty (30) than of less notice employees’ hired, an and that in military better ones required of days for reason the current market, which exists under of illness, because service, or serious put is shortage, the school district teacher family. immediate in the death if, acquir- in difficult a most Teacher if the agreed, that “It further is teachers, suddenly its it from ing contracts of the terms to fulfill resigns and fails left short-handed. contract, shall forfeit Teacher the this the argue that Plaintiffs salary. The (½) month’s one-half by giving respective the contracts of Board permit the Teacher termination when ample written notice of money the sum of withhold Trustees to purpose the 30- they resigned, that the from due the .any from monies obvious, framing in that its day the District.” School presentation teachers to its contract2 for had been the teacher In each instance it decided that .appellant the 1963-1964; in employed for the school thirty days the before must have at least had executed written March days year (10 before opening of the school the employment for the district for replace in which to obtain Day) Labor 1964-1965; May in and might terminate ments for teachers who resignation to early 1964 submitted agreement and a teacher who fails June so accepted before the board which penalized by he give such notice would clear trial court made The end salary. month’s forfeiture of one-half June. finding in by stating rationale its defendant invokes the well-estab- While fulfill terms of plaintiff “did each provisions rule that lished the various Defendant together with contract must be considered resignation as contem- written notice of his parties, subject the situation of plated by each contract.” contract, purpose matter of the of its de- Primarily the defendant contends execution, do not in- and that may not spite 30-day the contract notice any inconsistency separate tend between impuni- in all be terminated with instances contract, plaintiffs paragraphs of a em- quoted ty,1 paragraphs the second of the phasize that a is to he construed providing when is not with against party language who selected the resignation, the contract is terminated and in favor drafted instrument is, especially where opposite party (without indicating any here, accept a more attractive in in order to source the record which would show who position. instrument) Defendant insists that teaching did draft this and that a court 30-day gives the district except notice is reluctant to decree a forfeiture Peripherally 21-270, W.S.1957, contends that even not defendant whether or § utilized; if a on teacher we do note that the 1968- impunity only (Budd) gave signed previously notice with 1964 contract each days’ of his so teacher contained the in the cor- responding paragraph, entitled to withhold the district was is fur- three, agreed resigns find merit from the other but we ther if the teacher position. July 1 and fails this to fulfill the terms after of this forfeit Teacher shall salary.” (Em- (½) in- one-half in the record do we month’s Nowhere phasis prepared supplied.) this contract dication who statement, admissions generalities are contained the in clear Such situations. “John District, Seyfang calls our party Neither of little Worland assistance. comparable the facts testify attention case on will to a that each of Plain- law, prior them have not tiffs consulted to their controlling or the and we penalty provisions The tions ascertain if investigation. our encountered respective easy of their would an solution contracts trial court found ** they resigned, had ful- voked if each problem holding each *3 would,” by informed giving was indicates filled the his contract however, We, possibility parties’ of the resignation. awareness that notice of authority, dropped can when the 1964-65 and think none be contract no July extant, deadline saying resignations contract of for was ,a that the resigna- strengthened tended be fulfilled can regarding inability of teachers to tion. The fulfillment and the even incompatible except in the un- with entirely are rather than a weakened. likely event teacher’s teaching, Judge said in Kimball Natrona initial, “the sub- quoted paragraph, Clark, Wyo. 284, Power Co. 225 P. * * jects in a 586, 588, operate that if a can writing two faithful and efficient manner for the school ways, one consistent the intent year.” carry Fulfill is defined “to out it, repugnant other give to the court will desired, promised, expected (something it the carry construction best calculated to * * * * * *); happen, cause to be or out intent. Kelly, And Goodman v. * * * required); (something obey to do Wyo., 244, 247, Judge Gray 390 P.2d ob of; (a to requirements satisfy fill the con- served that if the meaning aof end; dition) ; bring to to an com- ambiguous apparent and not resort Dictionary plete.” New Webster’s World competent be had to evidence of extraneous Edition, (College 1957), p. see 585. We explain circumstances tending the am justification saying a biguity and further illustrate the intention tion which effect or a re- giving up is in of the at the time the linquishment performing aof is a adopted, instance, and in interpreta employment, becoming tion question mixed of law and plaintiffs insist, citing precedent, without fact. that “if a teacher terminates the contact Under present, here days notice, circumstances we right as is his conclude trial erred of the terms of the hold- con- ing there question only nullity tract become are no law and there [s] to resolve. Accordingly, summary other terms to be the teacher.” judgment is reversed and the cause remand- place Had sat in trial we of the ed for trial. court, summary we inclined are to believe record, judgment might, in the state of the Reversed and remanded.
have defendant, been entered for but in court, On view of the of the Petition action learned trial For we are forced conclusion that PER CURIAM. contract in second paragraphs previously quoted is am Appellees having applied for rehearing biguous, parties becoming intent failing but advance matter not here- inquiry. a matter of an Defendant’s tenth tofore court, considered by this same interrogatories swer request for denied.