Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATl’ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
Honorable Artle Xephens
county Attorney Eopklns County
Sulphtzr Sprlnge, Texam
Dear 9lrr
we have reoelvea your
we quote in part .ar foUowsc
9fe would appreo
the ralialtg Lana.. pro
em, unaer the fell
truateee, ana properly apprwod The schoel~ ha6 not arintenaent. 0i0t3ea bar suoh purpQm, or aban- foiale ~thsreof.
“. . . .*
We aasum that the oontYrct& Of en&d’ 1 nt rdM valid and enroroerble oontreeae and that the 981 jf queetion r@ in whioh you are Interested Is the effeot.of the burning of the building upon the righ08 and llabilitiee of ths partier. *2 Honorable ,Artie Stephens, Page 2
We alao aaswxe that there were QO prorirlons in oontMets ,- relating tom oontfngenoioe ltie the one under oollmIdonti.sa.
The general rule la that the Usstruotlon of a tiohooli building; by tlro doee not.etteot or altar the ri@%ts of the teaohers arlalng under the oontraot. 6 A.L.R. ?I& 24 R.C.L. 619-620.
In the-ease Ot cluna '1. Sohool Dlstrlob Ho. 3, sup. ‘at. Wlee., 166 a. ~W. 11, plrIntirt.wea egplojed to kaoh ror l period of nine months. After the ~,oontraot waa,-mdo bu$ before the ootmenommt of tha 8ohool term, the iehoothorr~a wan totally ae8troyoa by tire. PlaIntIfl brought mlt fork the pine months' salary. In holding that-the plaIntiff wea entitled to reaovar, the court mado the rollowin~.statkc+ntt
*It Is lnalstod that'appellant wan die&her& rroln psrionring it8 oontrrot with reqond@n$, rtrrn ii a~ valid oontraot wore ma0, on aooount or thb i-. aestruotfon of the eohoolhouaa by iire. Vhera'wa&
no atlgulation in the oontraot to that rfZe&, aMl no provision for aOiiO0tiOn on aooount ei aOfbt*- tlon of the sohaolholur fire or othenfrei ,, Waaer 8uah olrotxa8tanoo~ no aeduotloq e&L& be nsde without the oonsont of the roapenbont. tihool Dlreetoro t. Grewa, 23 IL%. App. 3671 tI?aUh T. Pohoel Dist., 69 yrioh. 589, 37 N. W. 567i 0~ah.n v. nohool Dlst., 50 Vt. 308 Charlerrton Sehocbr Tom- ship v. Hay, 74 Iad, 1278 Libby f+ Douglas, 275 Maw. 126, 55 N. It. 808g Dwmy v. Union Pohool Dlst,, 43 Mleh. i&O, 5 N. if. 646, 38 Am. Rep). 206. "It Is alto oontentleb that the appellant ifa dlaoharged from performing Its oontraot with ra- spondent on aooount OS Otto a&Ion of tho 00lal WA.Iool meeting Ln vot;ang to muspend the 44 Wk. "g The reapotibnt watt an l n@loye Of tije 6pWlka8& and mlatlona botwoen ap Itint iid NapaadOSt were oontraotual. The appl ant thoref,or@ bOu%d r
not abrogate the sontraot Or mod~iy~it.Withofit, t&W oonsent of tha reapenWt. Board a$ Bduqqj@tj 0. '; '. state es rsl. iMOd, 100 W&u. 455, 76,k.E. ,3 1 ::, e Jonee v. pqlted 8*mte8, 96 tl. 8. 29* *k&.'R~. 6bbj ylofc4y v. Baraett, 2.l Utah, 239, 60 Bee %l@J, 50 2. R. A. 371."
Honosable Artlo Stephena, Page 3
The Supreme Court of U.lInoIe in the oaso of Phelps v. Sohool Diet. No. 109, l.34,N. E.,Jla, held ths folkmIng:
"The, goneral rule established by ull the deai- slons 1s that, whore performmoe or the oontraat la rendsred InipossIble by aot of Go% or the pub110 enaxny, the dlatrlot I6 rollsred from liability, but where the sohool Is olosed on account at a eonta- glow disease, or dertruotion o? the school bulld- ing by fin, and the toaoher Is ready and willing to oontinue hts duties under the oontraot, no de- duotion oan be made from his oalary Sor the time the sohool Is olossd. . . ."
The Oourt of Appeal8 of LouI8Iana In the oa~e oi Hughes v.,Grant Pariah Rohool Board, 145 .So. 794, In holding that a sohool dletrlot Oould not tWOi& paying a teacher a salary by dlsohar%Ing her after Ueetruotion of the aohool building fire, made the following aeoleratIonr
*It has bean rspaatadl held that fira 18 not a fortuItoue event; 0s 't ariesa almoat In- f
verIab1.y from acnne aot of man. Lehemn, Stern &
Ltd. v. Bbargan'a La. & Ter. R. k S. S. aa $'La. 1 38 90 873 70 L R. A 562 112 Am*'
.; et. ROE. 659, 5 .k eaa, 8iQDejean 4. La. &at-
em Ry. Go., 167 La,. 111, ll.8 C*. 822 Noel &OS. d
v. Texams & Pao. Ry. Co., 26 La. Am. 22, I.33 so.
830.
*'It Is also t&e rule that the dsienre of for- tultoua event will not avail where the pertomanoe of the'oontraot is not nmda inposalble, but merely inoonvenient, dlffloult, or unaesfirabls. Dallas+ Coopsrage & 'ffoodenware Co. v. Creston BoQp CO., La. 1077, 109 PO. 844~ Eugslrer & Co. V, Joseph weat & co., 35 La. Ann. 119, 48 Am. Rep. 232; Dewey v. .AJ.pena Gahool Cist., 43 Mloh. 480, 5 N. w. 64.6, 38 em. Rep. 206.
*In other stats8 it has been held that a 8oh001 boar% aannot ev0ia paging the salary of a teaohor beoausa ot the dastruotlen of thee soh001 buIl%ln~ by Sire, Clune V. Buohanan soho Diet.
No. 3, 166 Ws, 452,, 166 N. W. 11, 6 A. L. R. 736, *4 Bomrable Art&e Stephena, Page 4
and note page 7422; or bc08~60 the @@ho&a 81~ oloaed o~i aoaotmt of the preralenoa of oonts&ons diaaaaee, Mwey V. apen %hool Dint., 13 Mioh. 480, 5 NJ. w. 646, 38 Aa. Rep. 206; Libby v. &I- habitant8 of Douglae, 175 Hsal3. 128, 55 11. B. 808; Phelpa v.~ z%hoel DintrIot Wo. 109, 302 Ill. 193, 134 N. E. 312, 21 d. L. R. 737; Beard of Eduoation or city of EURO V. co~oh, 63 ckL 65. 162 P. 485, 6 A. L. B. 7b0, and notes.* As far a# w oan dctermlnc, the oourta of Taxes htste nwer passed upon the preolaa point Involved. Ma have aararully axamined the ~880 of Rsndolph v. ?~ndar8, 54 3. 'II. 621. In thut oaec plefntlir ~~8 employed ror the aoholaa- tio year bcgillaing septenlber 19, 189s; to taach In tha ptlbli6 sahool6 ot tha city of L-0. Ia January, February, and Bare& of 1899 them exlated In Laredo M epldeato of smallpox during uhioh period the SUhOQ1S *II= Olo8od end ralator perrormcd no eerrlaea. The awlmtor 1188 iaoued a wrrwt ra thla per&M of tiam but, the rwpondcnt r&uaed to pay %t, and relator inst,ltuted n~~%Uamw? prweediq8. The Oourthold that the salary was dua end granted the writ. There ma8 language in the opinion to the effe,ot that if the alo8fng of the aehoola had beea ~ntiead.4 88 ~amaaant, plainuti right not Iws entitled to oomperustion. But this langsage ma not naarssary for the &~oi@%on mndere& it i& nath&& nor0 than dictum, and in ~i6w Or the more reoent oaaea in 0th.W jUd8diOtiOiX3, W8 d0 not thidC that it VDUid b0 iOi- lolrad today.,
You state that the teaohera have atood in readinoaa tobeaeh In aaoordanoe with their oontraota. It is, thamfon, our opinion that the aahool aistrbt ia lis;blo to the teaohera ror the salaries 8pcoiTled in their oatra~ta.
Very truly your8