{ "id": 1612026, "name": "Chidester School District No. 50 v. Faulkner", "name_abbreviation": "Chidester School District No. 50 v. Faulkner", "decision_date": "1951-01-22", "docket_number": "4-9330", "first_page": "239", "last_page": "244", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "218 Ark. 239" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "235 S.W.2d 870" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "156 S. W. 450", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1342273 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/108/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S. W. 2d 523", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 Ark. 1145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726368 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/194/1145-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 S. W. 2d 841", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ark. 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1435315 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/185/0658-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 S. W. 73", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 Ark. 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1388520 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/161/0466-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 424, "char_count": 7905, "ocr_confidence": 0.529, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.3068488184931334e-07, "percentile": 0.7880054010870904 }, "sha256": "8feec823ac496e8ddb2c79868aaf8f0b19ed5a282e861c066ca6cced3a14e772", "simhash": "1:1a54e4dc352cbeb8", "word_count": 1340 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:20:49.049805+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Chidester School District No. 50 v. Faulkner." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Holt, J.\nFebruary 10,1949, the Directors of School District No. 14, Ouachita County (referred to as Reader District) entered into written contracts with appellees, Mr. and Mrs. Faulkner, to teach a nine months term of school to begin September 5, 1949, at salaries of $200 and $140 per month, respectively. These contracts were authorized at a meeting of the Reader School Board at which all three members were present, and were signed by two board members, along with appellees.\nJune 1, 1949, by proper procedure under Initiated Act No. 1 of 1948 (Ark. Stats., 1947, Cumulative Pocket Supplement 1949, \u00a7 80-426, et seq.), Reader District was consolidated with appellant, Chidester District No. 59. The appellant, district, and its directors refused to accept and honor appellees\u2019 contracts with the Reader District and the present suit was instituted by appellees to enforce \u201cspecific performance (of the contracts) and for judgment against the defendant (Chidester District) for the amount due under their contracts, \u2019 \u2019 etc.\nThere was a trial, and a decree on April 25, 1950, awarding Mr. Faulkner $1,800 and $1,260 to Mrs. Faulkner. During the trial, the parties stipulated in accordance with the following findings of the Chancellor: \u201cThe Court further finds that counsel for plaintiffs and defendants have agreed that if a decree is entered in favor of plaintiffs, that the amo'unt of the judgment to which each of them will be entitled is the full sum due under their contracts.\u201d\nThe material facts appear to be practically undisputed.\nAppellants state the issues as follows: \u2018 \u2018 The theory of the appellees upon the trial was that the Chidester District was bound under the law to either employ them as teachers or to pay their salaries. The theory of the appellants is that, while they recognize the law to be that a school district is bound to carry out all contracts which have been, in good faith, entered into by a district which is annexed to it, that the contracts here were made at a time and under such circumstances that they were tainted with either actual or constructive fraud and not valid.\u201d\nThey further argue that the contracts were void because they would extend beyond the term of all the members of the Board in office at the time, because they were executed only for use by the G-urdon District, because of impossibility of performance and finally because appellees were not qualified.\nAs indicated, the record reflects that all three of the Reader District directors were present at the regular meeting of the Board when the contracts here were authorized and approved. They were signed by appellees and two members of the Board. These directors, along with appellees, testified positively (and without contradiction) that there was no fraud, actual or constructive, or collusion in the execution of these contracts. The directors were familiar with the provisions of Act No. 1. Appellees were excellent teachers and fully qualified and at all times stood ready to perform under the contracts, and it is undisputed that they had been unable to secure other employment during the nine months period for which they were employed to teach.\nThe primary and decisive question is whether these contracts, in the circumstances, were valid. We hold that they were.\nSection 4 of Act 1, above, (\u00a7 80-429,1949 Supplement), provides: \u201cConstruction of Act. \u2014 No construction shall be given to any part of this Act (\u00a7\u00a7 80-426 \u2014 80-429) that would result in impairing the obligations or any valid contract of any school district. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all matters of reorganization a'nd annexation of school districts undertaken under the provisions of this Act shall be made in accordance with existing laws. (Init. Meas. 1948, No. 1, \u00a7 4, Acts 1949, p. 1414).\u201d\nIt thus became the duty of the Chidester District, to which Reader had been annexed, to honor and perform all valid contracts of the Reader District.\nHere, the Faulkners were employed for a nine months term. The fact that the term would extend beyond the term of all the Board members in office when the contracts were made (February 10, 1949) does not, as appellants argue, make them void.\nIn Gardner v. No. Little Rock Special School District, 161 Ark. 466, 257 S. W. 73, this court approved the general rule announced in 24 R.C.L., page 579, as follows: \u201c In the absence of an express or implied statutory limitation, a school board may enter into a contract to employ a teacher or any proper officer for a term extending beyond that of the board itself, and such contract, if made in good faith and without fraudulent collusion, binds the succeeding board. It has even been held that, under proper circumstances, a board may contract for the services of an employee to commence at a time subsequent to the end of the term of one or more of their number and subsequent to the reorganization of the board as a whole, or even subsequent to the. terms of the board as a whole. The fact that the purpose of the contract is to forestall the action of the succeeding board may not, of itself, render the contract void. But a hiring for an unusual time is strong evidence of fraud and collusion, which, if present, would invalidate the contract.\u201d See, also, School District No. 45, Pope County v. McClain, 185 Ark. 658, 48 S. W. 2d 841.\nThe fact that the contracts here were signed by only two of the directors of the Reader District does not invalidate them for the reason that it is undisputed that they were authorized and made at a regular meeting, attended by all three of the members of the Board and all voted for the execution of the contracts.\nThe rule announced in Center Hill School District No. 32 v. Hunt, 194 Ark. 1145, 110 S. W. 2d 523, applies with equal force here. There we held (Headnote 2): \u2018 \u2018 Schools and School Districts \u2014 Contracts with Teachers. \u2014Though one of the three directors had moved out of the district, where all of them, without notice of a meeting, got together to employ a teacher, a contract signed by two of the three of them was valid, since where all participated in the meeting notice was not necessary. \u2019 \u2019\nAs to appellants \u2019 contention that the contracts were executed for use by the Gurdon District, but little need be said. The preponderance, if not all of the evidence, supports the following findings of the Chancellor: \u2018 \u2018 The testimony shows that there was some effort made by the Reader District to consolidate with the Gurdon District, in Clark County. The effort to consolidate with the Gurdon District was never consummated, and, as the court sees it, the effort to consolidate with the Gurdon District has no material bearing on the issues involved in this action. \u2019 \u2019\nThe fact remains that the Reader District was properly consolidated with the Chidester District, and as pointed out, Chidester District was liable for Reader\u2019s valid contracts.\nFinally, appellants say that appellees were not qualified to teach in the Chidester District. This contention is without merit. Ark. Stats., 1947, \u00a7 80-1209, provides: \u201cNo teacher shall be employed in any common school of the State who is not licensed to teach in the State of Arkansas, by a license issued by the State Board'of Education.\u201d\nIt is undisputed, that both appellees held certificates to teach in this State, issued by the State Board of Education. See Lee v. Mitchell, 108 Ark. 1, 156 S. W. 450.\nHaving concluded that the contracts here involved are valid, and in view of the stipulation of the parties above to the effect that should we hold the contracts valid (as we do), each of the appellees would be entitled to recover the full amount set out in their contracts, the decree is in all things affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Holt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "L. B. Smead, for appellant.", "C. Stanford Harrell and J. Bruce Streett, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Chidester School District No. 50 v. Faulkner.\n4-9330\n235 S. W. 2d 870\nOpinion delivered January 22, 1951.\nL. B. Smead, for appellant.\nC. Stanford Harrell and J. Bruce Streett, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0239-01", "first_page_order": 263, "last_page_order": 268 }