GORDON v. TR. TUSCUMBIA SCHOOL DIST

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 34237.

Attorney(S)

Sharp Sharp, of Booneville, for appellant. It is our contention that in enacting Chapter 255, Laws 1936, it was the legislative intent to provide for the payment of all obligations of the schools where the services had been actually rendered on materials or supplies furnished in good faith. Fitch v. Upshaw, 180 Miss. 298, 177 So. 57, was a proceeding to require the issuance of a pay certificate when no contract had been signed, the court held that the action could not be maintained, but that case was not brought under the provisions of Chapter 255, Laws 1936, and we find no fault with that decision. If the Legislature had intended to make certificates issued without written contracts illegal and void, it would doubtless have so written the statute. Is the district in this case released from its obligation to pay for the services rendered by these teachers and transportation carriers because the county superintendent neglected, failed or refused to execute a written contract with each of them? If not, these are valid obligations of the district and come within the provisions of Chapter 255, Laws 1936, and if we are mistaken as to our views in regard to all of the certificates certainly the appellant is entitled to recover on the certificate issued to transportation carriers, for there is no statute making it unlawful to issue pay certificates to transportation carriers before the execution of a written contract. Hebron Bank v. Lawrence County, 109 Miss. 397, 69 So. 209; Pearman v. Robertson, 119 Miss. 384, 80 So. 710. In construing Chapter 255, Laws 1936, we must construe it in the light of existing facts and conditions and the evils to be corrected and the purposes to be accomplished. It is evident that it was the intent of the Legislature to provide for the payment of all outstanding obligations against the schools of the state where services had been rendered or material or supplies had actually been furnished without regard to technicalities or irregularities. Surely if the Legislature, in order to put the schools upon a sound and cash basis, would authorize and require the payment of obligations theretofore declared by statute to be void, it would be a strained construction to say that void certificates should be paid but those that were merely irregularly issued could not be. 2 Lewis Sutherland's Statutory Construction (2 Ed.), pp. 913-914; Bd. of Sup'rs, Prentiss County, v. McRee, 189 So. 95, 185 Miss. 726; Trustees of Geeville Consolidated School Dist. v. Gordon, 185 Miss. 726, 189 So. 97; Secs. 5977, 6614, 6621, Code of 1930. J. Sidney Finch, of Booneville, for appellee. As an essential prerequisite to the issuance of a teacher's pay certificate, such as the ones here involved, a written contract must be entered into between the superintendent of education and the respective teacher, it is unlawful to issue such pay certificate before a written contract is made by and between the superintendent and such teacher. Sec. 6610, Code 1930; Whitehurst v. Smith, 170 Miss. 535, 155 So. 683; Fitch et al. v. Upshaw, 180 Miss. 298, 177 So. 57. A written contract is likewise required between the county superintendent of education and the transportation drivers. Sub-section A, Sec. 6639, Code of 1930. The teacher and transportation driver acting under an unwritten contract is in the position of being a volunteer to the school district. The Legislature did not intend to change the substantive law by enacting Chapter 255 of the Laws of 1936 so as to make valid acts that were clearly outlawed by statute and by our supreme court, and thereby furnish a remedy whereby actions could be brought and sustained. If this had been the intention of the Legislature, we earnestly insist that it would have specifically set out in no uncertain terms that such certificates were to be validated by the enactment of that chapter. To sustain his position that said chapter does validate such certificates, appellant cites McRee v. Bd. of Sup'rs, 185 Miss. 726, 189 So. 96, and Trustees of Geeville Cons. School v. Gordon, 185 Miss. 739, 189 So. 97. Neither of these cases is applicable or controlling in this case. In the above cases the only question raised was whether or not Sections 15 and 16 of Chapter 255 of the Laws of 1936 were mandatory or permissive.

Judges

Griffith, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

GORDON v. TRUSTEES TUSCUMBIA SCHOOL DIST.

1. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Under statute expressly requiring that contract for transportation of pupils be in writing, certificates issued to a carrier whose contracts are not in writing are invalid (Code 1930, sec. 6639(a)).

2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Where a particular method of contracting is prescribed for contracts which in their nature are public, the manner is the measure of power and must be followed to create a valid contract.

3. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

The amended statute relating to the expenditure of school funds is for the benefit of those who hold valid obligations of school districts and is not a curative statute in sense which would permit granting relief to the holder of teachers' and carriers' certificates which were invalid because the contracts under which the services were performed were not in writing as required by statute (Code 1930, sec. 6639(a); Laws 1936, chap. 255).

Griffith, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant is the holder of a number of unpaid teachers' certificates, and of some issued for the transportation of pupils. It is admitted in the agreed statement of facts that neither the teachers nor the carriers were such under written contracts, as stipulated in the pertinent statutes.

We have already held in Fitch v. Upshaw, 180 Miss. 298, 177 So. 57, that in such a case the teachers' certificates are invalid, and we now hold that certificates issued to a pupil carrier whose contracts are not in writing, are invalid. The statute, Section 6639(a), expressly requires that these carrier contracts shall be in writing; and the rule in respect to contracts, which in their nature are public, is that "where a particular manner of contracting is prescribed, the manner is the measure of power and must be followed to create a valid contract." American Book Co. v. Vandiver, 181 Miss. 518, 528, 178 So. 598, 600.

Appellant contends, however, that he is entitled to some sort of relief under Chapter 255, Laws 1936, but that chapter is for the benefit of those who hold valid obligations of school districts, and is not a curative statute in the sense in which appellant seeks to make it applicable here.

Affirmed.

GORDON v. TRUSTEES TUSCUMBIA SCHOOL DIST.

Comments