Shackelford v. District Township

The plaintiff’s brief assigns three errors, each being predicated upon alleged orders by the court, respectively, sustaining three successive demurrers.

The written contract sued upon was one purporting to have been signed by a subdirector only. It was not signed by the president of the board, nor filed, as required by Section 4229, Code of 1924. The contention put forth in apPliant’s brief is that the subdirectors of the defendant District Township were respectively authorized by a standing resolution of the board each to employ the teacher for his own district, and that such resolution was…