Goetz v. School-District No. 59
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Stearns county, to recover for his services as a teacher in the schools of defendant. Defendant appeals from an order by McKelvy, J., overruling its demurrer to the complaint.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Stearns county, to recover for his services as a teacher in the schools of defendant. Defendant appeals from an order by McKelvy, J., overruling its demurrer to the complaint. The only allegation in the complaint showing plaintiff’s qualifications for employment as a teacher in the public schools is the following, viz.: “That this plaintiff is, and for more than six months last passed has been, a duly qualified teacher of and in the public schools of said state.” cited Gen. St. 1878, c. 36, § 66; Jenness v. School-District, 12 Minn. 448;…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff was “a duly qualified teacher of and in the public schools of the state, ” includes the fact that he had received the certificate required by the statute, for without that fact he could not be a duly qualified teacher. The complaint differs from, that in Ryan v. School-District, 27 Minn. 433, in which there was no allegation of the receipt of the certificate, nor of any fact which included or was equivalent to the allegation of that fact. See Minn. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Morrison, 23 Minn. 308; Folsom v. County of Chisago, 28 Minn.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ryan v. School-District No. 13Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Folsom v. County of ChisagoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Glass v. St. Paul Park Carriage & Sleigh Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Moon v. AllenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900