School District No. 22 v. Traywick
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Calvin T. Gotham, Judge; There were three qualified directors of the district, as appears by the evidence. No previous written notice was given of the meeting at which appellee claims to have been elected; and the meeting in which Powell participated was called, not for the purpose of electing a teacher, but for the specific purpose of signing the notices of the annual school election, and for that purpose only.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Calvin T. Gotham, Judge; There were three qualified directors of the district, as appears by the evidence. No previous written notice was given of the meeting at which appellee claims to have been elected; and the meeting in which Powell participated was called, not for the purpose of electing a teacher, but for the specific purpose of signing the notices of the annual school election, and for that purpose only. The district was not bound by the 'alleged election of Traywick 69 Ark. 159. No previous notice is necessary where all of the directors are present…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This appeal involves the validity of a contract which appellee claims to have made with the directors of the appellant district to teach school. He recovered judgment for .a sum which is conceded to be due him if he had a valid and binding contract, as he was not permitted to .teach the .school which he alleges he had contracted to teach.
The contract on which he sues was signed by two of the directors of the 'district, and the question in the case is whether or not the meeting of the board of directors at which the alleged contract was. signed was a legal one.
The cause was submitted to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rice v. School District No. 20Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
3Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. School District No. 89Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1933