Legal Opinion

Smith v. School District No. 89

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 24, 1933No. 4-2986PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Johnson, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The trial court erred in submitting this controversy to a jury. The uncontradicted testimony shows that no' valid contract was made between appellant as a teacher and the appellee district. The testimony of Mr. Meadows, quoted in the statement of facts, demonstrates that the minds of the parties never met upon the terms and conditions of the contract of employment. Appellant had applied for the position of teacher for a nine months’ period at a salary of $95 per month. A majority of the board refused to employ him at this salary. A majority of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Weaver v. BurrWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Horgan v. RussellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. McKenzie v. BoorhemDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1954
  2. Reynolds v. Texarkana Construction Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
  3. Debron Corporation v. National Homes Construction CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1974
  4. North v. PhilliberSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
  5. Southern Acid & Sulphur Co. v. ChildsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API