(DOWNLOAD) "Le Clair v. School Dist. No. 28" by Supreme Court of Montana ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Le Clair v. School Dist. No. 28
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 29, 1925
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
Schools and School Districts ? Teachers Contracts ? Breach ? Evidence ? Sufficiency ? Instructions ? Law of Case ? Nonpayment of Salary ? Admissions ? Formal Proof Unnecessary. Instructions ? Law of Case ? Jury must Follow. 1. Instructions are the law of the case which the jury must follow, whether right or wrong, and a verdict rendered in disregard of them will be set aside as against law. - Page 386 Schools ? Teachers Contract ? Breach ? Burden of Proof. 2. Where an instruction in an action by a school-teacher against a school board for breach of contract of employment advised the jury that the burden of proving that plaintiff presented herself to the officers of the district for performance of her duties at the beginning of the school year was upon her, and that if she did not so present herself verdict should be for defendant, evidence that she presented herself to the only officer available, the others being absent, was sufficient to justify a verdict in her favor. Same ? Tender of Services by Teacher ? When not Required. 3. Since the law does not require impossibilities nor the doing of idle acts, where a school board by filling the position for which it had employed plaintiff had put it out of its power to place her, all other positions being filled, did not hold any meeting at which plaintiff could have presented herself for duty, and the superintendent had advised her that the board had repudiated its contract with her, she was not required to tender her services to the board or the superintendent, within the meaning of the instruction above, to entitle her to recover. Same ? Nonpayment of Salary ? Admissions ? Formal Proof not Necessary. 4. Formal proof of nonpayment of plaintiffs salary was rendered unnecessary by allegations in defendant districts answer made in excuse of nonpayment, constituting in effect admissions of nonpayment, and by the testimony of its clerk that plaintiffs salary would have been the amount sued for if she had served.