FROST v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 98

Annotate this Case

FROST v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 98
1926 OK 348
246 P. 432
118 Okla. 57
Case Number: 16456
Decided: 04/13/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

FROST
v.
SCHOOL DIST. No. 98, PAYNE COUNTY.

Syllabus by the Court

¶0 The negotiations and writings signed between the parties to this action, as shown by the facts recited in the opinion, resulted in a valid teacher's contract with the plaintiff in error, pursuant to section 10367, 10368, C. O. S. 1921.
Record examined; held to be insufficient to support a verdict for the defendant.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 4.

Appeal from District Court, Payne County; Chas. C. Smith, Judge.

Wilcox & Swank, of Stillwater, for plaintiff in error.
John P. Hickan, of Stillwater, and L. G. Lewis, of Yale, for defendant in error.

STEPHENSON, C.

¶1 E. M. Frost commenced his action against school district No. 98 of Payne county for damages for breach of contract of employment as superintendent of defendant's school. The trial of the cause resulted in an instructed verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff brings error and assigns the action of the court in instructing a verdict for the defendant as error for reversal.

¶2 E. M. Frost acted as superintendent of the school for the defendant for the school year 1922-23. A written form of contract was executed between the parties on the 18th day of May, 1923. The contract of employment was for the school year 1923-24, as superintendent, at a stipulated salary of $266.66 per month, or a total salary of $2,350, for nine months' employment. The plaintiff alleged and proved that the contract was signed in triplicate by the plaintiff, and on the part of the school officers, for the defendant. The plaintiff signed the form of oath prescribed by section 10368, supra, and further testified that it was understood that Walter Owen, the clerk, would take his acknowledgment thereto. The plaintiff further testified that the three copies of the contract were left with the members of the board, in order for the latter to submit the contract to the county superintendent for approval. It was contemplated that the plaintiff should commence his services for the defendant on September 4th, following. The plaintiff attended summer school, and at the close of the term went away on a vacation. The plaintiff wrote a letter to the members of the school board on July 19th relating to certain matters which should be attended to in relation to the coming school term. The plaintiff had no occasion to suspect that the board would not fill its contract for the coming school year, until he returned from his vacation. The plaintiff saw a notice in the local paper, about August 15th to the effect that another person had been employed as school superintendent by the defendant, for the coming year. The plaintiff made inquiry of the members of the board about the contract of employment with the plaintiff. The defendant school board did not give answers which disclosed the exact intention of the defendant in this respect. The members of the school board informed the plaintiff that the contract had not been approved by the county superintendent; thereupon the plaintiff requested to be given a copy of the contract, so that it might be submitted to the county superintendent for approval. The request was denied, and the board also refused to furnish the plaintiff with a copy of the contract, as it was required to do by statute. The opening of school was continued from the 4th of September until about the 17th on account of repairs then being made on the school building. The plaintiff held himself ready at all times to engage in the services of the defendant pursuant to the contract. The defendant refused the tendered service on the part of the plaintiff.

¶3 The county superintendent testified in the trial of this cause in relation to the contract in question as follows:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.