It has been held that an unlicensed teacher was liable to action for assault and battery if he resorted to corporal punishment; that his authority came only from his certificate.

Horace Mann held that in such a case the teacher could be effectively defended:

"On the other hand, some incline to the opinion. that a teacher without a certificate, though not in law a teacher, yet is so in fact; and while the actual relation of teacher and pupil subsists, all the legal powers of a teacher attach to this relation, and may therefore be exercised by them. If a school kept by a teacher without a certificate is not a public school, then it must be a private school; and the teacher of a private school has as clear a right to inflict punishment, in exigencies that require it, as any other teacher, or as any parent."-10th Mass Report, p. 169

The courts have taken this view. (13 Neb 52; 59 N H 473; 27 Vt 755)

Sup't Morrison decided (S. B. xii. 62) that the law. does not prohibit one pupil from instructing others, but this could not be allowed as a substitute for an adequate teaching force. If a school is too large for the teacher, the trustee should provide an additional teacher.

CHAPTER VII

Trustees: Duration of Contract

Trustees of school districts or boards of education who employ any teacher to teach must, at the time of such employment, make and deliver to such teacher, or cause to be made and delivered a contract in writing, signed by them, or by some person duly authorized to represent them in the premises, in which the details of the agreement between the parties, and particularly (a) the length of the term of employment, (b) the amount of compensation, and (c) the time when such compensation is due and payable are clearly and definitely set forth. (562).

In some states absence of a written contract makes the contract void. (136 Ind 503, 25 Ind Ap 161, 22 L R A 515, 105 Mass 102, 19 Minn 203, 39 Minn 499, 36 N E 141, 57 N E 732, 80 N W 354, 87 N W 80)

Although a contract between a teacher and the school district board must be in writing, it need not be reduced to writing during the session of the board, but it is sufficient if made by parol during such session, and signed after the adjournment of the board. (42 Kan 695)

Essie Fisher was engaged to teach at National Mine, Mich., one year beginning Sept., 1895. There was no written contract, but the clerk of the board gave her notification which she accepted by letter. Three days before school opened the clerk notified her that her services were not needed. She replied that she regarded the former notice as a contract, brought suit and recovered salary for the year.- Mich. Moderator Jan. 21, 1897.

A teacher had a written contract with the school district to teach the school in the district for a term of 6 months.

He taught until the expiration of 6 months from December 11, and testified that, before the expiration of this time, he made a new arrangement, orally, with the board to continue the school for another month, under the old contract. He received pay for the full 6 months covered by the original contract. Then, in this action, he recovered a judgment for $35, the value of the service for the extra month, under the new arrangement.

The school district contended that the contract, not being in writing, was not enforceable. The teacher, on the other hand, contended, first, that this was not a new contract, but an enlargement of the original one, which was in writing. This proposition is not tenable. The law contemplates that all the terms of the contract shall be in writing; and if, under a claim of enlarging or continuing a written contract, the board might make the principal part of it rest in parol, or in an oral agreement, it would have the effect to render the statute of little value.

It was further contended that, the contract having been performed by the teacher, he was entitled to recover, notwithstanding the state statute, which requires that all such contracts shall be in writing. There is nothing ambiguous about the terms of this statute. The district board is a board of limited powers, and no good reason can be urged why, when the statute is express and limits their power to contracts in writing, it should not be observed. In a previous case (61 Mich 299) it affirmed that, where a written contract was signed by a majority of the board, and was presumptively valid on its face, the execution of such a contract, not duly authorized, might be ratified by the board without a formal meeting. Where there was a written contract, valid on its face, actually carried out in full, and acquiesced in by all concerned, the court held (62 Mich 153) that it could not be subsequently repudiated. The effect of these cases was to hold that one contracting with the school district in writing, and whose contract is signed by the officers contemplated by the statute, may rely upon the appearance of authority, and assume, at

least, after his services have been received without murmer or complaint, that authority had been duly granted to execute the contract.

This case is to be distinguished from one (110 Mich 363) in which all the officers of the district ratified a contract not required by the terms of the statute to be in writing, where the only question was whether the informal action of the board should be sustained. Here the plaintiff (teacher) is presumed to know the law, and must be held to know that the contract under which he assumed to render service to the district was one prohibited by the statute because not written. He was not misled as to the authority of those with whom he assumed to contract, but stood upon equal ground with the school board, and, although it may be a case of hardship, the contract is one not enforceable, and a verdict should have been directed for the defendant (school district). (87 N W 80)

In Ky. a verbal contract is sufficient, provided the city has not itself passed some statutory provision requiring contracts in writing. (Roberts vs. Clay city, Ky S. C. May 9, 1900)

A written contract may contain more than one instrument. (72 N E, citing 149 Ind 152)

Va. imposes a fine of $50 upon any school-board that fails to enter into written contract in form prescribed.

In New York failure to give the teacher a written contract does not vitiate the contract. (D 3640. See 33 Ia 105, 40 Ia 444, 63 Mo 137, 13 Pac 329) But it makes it difficult for the teacher to prove what were the terms of the contract, in case there is a dispute (D 3890). Where the case is difficult to determine (D 3768, 4263), or where the amount of damages is indeterminate (D 3768, 3797) the commissioner of education will refuse to interfere, and refer the matter to the courts.

(562)

The contract must be definite.

(72 N E 159, citing 136 Ind 503, 25 Ind Ap 161, 22 L R A 515, 105 Mass 102, 19 Minn 203, 36 N E 141, 57 N E 732)

It must be so plain as to be capable of specific enforcement. (77 Ind 447, 127 Ind 95, 26 N E 686, 56 N E 524, 72 N E 159)

A teacher was employed at a certain regular meeting on condition that she should attend at some place of learning a summer training school, but the contract did not say when school was to begin, what grade she was to teach, nor how much she should be paid. Held not sufficiently definite. (72 NE 159)

In the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, it will be conclusively presumed that the contract contains the entire agreement of the parties. (52 Ia 130, 25 S E 830)

When a teacher accepted a written contract for 16 weeks, but claimed to have been hired for 36 weeks, the burden of evidence to dispute the contract is upon the teacher. (D 3944, 4767)

An application by a teacher for position and an order by the board to employ her are not sufficient to constitute a contract. (72 NE 159)

On the other hand a resignation may be recalled before it is acted upon.

A teacher and a board of directors of a school district entered into a written contract for the former to teach the public school in such district for a term of 36 weeks, commencing in September. He took charge of the school, and taught it up to the beginning of the winter vacation in December. Two days before he closed the school for the vacation, he handed a tender of his resignation to the president of the board, to take effect the day the school should close for the vacation. The president called a special meeting of the board for the Saturday evening following the closing of the