Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1940 )

Hon. Artle Stephens, page 2
vouchera for a period taught before
receipt of certlflcate?
‘C. .Asaumlng that under Article 2882 of
the' Revised Statutes of Texas that the contract
between the local school board and teaoher was
for the. reasons herelnbefore mentioned -void,
then would the School board be authorized to
make payment of any reasonable amount to
compensate such teacher for services actually
performed9”
Additional fasts ap&arlng in the letter show
that the teaaher ln question had sufficient eahool credits
to entitle him to a high sohool &rtifloate except that
he had not taken two required aourses In government. &ate
in the month of August he scoured the position to. teaoh
provided ha oould secure a oertlflaate and tbereupbn signed
up for the government cotirses in :Texaa Tech and turned In
his work to the instructor prior to the opening of the
sehool year, but it was not aoaepted acl satlsfaotqry by the
instructor ln oharga. Further delay was ocoaaioned by the
fact that the Instructor took a leave of .absence from Texas
Tech and the work submitted by the teacher was not’ aooepted
and the teacherIe certlfloate. issued by the Department of
Eduoatlon until about February 1, 1940.
Please accept &r thanks for the brief which
you have submitted with your letter of request.
Artlole 2882, .R.C.S., 1925, reads as follows:
“The oounty superintendent shall keep a
record of all oertlflcates held by persone
teaching In the publla schools of the oommon
school dietriots and of the independent school
dletrlcts of his oounty. .Any person who de-
sires to teach in a pub110 free school of a
common school district shall present his oertl-
floate for record, before the approval of his
~contract. Any person who desires to teach In
the pub110 schools of an lndppendent school
district ehall preeent his certificate. to the
oounty euperlntendent for record before hle
. .
Hon. Artle Stephens, page 3
contract with the board of trustees of the ln-
dependent aohool district shall become valid.
p tea&W or e.uDerlntendent who does not hold
3 valid certlfloate shall not be Dald for teach-
inn or work done before the nrantlnn of a valid
aertlfioate. eXOeDt for teaohlruz ln such branches
aa are exemDted under the tellne of this law,”
-(Underscoring oura). :
From your letter of requeet it does not appear
that the teacher In question waa teaching In such ex-
empted branches a8 are referred to In this article.
Article 291, P.C., 1925, reads ae follows:
“Any oounty or olty superintendent or
school trustee who approves any teaoher's
oontract or vouoher until the person haa
presented a valid certlfioate ahall be fined
not lese than twenty-five nor more than one
hundred dollars.”
Thls department ruled in an oplnlon, addressed
to the Ron. L. A. Woode, dated Oat. 18, 1935, Letter
Book 367, p. 917, that a teaoher’e oontraot entered Into
under’ facts similar to those set .out above was void.
In Richards v. RlohardsoQ, .(T. C.A., 1914) 168 9 .W.
50, the court‘ stated:
‘That statute .enjoina a duty upon the
teaoher and afflxea a penalty for failure to
perform the duty. That penalty la that, un-
less he has a valid oertlflcate, he ahall
not be paid out of free school funda. . .
.‘”. . . Appellant, at the time that be
entered into the contract with the trusteea,
had no euoh oertlfloate and In fact had no
valid aertlflcate for any grade. He.may, 88
he claipla, have been entitled to such certlr
flcate, but he had not obtained It. The oertl-
flcate granded by the county superintendent waB
. . .
Hon. Artie Stephens, page 4
null and void, and the contract founqed
upon it was null and void.
.*Not only’does the law provide that
no teacher who haa not a .valid certificate
shall receive tltly'.Qfthe.fnz?a eohool fund,
but It la made a mlademeanor for any board
of trustee8 to approve any oontract until
the person hae presented a ‘valid oertlfloate.
g$le 1512 (Pen. Code).Rev. Criminal State.
A contract made in violation of law
would be absolutely void. W.&Telegraph Co.
v. Partlow, 30 Tell. .Clv.‘.App. 599, 7l S.W,
586; Iioemer v. Sheldon Srrhool Dlatrlot, 4
N.D. 197, 59 N.W. 1035r 25 SALA. ,383,50
Am. .St. .Rep. 639; :Ryan v. -Dakota Co. .Dlfit.
27 Mlnn. 433, 8 N.W. 146s Xlmball v. .Sahool
Dist., 23 wash. 520, 63 Pao. 213. Schafer
v. Johna, 23 N.D. 593, 137 N.W. 481, 42.L.B.A.
(N..S,) 412; Flanary v. Barr@tt, 146 Ky. .7l2,
143 S.W. 38 Ann. caa. 1913C, 370.
*. . .
‘Appellant has not performed any aervloes
for the money he eeeka to oolleot, but; on
the other hand, he has reoelved .)llO. of the
.free school money to which he was not entitled.
Railway v. Randolph, 24 Tex. >317.
*The o&glnal oontraot was .vold, beoauee
repugnant to the statute, and it oould not
have been ratified and oertalnly cannot be
vitalized by obtalning,a oertlflcate and en-
deavoring to have It read a8 though of date
anterior to the execution of the oontraot. It
would not matter how competent and well fitted
he was to teach, nor that he may have been en-
titled to a flat-class oertifioate; he did
not have It when he entered Into the oontraot;
and that Instrument, being null and void In
ita lnoeptlon, oould not be vitalized and purl-
fled by any subsequent events, but it ‘ia so
. . .
Hon. Artle Stephens - page 5
;;gzt;$y and lneffeotu81 that nothing can
.'
"The statute provides for the employment
of teaohere who have valid oertlfloatae, and
It 16 made a crime for a board of trusteea.to
employ one who haa not a valid certificate,
and the statute does not say that the trustees
can employ a pewon to teaoh who la entitled
to a oertlfloate, nor one who may obtain a
certlfloate at some future time. The teacher
must exhibit to the trustees a valid oerti-
floate, and, aa said by Juatloe Nell1 1n.W.U.
Telegraph Co. v. Partlow; herein cltedz ‘A
contra& without suoh a oartlrlcate . . . would
unquestionably be void.' See, aleo, .Qoose..'
RI!?& Bank ir. Sohool Township, 1 N.D. 26, 44 N.W.
1002, 26 Am. 3% Rep. 6053 Bryan v. School Diet.
111 Mlch. 67, 69 N.W. 74; MoCloakey v. School
Dlst., 134.Mioh. 235, 95 &W; 18."
The statute before the co&z In that oase required
that a valid oertlflca$e be held and exhlblted before the
local board of trustees could enter Into the aontraot. The
present statute raqulras that a valid certlPIaate be held
and filed with the oount;JI.superintendent before he,shall
approve the teaoher'a aontract. The approval of 'the '.
oounty school superintendent la essential to the validity
of a teaoher'e oontraot made wlth the trua.teea, a common
~achool district. Xl11 vs. 'Smlthvllle Ind. School I&3t;.:!
239 3.~. 987.
A. It la our opinion that the te,acher*a
contract entered Into and approved-under the
faota presented is void and conwenaatlon may
not be paid thereunder to the person holding
euch void oontraot.
B. The county school superintendent is: .'
not authorized to approve vauoh&a Issued to
a person as oinqpeneatlon for teaching In a
ciommonschool district for a period during
which euoh teaoher did not hold a'valld
teacher's oert%rlcate, alnoe such approval le
apeolflcally p*hlbited by law.
C. A pereon teaching In a ooupon school
. .. .
,Hon.. &tie .s tephene - page 6
district wlthout first having obtained a
valid teacher’s aertlflaate may not be
paid a reasonable amottjit ‘Par aervl&M aq$u:
ally parformed out oP the @blic achoQ1
Pun& of thie state, for ‘the period. dursng
wh$oh such teaaher did not hold a valid
oertlflcate; A$tloZe 2882, R.C,S., 1925,.
epeolPloally @royld&g that the. teacher. %a11
. not be paid for t&aching or worgdone “b$P&% :
the granting of a val~d,oertlPlca,te.JW
_
This. Qp$.ni& d,oe@.E?Qt:aPpl;p tQ teach
branches -exempted .urM#r th$ car@ qi Art$?i(i
.19255; and: klated a$Btutqe;. ”
~oui-8 vei-y : truly
.’
ATpoRNEy.qaa@ OF. TEjtAs
.& a/ .C,eoil ; C, Canqqaok
‘+3e,+itant
.CCC:ob
IIPW qpr‘-li, 1+0.
w..“.&:J!?oore
F&r~rs~~~~.l~tant Attbrney