It is well enough to bear in mind that, as a general rule, an infant who makes a definite contract to perform services may put an end to it whenever he chooses. In such a case the infant may recover proportional compensation for the services performed, subject to any reasonable offsets.1 Although no suit can be maintained against a minor for breach of contract of service, yet damages sustained by reason of such breach of the contract may be set off against the minor's claim for services.

At common law married women are disabled from making such contracts, but in many of the States legislation for the removal of this disability has been adopted.3

Where one member of a board of directors or trustees contracts with the other member or members, such a contract has sometimes been held void on the grounds of public policy.

1 Schouler on Domestic Relations, *561.

2 1 Parsons on Contracts, * 345.

Sometimes

3 In the following-named States and Territories the right to make contracts and receive wages is given to married women by statute-viz., Colorado, Connecticut, Dakota Territory, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Wyoming Territory, and Wisconsin.

4 Pickett v. School District, 25 Wis., 551.

the school office has been held to be vacated thereby; the duties of teacher and trustee are incompatible.'

2. A CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE.

Before any contract to teach can be entered into, and as a prerequisite thereto, the teacher must have and produce a certificate of mental and moral qualifications, signed by the proper examining offi

cer.2

Circumstances cannot supersede the necessity of this certificate, nor can the committee waive it so as to bind the district.3

In Tennessee the common-school commissioners are indictable for employing a teacher who has no examiner's certificate.*

In Vermont, however, it is held that the requirement of the law is satisfied if the certificate

1 Ferguson v. True and Walker, 3 Bush (Ky.), 255.

2 Jenness v. School District No. 31, 12 Minn., 448; Robinson v. The State, 2 Coldw. (Tenn.), 181; Baker v School District, 12 Vt., 192; Goodrich v. Fairfax, 26 Vt., 115; Welch v. Brown, 30 Vt., 586; Harrison Township v. Conrad, 26 Ind., 337; Jackson v. Hampden, 20 Me., 37; Botkin v. Osborne, 39 Ill., 609; Casey v. Baldridge, 15 Ill., 65; Barr v. Deniston, 19 N. H., 170; Finch v. Cleveland, 10 Barb. (N. Y)., 290.

8 Baker v. School District, 12 Vt., 192; Goodrich v. Fairfax, 26 Vt., 115; Welch v. Brown, 30 Vt., 586.

4 Robinson v. the State, 2 Coldw. (Tenn.), 181.

is obtained on the evening of the first day of school. So, if it appears that a certificate was made out at the proper time, by the proper officer, upon satisfactory evidence of qualifications, this will suffice, although by accident or neglect the certificate was not put into the teacher's hands."

In Vermont, it is said, the certificate need not contain any statement of the good moral character of the teacher, although a good moral character is essential, and must be inquired into by the examiner. 3

The certificate of a majority of the superintending committee of a town, produced by the schoolmaster to the agent employing him, is a valid certificate under Maine Rev. Stat., ch. 17, although that majority did not act together in the examination.1

If the teacher has obtained a certificate without fraud, or use of improper arts on his part, although the certificate was issued without any examination having been made, still, it is said, this complies with the law to such an extent that the lack of examination is no defence to an action for the teacher's salary."

1 Paul v. School District, 28 Vt., 575.

? Blanchard v. School District. 29 Vt., 433.

3 Crosby v. School District, 35 Vt., 623.

4 Stevens v. Fassett, 27 Me., 266.

George v. School District No. 8, 20 Vt., 495.

Any contract made with a teacher who does not possess the required certificate of qualifications is void, and the teacher can draw no pay under it.' And this is so, even though the superintending school committee, whose duty it is to make the examinations, neglects or wantonly refuses to examine the teacher.'

A school district has no right to waive this requirement of the law, and consent to judgment. Any person interested as a taxpayer in the district may enjoin such judgment.3

The county superintendent is not entitled to an injunction to restrain a person from teaching a public school, or the officers from paying for such services out of the school funds of the district, on the ground that such teacher is acting without a certificate of qualifications in violation of the laws of the State. Such a proceeding may be maintained by any citizen or resident of the district,

1 Smith v. Curry, 16 Ill., 147; Casey v. Baldridge, 15 Ill., 65; Botkin v. Osborne, 39 Ill., 609; Harrison Township v. Conrad, 26 Ind., 337; Jackson v. Hampden, 20 Me., 37; Dore v. Billings, 26 Me., 56; Barr v. Deniston, 19 N. H., 170; Baker v. School District, 12 Vt., 192; Goodrich v. Fairfax, 26 Vt., 115; Welch v. Brown, 30 Vt., 586.

2 Jackson v. Hampden, 20 Me., 37. 3 Barr v. Deniston, 19 N. H., 170.

but not by the county superintendent, merely by virtue of his office.1

Under a statute which declares that the certificate which the school commissioner is required to grant to teachers after examination shall not be valid for more than a year without the approval of such certificate by the commissioner indorsed thereon, and which requires every teacher to obtain and produce such certificate before employment, the spirit of the law was complied with, although the commissioner did not approve the certificate in writing, but declared the teacher competent, and gave his sanction to the previous arrangement of the school in the presence of the trustees.2

A teacher's certificate of qualifications obtained from the school commissioner is prima facie evidence of his being qualified to perform the duties of a teacher, and it devolves upon the school directors to prove incompetency or neglect of duty when they have dismissed him for either of these causes.3

1 Perkins v. Wolf et al., 17 Iowa, 228; Barr v. Deniston, 19 N. H, 170.

2 Barnhart v. Bodenhammer, 31 Mo., 319.

3 Neville v. School Directors, 36 Ill., 71.