Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/50

, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. of Steele county, Defendant and Respondent.

1. Teacher’s Certificate; Warrant Issued to Teacher Having No Certificate Void.

Every contract relating to the employment of a teacher who does not hold a lawful certificate of qualification is void by the express terms of the statute, and every warrant issued in payment of services of such teacher is without consideration and void.

2. School Warrants Not Negotiable.

School township warrants are not negotiable instruments, in the sense that their negotiation will cut off defenses to them existing against them in the hands of the payee.

3. Same; Township Not Estopped by Representations of Its Officers.

The officers of a school township cannot estop the township by a representation, express or implied, that the facts to authorize the issue of a lawful warrant exist.

4. Prohibited Contract; Retention of Fruits of, Does Not Render Municipality Liable.

Where a contract is expressly prohibited or declared void by statute, retention of the fruits of such contract will not subject a municipality to liability under the contract or on a quantum meruit.

5. Same; Teacher Making Such Contract Has No Standing in Court.

A person who assists a public officer in depriving the public of the benefits of a statutory protection designed to guard the people against unfit and incompetent teachers has no standing in court, and his assignee will receive no greater consideration.

PPEAL from district court, Steele county; Hon., Judge.

This was an an action on three warrants issued by defendant in payment of wages of a teacher. The defense was that the teacher held no certificate, and that therefore the warrants were void.

A. B. Levisee, Esq., for the appellant, argued: That defendant is estopped to make the defense which it pleads, the plain-