Page:The school law of Michigan.djvu/74

68 When a contract with a teacher has been agreed upon at a board meeting, it is the duty of the director and the moderator to sign it. It is not in the power of the officers to defeat the action of the board by refusing to sign a contract authorized by it (93 Mich., 43). A contract signed by, two members of the board without calling a meeting and consulting with the other member, is void (47 Mich., 626). It is not imperative that a contract be signed by all three of the officers, and one signed by a majority of the board is presumed to be valid, especially if the officers draw and pay orders without protest (61 Mich., 299). It should also have the teacher&rsquo;s signature.

While it is the duty of the director to sign and file a teacher&rsquo;s contract, his refusal to perform his duty in this respect does not impair the validity of a contract, if otherwise properly authorized and executed (46 Mich., 316). A contract valid on its face and carried with the acquiescence of all concerned, can not be subsequently repudiated (62 Mich. 153; 77 Mich. 610).

Contracts made between the district board and teacher must be authorized at a regular meeting of the board (47 Mich., 626). After a contract has been duly authorized at a meeting of the board, it may be signed at the convenience of the officers (30 Mich., 249).

No power is now conferred by statute upon the voters at a district meeting, to determine whether the school shall be taught by a male or a female teacher (88 Mich., 374).

All teachers whether qualified or unqualified, are entitled to pay for services actually performed. The general policy of the school law is that schools shall be taught by qualified teachers, but necessities may arise where this cannot be done. A district may be unable to find a qualified teacher. Where the employment of an