Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-273

Opinion No. 273 Schools-Teachel's-Trustees- Contracts-Marriage. HJ<:jLD: A IH'Ovision in a contract em- ploying a female school teacher, which ;..:i\-es the school bonn\ the ]lower, at Its option, to terminate the contract if ,mid female marries during the school term. is illegal and void .. July 14, 1933. It al)pears from YOl1r request for an opinion that Mrs. Tichenor, a school teacher, entered into a contract with the board to teach for the school term heginning in September, 11)33, but he- fore doing so notified the board that she intended to man'Y soon after the term ending in .Tune, 1933, should ex- pire. The members of the board advised the teacher that in the e,ent of her marriage the board would terminate her contract. Such contract contains the following I)rovision: "If a woman teacher is married during the school term the Gallatin County High School Board may, at its option, terminate this contract." The question as to whether or not )lrs. Tichenor can legally hold the hoard to the contract is scarcely in doubt. From the facts submitted and the wording of the contract the only ground on which the board proposes to hase its right to terminate the contract with l\frs. Tichenor is that. suhsequent to the execution of the contract for 19::1::1-1934, she married. Section 7562, R. C. M. 1921. is as fol- lows: "E,-ery contract in restraint of the marriage of any person, other than a minor, is void." (See Security State Hank Y. McIntyre, 71 Mont. 186, at vage 202, construing above section.) In Knost v. Knost, 129 S. W. 665, (Mo.) the court said: "While mania.!{e is con- sidered by our statute law a civil ~n­ tract yet' it creates a status in which the state has a vital interest. hoth in its creation and dissolution." In the above case a daughter was bequeathed certain property hy her father's will on condition that she should not marry. The court held the prohibition of mar- ringe void. "Hestrictions on marriage arE' contrary to public policy, and there- fore agreements or conditions creating or involving such restrictions are illegal aIH\ ,·oid." (See also. 9 Cyc. 518; King v. King, (Ohio) 59 N. E. 111; 81 Am. Rt. Hep. 635.) The schOOl board, in its discretion, may refuse to employ a teacher who i~ llllll'ried but provisions in its contract with teachers snch ns paragraph 9 arc i11E'ga I and void.