112 P. 410 (Or. 1910), Baxter v. Davis

CourtSupreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the CourtSLATER, J.
Citation58 Or. 109,112 P. 410
PartiesBAXTER v. DAVIS, et al., Board of School Directors.
Docket Number.

Page 410

112 P. 410 (Or. 1910)

58 Or. 109



DAVIS, et al., Board of School Directors.

Supreme Court of Oregon

December 20, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County; J.W. Knowles, Judge.

Suit by J.W. Baxter against M.F. Davis and others, constituting the Board of School Directors of School District No. 5, Union County. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed.

Plaintiff, as a resident taxpayer of school district No. 5 of Union county, brought this suit to enjoin defendants, as the board of directors of that district, from purchasing a block of land for a schoolhouse site, and from building a schoolhouse thereon for the district. The gist of the suit is the averment that defendants were acting in the premises without authority of law. The facts were stipulated, and the court entered a decree, awarding the injunction. From this the defendants have appealed.

T.H. Crawford, for appellants.

B.F. Wilson, for respondent.


From admissions in the pleadings and facts stipulated, it appears that, pursuant to an order of the board of directors, a district meeting was called, to be held at a fixed time and place in the district, for the stated purpose of submitting to the legal voters thereof "the question of contracting a bonded debt of fifty thousand dollars, for the purpose of building a school building, furnishing the same and purchasing land for school purposes, as a site for said building," etc., that such meeting was duly held, and that by the votes of those attending the meeting the board was authorized to issue and sell the bonds of the district to the amount of $50,000 for the purposes stated in the notice, that, acting upon the authority thus conferred, the board issued and sold bonds to the amount authorized, and thereafter contracted to purchase from the county of Union a block of land, known as the "Old Courthouse Block," situate in the town of Union, in the district, with the avowed purpose of selecting it as the site for the new school building, and intending to pay therefor the sum of $1,500 out of the proceeds of the bond sale. At the time this suit was brought, the defendants had caused laborers to commence tearing down and removing a brick building standing upon the block, with the purpose in view of erecting a new building thereon, without further [58 Or. 111] authority from resident taxpayers than their action taken at the said meeting. It is charged in the complaint that the board failed, neglected, and refused to submit to the vote of the taxpayers the selection of a site, or the question of the necessity for the purchase of additional lands for schoolhouse purposes, or the question of the erection of a schoolhouse. To this it was answered that the directors did not deem it necessary in their judgment to call a district meeting for that purpose, and that they were not at any time petitioned so to do by one-third or any number of the voters of the district.

Ballots, upon which were printed the words, "Bonds--Yes," and "Bonds--No," on separate lines, with space reserved upon the left thereof for the marking of the ballot by a cross, to indicate the voter's choice, were prepared in advance for the occasion, and were used by the voters at the meeting.

Defendants contend that by the vote cast at such meeting they were authorized, not only to bond the district to the amount named, but also to purchase land for a schoolhouse site, and to build...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • 279 P.2d 492 (Or. 1955), School Dist. No. 17 of Sherman County v. Powell
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 19 Gennaio 1955
    ...the issuance of bonds is necessary in order to finance the construction of a building so authorized. Baxter v. Davis, 58 Or. 109, 112, 112 P. 410, 113 P. 438. But, where there has been no such previous action, a vote at a bond election in favor of a bonded indebtedness for the purpose of co......
  • 505 P.2d 939 (Or.App. 1973), Neuhaus v. Federico
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 2 Febbraio 1973
    ...211 Or. 360, 315 P.2d 797 (1957); School Dist. 106 v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 132 Or. 673, 288 P. 196 (1930); Baxter v. Davis, 58 Or. 109, 112 P. 410, 113 P. 438 (1911). The relevant statutes provide: '(1) The State Board of Education in accordance with ORS chapter 183 shall Page 941 prepar......
  • 74 P.2d 1015 (Wash. 1938), 26751, In re Phillips' Estate
    • United States
    • Washington United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 6 Gennaio 1938
    ...v. Ensley, 40 Ind.App. 598, 82 N.E. 809; Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Downey, Ind.App., 5 N.E.2d 656; Baxter v. Davis, 58 Or. 109, 112 P. 410, 113 P. 438; Endlich on the Interpretation of Statutes, § 51, p. 64; Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 2d Ed., § 452, pp. 859, 860. When it is c......
  • 146 S.E. 389 (W.Va. 1928), 6294, Brown v. Board of Education of Charleston Independent School Dist.
    • United States
    • West Virginia United States State Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
    • 4 Dicembre 1928
    ...Education, 175 Mich. 438, 141 N.W. 574, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 972; Maddox v. Neal, 45 Ark. 121, 55 Am. Rep. 540; Baxter v. Davis, 58 Or. 109, 112 P. 410, 113 P. 438; Clark v. Board of Directors, 24 Iowa, Page 393 266; Pasadena School Dist. v. City of Pasadena, 166 Cal. 7, 134 P. 985, 47 L. R.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 cases
  • 352 P.2d 564 (Or. 1960), Dilger v. School Dist. 24 CJ
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 25 Maggio 1960
    ...the statute, and such as may be necessary to carry into effect a granted power. [Citing authority]' Baxter v. Davis, 1911, 58 Or. 109, 111, 112 P. 410, 411, 113 P. Page 574 School Dist. 106 v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 1930, 132 Or. 673, 681, 288 P. 196. Consequently, it would appear, without......
  • 67 P.2d 192 (Wyo. 1937), 1996, School Dist. No. 14 In Fremont County v. School Dist. No. 21 In Fremont County
    • United States
    • Wyoming United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 19 Aprile 1937
    ...known to the law. School District v. City of Pasadena, (Cal.) 134 P. 985; Denman v. Webster, (Calif.) 79 P. 139; Baxter v. Davis, (Ariz.) 112 P. 410; School Directors v. Wright, 43 Ill.App. 270, 24 R. C. L. 564. In the division, District 14 took 72% of the assessable property of the old dis......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT