127 S.W. 968 (Ark. 1910), First National Bank of Waldron v. Whisenhunt

Citation:127 S.W. 968, 94 Ark. 583
Opinion Judge:FRAUENTHAL, J.
Attorney:Appellant, pro se. A. A. McDonald, for appellees.
Case Date:April 25, 1910
Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Page 968

127 S.W. 968 (Ark. 1910)

94 Ark. 583




Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 25, 1910

Appeal from Scott Circuit Court; Daniel Hon, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Appellant, pro se.

A contract for employment of a school teacher made at a meeting of two directors, of which the third had no notice, will be binding on the district if acquiesced in and ratified by the entire school board. 81 Ark. 143. Fraud must be proved, when relied on, and the burden is on the pleader. 63 Ark. 22. The acceptance and use of the charts by the school board was a ratification of the contract of purchase. 67 Ark. 236.

A. A. McDonald, for appellees.

The electors of the district never authorized the purchase of said charts. No two of the directors were together to make a contract. Therefore, none was made, and the district is not bound. 52 Ark. 511; 64 Ark. 489. The first of these notes was barred by the statute of limitations. 52 Ark. 454; 56 Ark. 68. There can be no innocent purchaser of paper issued by a municipal corporation. 32 Ark. 634. The contract was made in violation of section 7620, Kirby's Digest, and plaintiff cannot recover.


Page 969

[94 Ark. 584] FRAUENTHAL, J.

This was an action instituted by appellant against School District No. 33 of Scott County and its three directors on two warrants or orders of said school district. [94 Ark. 585] On December 10, 1902, W. W. Tutwiler made a contract with two of the directors, by which he sold to the school district charts for $ 85. For the purchase money thereof three warrants of the school district were executed, one for $ 35 and the other two for $ 25 each. The warrant for $ 35 was paid immediately and the two other warrants are involved in this suit. These two warrants stated on their face the consideration thereof, and were made payable on August 1, 1903 and 1904, respectively. Some time after the execution of the warrants the charts were received by and were in the possession and use of the school district at the time of the institution of this suit. The warrants were sold and transferred to appellant some time prior to August 1, 1903. It appears from the testimony that the electors of said school district did not authorize the expenditure for said charts at the annual election previous to the alleged purchase thereof nor at any election thereafter; and it also appears from the testimony that no attempt was ever made to secure the approval of the State Superintendent as to the price and merit of said charts. The cause was tried by the court sitting as a jury, who made a finding and...

To continue reading