Alfred L. Farmer v. Edward W. Haley
| Decision Date | 04 November 1926 |
| Parties | ALFRED L. FARMER v. EDWARD W. HALEY ET AL |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
October Term, 1926.
PETITION for writ of mandamus, preferred to the Supreme Court for Windsor County, after the May Term, 1926, and heard at the October Term, 1926, on petition, answers, and depositions. The opinion states the case.
Judgment that a mandamus issue directed to the said Haley, Francher, and Cooper, as school directors of the town school district of Windsor, commanding them to forthwith turn over to the relator, as town manager of the town of Windsor all books, receipts, vouchers, and other papers pertaining to the financial affairs of said school district since April 1 1926, and further commanding them to make no repairs upon the school buildings or other school property of said district during such time as the town shall operate under the town manager system, unless authorized so to do by the town manager, and that they draw no orders for repairs made on such buildings or other property except for repairs made or authorized by such town manager; that a like mandamus issue directed to the said Tracy, as treasurer of the said school district, commanding him not to pay any orders drawn on him as such treasurer for repairs made on the school buildings or other school property of said district during such time as the town shall operate under the town manager system unless such orders are approved, or authorized, by the town manager. Let the relator recover his costs. Let this mandate become effective at once. Let a certified copy hereof be forthwith served on each defendant.
Herbert G. Tupper for petitioner.
Gilbert F. Davis and Fenton, Wing & Morse for the petitionees.
Present: WATSON, C. J., POWERS, SLACK, and FISH, JJ., and MOULTON, Supr. J.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus. The relator is, and since April 1, 1926, has been, the general town manager for the town of Windsor, duly appointed pursuant to the provisions of G. L. Ch. 174. The defendants, Haley, Francher, and Cooper are, and during the time aforesaid were, the duly elected and qualified school directors for the town school district of Windsor, and the defendant Tracy is, and during such time was, the treasurer of such school district. The case is here on the pleadings and evidence taken pursuant to an order for that purpose. The principal questions raised relate to the authority of the relator, as such general town manager, to take over and perform and discharge certain duties which prior to his appointment devolved upon the school directors.
The relator claims that under and by virtue of the provisions of G. L. Ch. 174, Act No. 103 of the Laws of 1921, which will be referred to as the Town Manager Act, purchases of supplies for the town school district can be made only upon requisition therefor made upon him; that it is his duty to take charge of and supervise all school buildings and other school property of such district, and all repairs thereon; hire necessary janitors, and do all accounting of such district. This claim is predicated upon the provisions of paragraphs III, IV, and VII of the Acts of 1921, which is an amendment of G. L. 4058. The amendatory act provides that:
It is not claimed that the relator derives any authority from other provisions of such act, but it will be necessary to notice some of them in arriving at the legislative intent respecting the provisions in question.
No question is made but that all of the duties which the relator claims devolve upon him were, prior to his appointment, imposed upon the school directors, either by express statute or by necessary implication. See G. L. sections 1327, 1192, 1195, and 1196, Act No. 46, Laws 1921.
It follows, of course, that all of such duties as are not transferred to the town manager by the Town Manager Act, either in express terms or by necesary implication, or such duties as are incidental to those so transferred, remain with the school directors.
We are unable to find support for the relator's claim that purchases of supplies for the town school district shall be made only upon requisition therefor made upon him. The language of the last clause of paragraph III (quoted above) upon which he bases his claim cannot, as we shall see, be construed to apply to town school districts. When the different clauses of this paragraph are read together, as they must be, it seems plain that the departments mentioned in the last clause are departments of the town, which, as was held in North Troy School District v. Town of Troy, 80 Vt. 16, 66 A. 1033, is a corporate entity separate and distinct from the town school district.
That the Legislature was aware that towns and town school districts were separate and distinct corporate entities either from its knowledge of the holding in the North Troy Case, which was decided in 1907, or from information acquired elsewhere, is apparent from the fact that each corporate entity is specifically mentioned in paragraphs I, IV, and VII of the amendatory act. Having this knowledge of the status of these two corporate entities to each other had the Legislature intended to make the town manager the purchasing agent for the town school district it would undoubtedly have said so in more apt and unmistakable language than is used in paragraph III. We think that paragraph means simply this: The town manager is to purchase all supplies for every department of the town. Over some of the departments he is given control, and over other departments he is not given control. His authority to purchase for the former is unlimited, but as to the latter he can purchase only upon requisition of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwin E. Farmer v. Poultney School District
... ... v. Town of Troy, ... 80 Vt. 16, 32, 66 A. 1033, and Farmer v ... Haley, 100 Vt. 75, 78, 135 A. 12 ... By ... Section 4329 of the Public Laws it is ... ...