Altman v. School Dist. No. 6

• Decision Date: 13 March 1899
• Parties: ALTMAN v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 6 et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

56 P. 291

35 Or. 85

ALTMAN v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 6 et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

March 13, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; E.D. Shattuck, Judge.

Mandamus by B.C. Altman against school district No. 6 and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Ira Jones, for appellants.

N.D Simon, for respondent.

BEAN J.

This is a mandamus proceeding to compel the directors of the defendant school district to draw their warrant on the clerk in payment of a judgment recovered by the plaintiff against the district in the circuit court of Multnomah county. The alternative writ, after alleging the corporate capacity of the district and the official character of the several individual defendants, avers, in substance, that on May 1 1894, the defendant district became indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $100 for services as teacher; that on January 2, 1895, he duly and regularly recovered judgment against it for such sum and interest, together with costs, amounting to $26.50; that such judgment has not been set aside, reversed or modified, and is now in all respects a valid and subsisting judgment; that on June 20, 1895, the plaintiff after having acknowledged satisfaction thereof, presented to the defendant directors a certified copy of such judgment, together with a memorandum of the acknowledgment of satisfaction and the entry thereof, and requested that they draw their warrant in payment of the same, but they refused to do so, although there was, at the time, in the treasury of such district, ample funds for that purpose. The defendants, after their demurrer to the alternative writ had been overruled, answered, denying the indebtedness upon which the judgment in question was based, and the validity of such judgment. For a further and separate defense, they set out a copy of the complaint and return of service on the summons in the action brought against the district by the plaintiff, and alleged that the judgment rendered therein is void because the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and because the return of service is false. Upon motion of the plaintiff, the new matter in the answer was stricken out, and, defendants declining to amend or plead further, judgment was rendered against them as demanded. From this judgment they appeal, and insist that the court was in error in striking out such new matter. The complaint on which the judgment upon which this proceeding is based was rendered alleged that during the spring of 1893 the plaintiff was employed...