Bank v. Brainerd School-Dist

• Decision Date: 15 March 1892
• Parties: BANK v BRAINERD SCHOOL-DIST.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

49 Minn. 106

51 N.W. 814

BANKvBRAINERD SCHOOL-DIST.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 15, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. School-districts and independent school-districts, under the statute, are made part of the educational system of the state. They are corporations with limited powers, organized for public purposes, and the duties of the trustees or boards of education, intrusted with the management and care of the property of such districts, are public and administrative only.

2. They are not liable to individuals for mere neglect or non-feasance in failing to make repairs.

3. Section 117, c. 36, Gen. St. 1878, which authorizes actions to be brought against trustees in their official capacity, has not changed this rule.

Appeal from district court, Crow Wing county; HOLLAND, Judge.

Action by Charles Bank, plaintiff, against the Brainerd School-District, defendant, to recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff's minor son. Plaintiff alleged that while his son was lawfully attending school within defendant's jurisdiction he was thrown down, and his leg broken, by reason of a dangerous obstruction negligently and wrongfully permitted by defendant to remain in the school play-ground. Defendant, answering, admitted its incorporation and control of the school in question, and denied generally the other allegations of the complaint. Upon motion judgment upon the pleadings was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the order. Affirmed.

Molyneaux & Peterson, for appellant.

W. S. McClenahan and W. H. Mantor, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

By Sp. Laws 1881, c. 134, the defendant, Brainerd School-District, was made the successor of an independent school-district embracing the same territory, and was made subject to the general laws of the state governing independent school-districts, and for the purposes of this case must be treated as an ordinary independent school-district. Such districts are a part of the public educational system of the state, established in pursuance of section 1, art. 8, of the constitution, which makes it the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The defendant school-district stands on the same footing as a part of the educational system of the state as school-districts, and independent districts. Board v. Moore, 17 Minn. 417, (Gil. 391.) They are all made bodies corporate, with limited powers, for the more convenient and effectual exercise of the public duties devolved upon them, and to promote the object of their creation and organization. In the case just cited it is said, speaking of a district created by special act: “The management of the public schools is one branch of the state government, for which, within the limits of the district, such schools are incorporated. The school-districts declared by the general law to be bodies corporate are quasi corporations, invested with corporate powers sub modo, and for a few specified purposes only. The object is the control and management of the public schools within a certain territory.” They therefore stand on the same footing as counties and towns in respect to liability to individuals for the breach of official duty by their officers. And in this state the rule is well settled that neither counties nor towns are so liable for mere neglect or non-feasance in failing to make repairs. In Dosdall v. Olmsted Co., 30 Minn. 96,14 N. W. Rep. 458, it was held that the defendant was not liable for an injury resulting to plaintiff from a failure to keep the county property in repair. And in Altnow v. Town of Sibley, 30 Minn. 189, 14 N. W. Rep. 877, where an action was brought against a town for neglect to keep a highway in repair, it was held, following the great weight of authority, that no such liability exists, unless by express statute. Yet the town is a body corporate, and by statute (Gen. St. 1878, c. 13, § 1) the town...