Banrringer v. Powell
| Decision Date | 16 November 1920 |
| Citation | 230 N.Y. 37,128 N.E. 910 |
| Parties | BANRRINGER v. POWELL et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Alice M. Barringer against George T. Powell and others, trustees. From a judgment of the Appellate Division reversing by divided court (183 App. Div. 666,171 N. Y. Supp. 291) a judgment of the Supreme Court for plaintiff and dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment of the Appellate Division reversed, and that of trial court affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Frank B. Gilbert, of Albany, for appellant.
John L. Crandell, of Hudson, for respondents.
On the 10th of May, 1915, there were in the town of Ghent, Columbia county, two school districts, numbered 8 and 10. On that day plaintiff entered into a contract with the sole trustee of district No. 8 by the terms of which she was to teach school in that district for a period of 40 consecutive weeks, commencing August 30, 1915, at a weekly salary of $10. On the day the contract was made, the district superintendent of schools of the first supervisory district of Columbia county made an order dissolving district No. 8 and annexing its territory to district No. 10, which has since been renumbered 3. The order, by its terms, took effect on the 2d of August following. The school trustees of the consolidated district refused to recognize plaintiff's contract. She thereupon appealed to the commissioner of education of the state, who, after hearing both parties, rendered a decision that her contract was valid and binding upon the consolidated district, but the papers on appeal did not present sufficient proof to justify the assessment of damages. He thereupon remitted the plaintiff to an action at law. This action was subsequently brought, and judgment demanded for $400. At the trial substantially the only question litigated was whether the decision of the commissioner of education was conclusive and binding upon the trial court, both of the parties apparently conceding that if it were then plaintiff was entitled to recover. The trial court held it was, and directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed, upon which judgment was entered, from which district No. 3 appealed to the Appellate Division, where the judgment was reversed (one of the justices dissenting and voting for affirmance), and the complaint dismissed. She appeals to this court.
Two of the justices of the Appellate Division placed their decision upon the ground that there was no obligation resting upon district No. 3 to carry out plaintiff's contract, and that the commissioner of education had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the controversy. The other two justices, while concurring in the result, held that the commissioner had jurisdiction, and having taken same, resort thereafter to an action in the Supreme Court was unnecessary and improper.
[1] I am of the opinion that district No. 8, having been consolidated or merged with district No. 10, thereafter renumbered 3, plaintiff's contract and all the rights and obligations thereunder were acquired and assumed by district No. 3. That district was entitled, under the contract, to receive and plaintiff obligated to render the services.
Section 135 of the Education Law (Cons. Laws, c. 16) provides that--
‘If a district be dissolved, as provided in section 129 of the same act, it ‘shall continue to exist in law, for the purpose of providing for and paying all its just debts; and to that end the trustees and other officers shall continue in office, and the inhabitants may hold special meetings, elect officers to supply vacancies and vote taxes; and all other acts necessary to raise money and pay such debts shall be done by the inhabitants and officers of the district.’
Whatever rights the plaintiff had under her contract, the same was not a debt (Wentworth v. Whittemore, 1 Mass. 470), and might never become such. Such rights could only ripen into a debt by the rendition of the services agreed upon. Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 68 N. Y. 34;Gold v. Clyne, 134 N. Y. 262, 31 N. E. 980,17 L. R. A. 767. A debt is not incurred until the consideration for it is furnished. Bottlers Seal Co. v. Rainey, 225 N. Y. 369, 122 N. E. 200;Deane v. Caldwell, 127 Mass. 242;Watson v. Merrill, 136 Fed. 359, 69 C. C. A. 185, 69 L. R. A. 719. When the consolidation took place, the time for performance of the contract had not arrived, and no services had been performed. District No. 8 was not then indebted to the plaintiff. Such district, therefore, did not thereafter continue for the purpose of discharging an obligation not then due, and which might never come into existence. The contract, while not a debt, was a right of property, and by express provision of section 137 of the Education Law, as above indicated, passed to the consolidated district. This section provides that when two or more districts shall be consolidated, the new district shall succeed to all the rights of property possessed by the annulled district. Under this section, all the assets of the dissolved district, of every kind and description, including the contract in question, became the property of the consolidated district immediately upon the taking effect of the order of consolidation. It acquired whatever benefits and assumed whatever obligations were imposed by the contract.
[3] The commissioner of education, by express provision of statute, had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter of the appeal. Section 890 (formerly 880) of the Education Law provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steier v. New York State Education Commissioner
...promulgated by virtue of it were strictly followed. These have been held to be constitutional by the New York Court. See Barringer v. Powell, 230 N.Y. 37, 128 N.E. 910; Bullock v. Cooley, 225 N.Y. 566, 122 N.E. Copies of all documents filed by The Board, including charges made against the p......
-
Lewis v. Bd. of Educ. of New York City
...cannot, in the absence of waste or illegal expenditures, be used to enjoin the educational functions of the state. Barringer v. Powell, 230 N. Y. 37, page 43,128 N. E. 910;Matter of Levitch v. Board of Education of City of New York, 243 N. Y. 373, 153 N. E. 495;Matter of Pardee v. Rayfield,......
-
Steier v. New York State Education Commissioner
...to the provisions of Section 310, supra, the constitutionality of which, it may be added, has been sustained. See Barringer v. Powell, 230 N. Y. 37, 128 N.E. 910 and Bullock v. Cooley, 225 N.Y. 566, 122 N.E. 630. He chose the last-mentioned Copies of all documents filed by The Board, includ......
-
MATTER OF BEAM v. Wilson
...question or review in any place or court whatever (Education Law, § 310; People ex rel. Bd. of Educ. v. Graves, 243 N.Y. 204; Barringer v. Powell, 230 N.Y. 37; People ex rel. Hylan v. Finegan, 227 N.Y. 219; Bullock v. Cooley, 225 N.Y. 566; People ex rel. Jennings v. Finley, 175 App. Div. 2......