Barrow v. School Dist. No. 8, Coos County

• Decision Date: 06 March 1917
• Parties: BARROW ET AL. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 8, COOS COUNTY.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

162 P. 789

83 Or. 272

BARROW ET AL. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 8, COOS COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Oregon

March 6, 1917

Department 1.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coos County; John S. Coke, Judge.

Action by C. R. Barrow and another against School District No. 8 Coos County. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions.

The plaintiffs elected to rely upon a cause of action thus stated in substance in their complaint: After alleging the corporate character of the defendant as a school district and the ownership of one plaintiff of one parcel of land, and the other of another, in an addition to Coquille, in Coos county Or., they aver that on February 14, 1913, they offered to sell these tracts to the defendant as a site for a school building at a price of $6,000; and that at a regularly called school meeting on March 12th of that year the offer of the plaintiffs was accepted by a majority of the legal voters participating in the meeting. Further, they state that on September 4, 1913, the board of directors of the school district formally accepted the offer; that on March 15, 1913 the plaintiffs tendered to the defendant good and sufficient deeds of conveyance to the property, which were accepted by the school board and have ever since been retained by it that no part of the purchase price of said property has been paid to plaintiffs, "and this defendant, after a demand therefor, now refuses to pay the same."

A demurrer to the complaint was filed on the ground, among others, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant. The demurrer was overruled.

The answer gives an extended history of the proceedings of the district, out of which grew this litigation. It is enough for the purposes of this opinion to say the answer shows that at a regularly called school meeting for that purpose, among other questions submitted to the legal voters present, they adopted affirmatively this question:

"Shall the district school board of school district No. 8, Coos county, Or., select and purchase as a schoolhouse site the following described property, at a cost of $6,000, to wit (Barrow and Strang tract) Blocks 7 and 8 of Barrow and Strang's addition to the city of Coquille, Coos county, Or., in said district; and shall said district school board of said school district No. 8, issue negotiable interest-bearing time warrants of said district in the sum of $6,000 to pay for said property above described?"

The admissions and denials of the reply, as the same appear in the printed abstract, are unintelligible because they refer to lines and pages of the original answer which are not before us; but we glean from the bill of exceptions that the adoption of the proposition above quoted was effected, and that upon the same the plaintiffs hang their case. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals.

A. J. Sherwood, of Coquille, for appellant. Cassius R. Peck, of Marshfield, and C. R. Barrow, of Coquille (Peck & Peck, of Marshfield, on the brief), for respondents.

BURNETT, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The reading of the record throughout reveals much rancor between the parties concerned in this proceeding, to the extent, even, that the "lie direct," instead of the "retort courteous," appears in some instances. It is not necessary to pursue the controversy into all its details.

The complaint being in the condition stated and the proposition adopted by the legal voters being admitted, as above set out, the defendant at the close of all the testimony moved the court to instruct the jury to render a verdict for the defendant. One reason advanced for this direction was that it is not averred in the complaint that the claim for the money alleged to be due on the contract set up in the complaint was ever presented to the board of directors for allowance or rejection.

The duties of district school boards are prescribed by chapter 172, Laws 1913, in part as follows:

"To audit all claims against the district, and to authorize the clerk to draw orders for the amount. * * * All demands, whether by contract or otherwise, must be approved by the district school board, when in session, before an order can be drawn on the district clerk for them, and no officer can draw an order on the treasurer unless he is authorized to do so by a vote of the board at a regular or special meeting. It shall be

...