Baxter v. Davis

• Decision Date: 20 December 1910
• Citation: 58 Or. 109,112 P. 410
• Parties: BAXTER v. DAVIS, et al., Board of School Directors.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

112 P. 410

58 Or. 109

BAXTER v. DAVIS, et al., Board of School Directors.

Supreme Court of Oregon

December 20, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County; J.W. Knowles, Judge.

Suit by J.W. Baxter against M.F. Davis and others, constituting the Board of School Directors of School District No. 5, Union County. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed.

Plaintiff as a resident taxpayer of school district No. 5 of Union county, brought this suit to enjoin defendants, as the board of directors of that district, from purchasing a block of land for a schoolhouse site, and from building a schoolhouse thereon for the district. The gist of the suit is the averment that defendants were acting in the premises without authority of law. The facts were stipulated, and the court entered a decree, awarding the injunction. From this the defendants have appealed.

T.H Crawford, for appellants.

B.F Wilson, for respondent.

SLATER J.

From admissions in the pleadings and facts stipulated, it appears that, pursuant to an order of the board of directors, a district meeting was called, to be held at a fixed time and place in the district, for the stated purpose of submitting to the legal voters thereof "the question of contracting a bonded debt of fifty thousand dollars, for the purpose of building a school building, furnishing the same and purchasing land for school purposes, as a site for said building," etc., that such meeting was duly held, and that by the votes of those attending the meeting the board was authorized to issue and sell the bonds of the district to the amount of $50,000 for the purposes stated in the notice that, acting upon the authority thus conferred, the board issued and sold bonds to the amount authorized, and thereafter contracted to purchase from the county of Union a block of land, known as the "Old Courthouse Block," situate in the town of Union, in the district, with the avowed purpose of selecting it as the site for the new school building, and intending to pay therefor the sum of $1,500 out of the proceeds of the bond sale. At the time this suit was brought, the defendants had caused laborers to commence tearing down and removing a brick building standing upon the block, with the purpose in view of erecting a new building thereon, without further authority from resident taxpayers than their action taken at the said meeting. It is charged in the complaint that the board failed, neglected, and refused to submit to the vote of the taxpayers the selection of a site, or the question of the necessity for the purchase of additional lands for schoolhouse purposes, or the question of the erection of a schoolhouse. To this it was answered that the directors did not deem it necessary in their judgment to call a district meeting for that purpose, and that they were not at any time petitioned so to do by one-third or any number of the voters of the district.

Ballots, upon which were printed the words, "Bonds--Yes," and "Bonds--No," on separate lines, with space reserved upon the left thereof for the marking of the ballot by a cross, to indicate the voter's choice, were prepared in advance for the occasion, and were used by the voters at the meeting.

Defendants contend that by the vote cast at such meeting they were authorized, not only to bond the district to the amount named, but also to purchase land for a schoolhouse site, and to build and furnish a school building, without further order or direction from the taxpayers; that the authority thus conferred carried with it, by implication, power to do everything necessary to accomplish the object intended; that is, to select the site to be purchased for building purposes. A board of school directors can exercise no other powers than those expressly granted by the statute, and such as may be necessary to carry into effect a granted power. 35 Cyc. 899; School Directors v. Wright, 43 Ill.App. 271. The power that may be exercised under the statutes by the board of directors in respect to the premises is not absolute and unqualified, but limited to occasions when authorized by a majority vote of the legal voters present at any legally called meeting. The statute reads: "If authorized by a majority vote of the legal voters present at any legally

called meeting, they shall purchase, lease, or build schoolhouses buy or lease land for school purposes, furnish schoolhouses with furniture, lights and apparatus, and for such purposes, may, when so authorized, levy and collect *** a tax, *** or issue or sell...