Beers v. Lasher
Decision Date | 18 March 1930 |
Docket Number | 40043 |
Citation | 229 N.W. 821,209 Iowa 1158 |
Parties | L. L. BEERS et al., Appellees, v. H. P. LASHER et al., Appellants |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--MILES W. NEWBY, Judge.
Action by certain taxpayers of a consolidated school district, to enjoin the payment by the treasurer of said district of two warrants, one issued to a public accountant, and the other issued to attorneys for services claimed to have been rendered to the district, and to restrain the holders of the warrants from collecting same. The trial court rendered a decree enjoining the payment and collection of the warrant for the services of the public accountant, and granting partial relief relative to the remaining warrant for attorney fees. From this action by the trial court, the holders of the warrants appeal.
Reversed.
Clark & Clark and Kindig, Stewart & Hatfield, for appellants.
Burgess & Gill, for appellees.
One of the warrants in question, in the amount of $ 150.05, was issued to William Guthrie, and the other, in the sum of $ 1,250, was issued to Clark & Clark, of Ida Grove, and J. W. Kindig, a former member of the law firm of Kindig, McGill, Stewart & Hatfield, of Sioux City. Said warrants were issued on November 2, 1925, pursuant to resolution adopted by the board of directors hereinafter referred to.
It is the claim of the appellees that the appellant attorneys rendered no service for the district, except the filing, at the time of the trial, of answers to various petitions of intervention previously filed, and except such service as was thereafter rendered during said trial in connection with their employment as attorneys for the plaintiffs in said cause, and that said attorneys were not legally employed to represent the district. These claims are denied by the appellants, and they allege a complete ratification by the district, through its board of directors, of their employment as attorneys, which is denied by the appellees. The trial court enjoined the collection of said warrant, except in the sum of $ 200, found to be the reasonable value of the services of said attorneys for the preparation of the aforesaid answers to the petitions of intervention, and services thereafter rendered, as aforesaid.
Relative to the services of the public accountant, it is the claim of the appellees that he was not legally employed by the district. This is denied by said appellant, and he pleads ratification by the district, through its board of directors, of said employment, which is denied by the appellees.
For a full understanding of the matters before us, a history of the former litigation becomes necessary. The Consolidated Independent School District of Cushing consists of 16 sections of land in Ida County and 12 sections in Woodbury County. The town of Cushing and the schoolhouse about which the controversy arose are in Woodbury County. At the time of the origin of the controversy, Mrs. Nettie I. Ferry, H. P. Lasher, A. H. Bullock, H. M. Andresen, and Frank Croxell constituted the board of directors. It was the contention of various taxpayers, including two members of the board of directors, to wit, Lasher and Andresen, that the board of directors had entered into a contract for the erection of a school building, and had issued, and were issuing, warrants in payment thereof, when the indebtedness thus sought to be paid exceeded the constitutional limit; and that certain taxes, levied and sought to be levied, were illegal. On February 14, 1923, an action in which the claimed illegalities were asked to be enjoined, was brought in Ida County by a number of the taxpayers in the district, including Lasher and Andresen, against the district, its directors (including Lasher and Andresen), the treasurer and secretary of the district, and the county treasurers of both counties. This action was instituted by Clark & Clark, as attorneys for plaintiffs. On February 16, 1923, the board of directors, by a formal motion or resolution entered of record, determined to defend the action, and authorized the president to appoint a committee of two, with power to engage counsel to defend against said action; and the committee was appointed. Pursuant to said action of the board, the firm of Naglestad, Pizey & Johnson of Sioux City was employed. Thus representing the defendants in said action, said firm prepared and presented to the district court of Ida County a motion for a change of the place of trial of said action to Woodbury County, which motion was sustained by the court on March 10, 1923. The first pleading filed in said cause in Woodbury County, April 11, 1923, was a petition of intervention by Kucharo, the contractor engaged for the erection of the schoolhouse, wherein he asks that the court establish, as against the district, the amount of the indebtedness due the petitioner, and that judgment be rendered for said amount, and that a mandamus decree be entered, compelling the school district to provide the necessary funds for the payment of said judgment. Other petitions of intervention of a similar nature by other interested parties were subsequently filed. Amendments to the original petition, which were signed by both the Clark and Kindig firms, as attorneys for the plaintiffs, were subsequently filed. On April 24, 1923, the Naglestad firm, representing the defendants in the original action, filed a demurrer to the petition and a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction. It appears that this is the last action taken by said firm for and in behalf of the district. Said firm, together with some Des Moines attorneys, also represented interveners, who were asking affirmative relief as against the district. The aforesaid motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, and the demurrer, which were prepared by the Naglestad firm and filed in behalf of the district, were not ruled upon until September 15, 1923, when the same were overruled. It appears that, on the presentation of said matters to the court, Kindig appeared for the district.
At the regular March election in 1923, the personnel of the board of directors of said district changed, by the election of two new directors and the resignation of another. For the year beginning in March, 1923, the directors of said district were H. P. Lasher, H. M. Andresen, C. B. Daniels, Henry Hoppee, and C. E. Lowry. After said election in 1923, Lasher became president of the board, and continued to serve as such officer during the entire time in question. On October 5, 1923, the board discharged the Naglestad firm as its attorneys, by the adoption of the following resolution:
It is the contention of the appellant attorneys that, after the personnel of the board had changed, they were employed to represent the district; that the former board, on February 16, 1923, authorized the employment of attorneys by the district, to defend the action; that, while there is no record entry of authorization for their employment by the district, they were informally employed by the president and members of the school board as attorneys for the district; that they performed the services as such attorneys; and that the informal action of the board in this respect was subsequently ratified by action of the board in regular session and made of record. The same contention is made relative to the employment of the public accountant.
It is to be borne in mind that, after the change of venue to Woodbury County, the only thing done for and in behalf of the district by any other attorneys was the preparation and filing, on April 24, 1923, of the demurrer and the aforesaid motion to dissolve; that said firm of attorneys previously employed was discharged; that Kindig appeared for the district, and presented the aforesaid demurrer and motion to dissolve; that, after March, 1923, the attitude of the district toward the pending litigation was in complete accord with the views of the plaintiffs in the action; that the pleadings filed for and in behalf of the district, no matter what the arrangement was, were prepared and signed by the appellant attorneys, as attorneys for the district. In the answers for the district to the petitions of intervention, it is prayed that the original prayer of the plaintiffs' original petition be granted.
There is no claim by the appellees that the appellant attorneys were guilty of improper ethics. The appellees state in their argument, "it is not argued or even suggested here that appellant attorneys have been guilty of any improper or unethical conduct in any of the litigation in question;" nor could it be; for, after the election in March, 1923, the attitude of the district, as reflected in the actions of its board of directors, was identical with the attitude of the plaintiffs in the action.
The district had the legal right to raise the same question raised by the plaintiffs in the case, to wit: that the indebtedness created by the warrants issued, and to be issued, in payment of the erection of the schoolhouse exceeded the constitutional limitation. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial