Board of Education of City of Newport v. Scott

• Decision Date: 08 October 1920
• Citation: 189 Ky. 225,224 S.W. 680
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEWPORT v. SCOTT.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

224 S.W. 680

189 Ky. 225

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEWPORT v. SCOTT.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 8, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Campbell County.

Suit by Lorimer W. Scott against the Board of Education of the City of Newport. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank V. Benton, of Newport, for appellant.

C. W Youngblut, of Newport, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

On July 18, 1920, the board of education of the city of Newport which is a city of the second class, adopted this resolution:

"Whereas the salaries of the teachers and other employés of the board of education of the city of Newport, Kentucky, have this day been by it increased for and during the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1920, and ending June 30, 1921, and in order to meet this increase in said salaries it is necessary to borrow the sum of $5,200 for the first half of the said fiscal year, ending December 31, 1920, in anticipation of the taxes to be levied and raised by said board in and for the year 1921: Therefore be it resolved by the board of education of the city of Newport, Kentucky: That said board, in, during, and for the first half of said fiscal year, ending December 31, 1920, to be used in meeting and paying so much of the indebtedness created by reason of increasing the salaries of teachers and employés as aforesaid as will be incurred during said half year, borrow on its credit in anticipation of the revenue from school taxes to be levied and raised by said board of the city of Newport, in and for the year 1921, payable in June, 1921, the sum of $5,200, and pledge said school taxes so to be levied and raised for the payment of said sum, with legal interest."

This suit was filed five days thereafter by the plaintiff, Lorimer W. Scott, the appellee here, a citizen, resident, and taxpayer of the city, as well as of the common school district therein, against the board of education, having control and management of the schools in the city, to enjoin it from carrying out that resolution, upon the ground that it possessed no authority to take the action provided for in the resolution. The court sustained the contention of plaintiff and perpetually enjoined the defendant "from borrowing any money in the year 1920 in anticipation of the taxes to be levied by said board in and for the year 1921, pursuant to said resolution." Complaining of that judgment, the board of education prosecutes this appeal.

The discussion in briefs of counsel is directed almost exclusively to the point as to what is, under the law, the fiscal year of the school board in cities of the second class, notwithstanding the fact that the court in its opinion held that the question discussed was wholly irrelevant. We fully agree with the trial court in the conclusion that the question as to when the fiscal year of the school district within the city begins and ends is not involved in this suit.

It is the well-established rule in this and other jurisdictions that municipalities possess only such powers as are expressly conferred upon them by the Constitution or statutes of the sovereignty of which they form a part, and such as are necessarily implied or incident to those expressly granted and which are indispensable to enable the municipality to carry...