Boyd v. Black Sch. Tp.

• Decision Date: 20 March 1890
• Citation: 23 N.E. 862,123 Ind. 1
• Parties: Boyd et al. v. Black School Tp.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

123 Ind. 1

23 N.E. 862

Boyd et al.

v.Black School Tp.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 20, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Posey county; William F. Parrett, Judge.

Ernest Dale Owen and Fred P. Leonard, for appellants. E. M. Spencer and Hovey & Menzies, for appellee.

Mitchell, C. J.

James R. Boyd and two others, partners doing business in the firm name of Boyd, Hinchman & Co., brought this action, as the assignees of the Straight Wood Company, against Black school township, in Posey county. They alleged in their complaint that the township trustee, on behalf of the township, executed a promissory note, whereby the school corporation promised to pay to the plaintiff's assignee $342, on a date specified, for certain school furniture therein described. It is alleged that the furniture was suitable and necessary for the use of the schools in the township; that it was delivered to, and received, retained, and used by, the township; and that the articles sold and received were worth the amount agreed to be paid for them. The plaintiff recovered a judgment for $118.57, and the principal, if not the only, question presented is whether or not evidence was properly admitted which tended to prove that the furniture was worth less than the contract price. It is settled by the decisions of this court that a township trustee has no power to bind his township, by contracting a debt in excess of the fund on hand, to which the debt is chargeable, and of the fund to be derived from the tax assessed against his township for the year in which such debt is to be incurred, without first procuring an order from the board of county commissioners, as provided in sections 6006, 6007, Rev. St. 1881. Jefferson School Tp. v. Litton, 116 Ind. 467, 19 N. E. Rep. 323; Middleton v. Greeson, 106 Ind. 18, 5 N. E. Rep. 755; Rosebaum v. Jefferson School Tp., ante, 796, (present term.) The evidence fairly discloses that the township trustee contracted the debt mentioned in the complaint in violation of the provisions embraced in the above sections. When the trustee of a school township undertakes to bind his township by contracting a debt in disregard of those sections, and property has been received and retained which is beneficial to the township, it is competent for the township to show that the property was worth less than the contract price, without offering to rescind the contract or tendering back the property received. Possibly, in a case where all the conditions...