Burns v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 11 December 1897 |
| Citation | 43 S.W. 499 |
| Parties | BURNS et al. v. THOMPSON. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Johnson county; Jeremiah G. Wallace, Judge.
Action by J. H. Thompson, as next friend of R. E. Thompson, against Sam J. Burns, Sam Robins, and Thomas Brown, as directors of school district No. 41 of the county of Johnson. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and dismissed.
This is an appeal from a judgment for $68.50, against school district No. 41 of the county of Johnson, in favor of the appellee, for services rendered by appellee in teaching a summer school of two months' duration, under a contract therefor made by two of the three school directors of said district, at a called meeting of the board of school directors of said district, one of the three directors composing the board being absent from the meeting. The evidence in the case tends to show, on the one hand, that the absent director Brown was, on the day before the meeting, notified, verbally, of the time, the place, and the purpose of the meeting, while Brown, the member of the board who did not attend the meeting, testifies that he was not notified of the meeting.
E. B. Kinsworthy, Atty. Gen., for appellants. Jordan E. Cravens, for appellee.
HUGHES, J. (after stating the facts).
The question to be decided in this case is: "Was the meeting a lawful meeting of the board of school directors of district 41?" "Was the notice of the meeting sufficient?" The school directors could act only as a board, and could not bind the district by their action as individuals. School Dist. v. Bennett, 52 Ark. 511, 13 S. W. 132. It is undoubtedly true that the corporate authority must be exercised by the proper body. "The members of the board of directors of a common school district are not only not the municipal corporation, but are not even a corporation." The "affairs of a corporation must be transacted at a corporate meeting." 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.) §§ 259, 274. There is no question that notice of the time and place of a called meeting must be given, if practicable, to every member who has a right to vote. 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 263; School Dist. v. Bennett, 52 Ark. 511, 13 S. W. 132. "All corporators are presumed to know of the days appointed by the charter, usage, or by-laws for the transaction of particular business, and hence no notice of such meeting for the transaction of such business is necessary, or for the transaction of the mere ordinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Burns v. Thompson
-
Board of Educ. of Wurtland Independent School Dist. v. Stevens
... ... [88 S.W.2d 7] ... However, the authorities of all jurisdictions are not in ... accord on this question. In the case of Burns v ... Thompson, 64 Ark. 489, 43 S.W. 499, it is held that ... although the statute of that state is silent upon the ... question whether a notice ... ...
-
Bd. of Ed. of Wurtland Ind. School Dist. v. Stevens
...from a proper source." However, the authorities of all jurisdictions are not in accord on this question. In the case of Burns v. Thompson, 64 Ark. 489, 43 S.W. 499, it is held that although the statute of that state is silent upon the question whether a notice of a called meeting of a munic......