Common School Dist. No. 61 in Twin Falls County v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co., 5685

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Writing for the CourtSUTPHEN, District Judge.
PartiesCOMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 61 IN THE COUNTY OF TWIN FALLS, STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent, v. TWIN FALLS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant
Decision Date26 May 1931
Docket Number5685

4 P.2d 342

50 Idaho 711

COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 61 IN THE COUNTY OF TWIN FALLS, STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent,
v.

TWIN FALLS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant

No. 5685

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 26, 1931


SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS-FORGED ORDERS-LACHES-ESTOPPEL.

1. School district is agency of state created solely for operation of school system, and derives all of its powers from statute.

2. Officers of school district and county performing statutory duty for district act only in public and governmental capacity

[50 Idaho 712]

(Laws 1921, chap. 215, secs. 35, 55, 69, and sec. 46, subd. 26; C. S., secs. 905-911, 913-915).

3. Acts of officers in performance of duties in regard to funds of school district cannot estop district from maintaining action to recover back money wrongfully taken (Laws 1921, chap. 215, secs. 35, 55, 69, and sec. 46, subd. 26; C. S., secs. 905-911, 913-915).

4. No laches can be imputed to school district in public and governmental capacity as to bar it from recovering money wrongfully taken (Laws 1921, chap. 215, secs. 35, 55, 69, and sec. 46, subd. 26; C. S., secs. 905-911, 913-915).

ON REHEARING.

5. Acts of county officials in acceptance, approval, redemption, and payment of forged school district's order held "governmental functions" as respects recovery of moneys paid by school district (Laws 1921, chap. 215, secs. 35, 55, 69, and sec. 46, subd. 26; C. S., secs. 905-911, 913-915).

6. Voluntary payments illegally made by school district can be recovered.

7. Moneys of school district can only be paid out on valid order.

8. Act of county officials in paying out moneys of school district on forged order held not voluntary payment which would preclude recovery by school district.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, for Twin Falls County. Hon. Wm. A. Babcock, Judge.

Action by Common School District Number 61 in the County of Twin Falls against Twin Falls Bank & Trust Company for conversion. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Frank L. Stephan, for Appellant.

Respondent school district in the transaction in question herein is subject to the same rules as individuals in similar transactions. Orders for common school district warrants are assignable non-negotiable instruments in the drawing of which the trustees of such district are performing a business or contractual function. (C. S., sec. 824, amended by chapter 215 of the 1921 Sess. Laws, p. 429; Fenton v. Board of County Commrs., 20 Idaho 392, 119 P. 41; Barton v. Alexander, 27 Idaho 286, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 729, 148 P. 471; Strickfaden v. Greencreek Highway Dist., 42 Idaho 738, 248 P. 456, 49 A. L. R. 1057; 1 McQuillin, Municipal Corps., sec. 113; 5 McQuillin, Municipal Corps., sec. 2434; Argenti v. City of San Francisco, 16 Cal. 255; Slayton & Co. v. Panola County, (D. C.) 283 F. 330; Boise City v. Wilkinson, 16 Idaho 150, 102 P. 148; City of Twin Falls v. Harlan, 27 Idaho 769, 151 P. 1191; Robinson v. Lemp, 29 Idaho 661, 161 P. 1024; State v. Twin Falls-Salmon River Land & Water Co., 30 Idaho 41, 166 P. 220; Jefferson County v. McGrath, 205 Ky. 484, 266 S.W. 29, 41 A. L. R. 586.)

By acceptance, approval, redemption and payment of the forged order in question by and through the county auditor and the county treasurer (treasurer of respondent) respondent adopted said order as its genuine and valid obligation and ratified and consented to the cashing of the warrant issued thereon by appellant and may not now recover the payment. (United States v. Bank of New York, etc., 219 F. 648; Bank of United States v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 333, 6 L.Ed. 334; United States v. Chase Nat. Bank, 252 U.S. 485, 40 S.Ct. 361, 64 L.Ed. 675; United States v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, 270 U.S. 527, 40 S.Ct. 388, 70 L.Ed. 717; Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389, 23 L.Ed. 237; American Hominy Co. v. Milliken Nat. Bank, 273 F. 550; note, 10 L. R. A., N. S., 68 and 70.)

Even though negligence on the part of a cashing bank is established, so as to enable the drawer to recover, conduct of the drawer may again intervene to bar recovery. Negligence or long delay in discovering the forgery, or lack of promptness in notifying the cashing bank after discovery of the forgery, or if the forgery should, in the exercise of reasonable diligence have been discovered, will bar recovery, particularly if the position of the cashing bank has in the meantime been changed to its damage. (12 A. L. R. 1105, 1107, 1113; State v. Abramson, 57 Ark. 142, 20 S.W. 1084; United States v. Central Nat. Bank of Philadelphia, 6 F. 134; United States v. Clinton Nat: Bank, 28 F. 357; note, 12 A. L. R. 1105, 1107, 1108, 1109; Neal v. Coburn, 92 Me. 139, 69 Am. St. 495, 42 A. 348, as is cited at page 1109 of 12 A. L. R.; 7 C. J. 691, note 8-A.)

Where a party has been prevented by conduct of another from taking prompt action for the collection of a debt, that constitutes such a change of position for the worse as to meet the requirements of the law creating estoppel, and the change of position rule. A right to pursue timely remedy against a forger is a valuable right, which if jeopardized in any manner by negligence or delay on the part of a plaintiff, constitutes a change of position, sufficient to act as a bar to such plaintiff's recovery. (C. S., secs. 6064 and 6415; Leather Manufacturers' Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 117 U.S. 96, 6 S.Ct. 657, 29 L.Ed. 811; Bank of United States v. Bank of Georgia, supra; Smith v. Mercer, 6 Taunt. 76, 128 Eng. Rep. 961, cited in 12 A. L. R. 1107; Johnson v. Commercial Bank, 27 W.Va. 343, 55 Am. Rep. 315; Weinstein v. Nat. Bank, 69 Tex. 38, 5 Am. St. 23, 6 S.W. 171.)

Sweeley & Sweeley, for Respondent.

In exercising its powers and performing its duties, including the issuance of orders, a school district acts only in a governmental capacity and is not estopped by any mistakes or acts of negligence or misconduct of any of its officers or agents or other public officers over whom it has no control, from maintaining an action to recover back money wrongfully taken. (24 R. C. L., pp. 564, 565, sec. 7; Antin v. Union High School, 130 Ore. 461, 280 P. 664, 66 A. L. R. 1271; Spencer v. School Dist. No. 1, 121 Ore. 511, 254 P. 357; Bank v. Brainerd, School Dist., 49 Minn. 106, 51 N.W. 814; Freel v. School City of Crawfordsville, 142 Ind. 27, 41 N.E. 312, 37 L. R. A. 301; School District No. 48 of Maricopa County v. Rivera, 30 Ariz. 1, 243 P. 609, 45 A. L. R. 762; Howard v. Tacoma, 88 Wash. 167, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 792, 152 P. 1004; Wiest v. School Dist. No. 24, 68 Ore. 474, 137 P. 749, 49 L. R. A., N. S., 1026; 19 R. C. L. 1124, sec. 402; Consolidated School Dist. v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Pocatello Educ. Ass'n v. Heideman, No. 06-35004.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 5, 2007
    ...of new districts. Id. §§ 33-307, 33-308, 33-312. Appellants also highlight Common School District No. 61 v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co., 50 Idaho 711, 4 P.2d 342 (1931), which states that school districts are agencies of the state. Id. at 343; but see Smith v. Meridian Joint Sch. Dist. No. ......
  • DeFazio v. Washington Public Power Supply System
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • May 1, 1984
    ...Dist. 47 v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 187 Or. 360, 383-384, 211 P.2d 723 (1949), quoting Common School Dist. No. 61 v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co., 50 Idaho 711, 4 P.2d 342 (1931). The most recent discussion of laches as a defense against a belated claim by the state occurred in Corvallis Sand & Gra......
  • City of Casper v. Joyce, 2086
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1939
    ...(S. D.) 221 N.W. 246. City of Luverne v. Skyberg (Minn.) 211 N.W. 5. Common School Dist. No. 61 v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co. (Id.) 4 P.2d 342. Mitchell County v. Odden (Ia.) 259 N.W. 774. City of Cozad v. Thompson (Nebr.) 252 N.W. 606. A city cannot ratify an unlawful act. Tooele County v......
  • State ex rel. Nielson v. City of Gooding, No. 8062
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 23, 1953
    ...the government or its agencies except where manifest justice requires its application. Common School Dist. No. 61 v. Bank & Trust Co., 50 Idaho 711, 4 P.2d 342; Lloyed Crystal Post No. 20 v. Jefferson County, 72 Idaho 158, 237 P.2d The generalizations from the opinions of the courts cited a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Pocatello Educ. Ass'n v. Heideman, No. 06-35004.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 5, 2007
    ...of new districts. Id. §§ 33-307, 33-308, 33-312. Appellants also highlight Common School District No. 61 v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co., 50 Idaho 711, 4 P.2d 342 (1931), which states that school districts are agencies of the state. Id. at 343; but see Smith v. Meridian Joint Sch. Dist. No. ......
  • DeFazio v. Washington Public Power Supply System
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • May 1, 1984
    ...Dist. 47 v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 187 Or. 360, 383-384, 211 P.2d 723 (1949), quoting Common School Dist. No. 61 v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co., 50 Idaho 711, 4 P.2d 342 (1931). The most recent discussion of laches as a defense against a belated claim by the state occurred in Corvallis Sand & Gra......
  • City of Casper v. Joyce, 2086
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1939
    ...(S. D.) 221 N.W. 246. City of Luverne v. Skyberg (Minn.) 211 N.W. 5. Common School Dist. No. 61 v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co. (Id.) 4 P.2d 342. Mitchell County v. Odden (Ia.) 259 N.W. 774. City of Cozad v. Thompson (Nebr.) 252 N.W. 606. A city cannot ratify an unlawful act. Tooele County v......
  • State ex rel. Nielson v. City of Gooding, No. 8062
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 23, 1953
    ...the government or its agencies except where manifest justice requires its application. Common School Dist. No. 61 v. Bank & Trust Co., 50 Idaho 711, 4 P.2d 342; Lloyed Crystal Post No. 20 v. Jefferson County, 72 Idaho 158, 237 P.2d The generalizations from the opinions of the courts cited a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT