Cotter v. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 3 of Vill. of Plum City

• Decision Date: 23 May 1916
• Citation: 158 N.W. 80,164 Wis. 13
• Parties: COTTER v. JOINT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 OF VILLAGE OF PLUM CITY ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

164 Wis. 13

158 N.W. 80

COTTER

v.JOINT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 OF VILLAGE OF PLUM CITY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 23, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pierce County; George Thompson, Judge.

Action by Michael Cotter for himself and others against the Joint School District No. 3 of Village of Plum City and others. From an order overruling the demurrer to the complaint, defendants appeal. Order reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to enter an order sustaining the demurrer.

Action by a taxpayer to enjoin a school district having an assessed valuation of $257,887 from making a loan of $12,000 pursuant to certain resolutions passed by the electors thereof. The statute under which the loan was sought to be made is section 475, Stats. 1915. So much thereof as is material to the questions raised by the appeal reads:

“For the purpose of aiding in the erection or purchase of a schoolhouse any school district, whether organized under general law, special law or charter, may by a vote of the electors at any annual or special meeting, called for that purpose authorize the district board, school board or board of education to borrow money, to an amount which shall not in any way exceed the limitations now provided by general law. The resolution to be voted upon shall be in writing, specifying the amount to be borrowed, the rate of interest, and the time and manner of payment, which shall be in annual installments or otherwise, the last of which shall be payable in not exceeding fifteen years from the first day of February next ensuing.”

The resolutions adopted by the electors of the school district were as follows:

“Resolved that the school district board be, and hereby it is, authorized to make application for a loan of twelve thousand dollars from the state trust funds, or some other source, payable in fifteen years, with interest at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent. per annum, payable annually, for the purpose of remodeling the present school building and erecting an addition thereto.”

“Resolved that a sum sufficient to pay the interest and principal of the loan as it becomes due be, and the same is hereby levied upon the taxable property of the district.”

The complaint stated the proceedings had by the electors together with other proper allegations, and the defendants demurred thereto on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. From an order overruling the demurrer, the defendants appealed.Charles A. Ingram, of Durand, for appellants.

John E. Foley, of Ellsworth, for respondent.

VINJE, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The plaintiff contends that these resolutions are insufficient to authorize any loan because: (1) The statute does not authorize a loan for the purpose stated in the first resolution; (2) the resolution does not specify the time of payment; and (3) it does not specify the manner of payment, whether in annual installments or otherwise.

[1] It is urged that, since the statute permits a loan only for the purpose of aiding in the erection or purchase of a schoolhouse, money cannot be borrowed for the purpose of remodeling a schoolhouse and building an addition thereto; that the remodeling of a building is not equivalent to an erection thereof. We think such a construction is too narrow. The statute was intended to enable school...