Crawford v. Brisley

• Decision Date: 19 June 1928
• Docket Number: Case Number: 17492
• Citation: 268 P. 713,131 Okla. 230,1928 OK 416
• Parties: CRAWFORD, Treasurer of Consol. School Dist No. 8 of Tillman County, v. BRISLEY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1928 OK 416

268 P. 713

131 Okla. 230

CRAWFORD, Treasurer of Consol. School Dist No. 8 of Tillman County, v. BRISLEY.

Case Number: 17492

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: June 19, 1928

Syllabus

¶0 1. Schools and School Districts--Formation of Consolidated District--Disposition of Assets of Disorganized District.

Where a consolidated school district is organized under the provisions of chapter 86, art. 11, C. O. S. 1921, the assets of the disorganized district shall be applied to the payment of the floating indebtedness of the district, if any, then to the bonded indebtedness, any residue to become the property of the consolidated district.

2. Mandamus--Writ to Compel Treasurer to Register Legal School District Warrants.

School district warrants regularly issued and signed by the clerk, director, and member of a common school district, issued in payment of a legal contract for teaching, which contract was based upon an estimate made and approved, are entitled to be registered by a treasurer who holds funds collected by taxes levied upon the district to pay said warrants, and such treasurer may be compelled by mandamus to so register said warrants.

3. Schools and School Districts--Registration of Warrants as Prerequisite to Suit Thereon.

Registration of school district warrants is a condition precedent to maintenance of an action at law based upon such evidence of indebtedness.

Error from District Court, Tillman County; Frank Mathews, Judge.

Action by Ben Brisley against T. C. Crawford, Treasurer of Consolidated School District No. 8, Tillman County, in mandamus. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Wilson & Roe, for plaintiff in error.

Mounts & Chamberlin, for defendant in error.

RILEY, J.

¶0 A contract was entered into by and between school district No. 150, Tillman county, and D. W. Cathers, whereby the latter was employed to teach the school of the former for the year 1919-20. For the fiscal year 1919-20, school district No. 150 made its estimate, caused to be levied and collected taxes for the purpose, amongst other things, of paying the conditions of the contract heretofore mentioned. In August thereafter, a number of school districts contiguous to school district No. 150 attempted to form themselves into consolidated school district No. 8. The newly formed consolidated district embraced school district No. 150. Considerable litigation resulted. A temporary injunction was issued July 30, 1919, restraining the holding of an election on the matter of consolidation and other acts toward consolidation, but the election was held contrary to the injunction and consolidation was declared. In February, 1920, the temporary injunction theretofore granted was made permanent and the election on consolidation theretofore held was declared void by the district court. An appeal was had, and this court reversed the judgment of the district court and the cause was ordered dismissed. Davis v. Whitehead, 86 Okla. 273, 208 P. 216, decided June 30, 1922.

¶1 In the meantime Cathers had taught the school in district No. 150, under his contract based upon the estimate and approved. The warrants in controversy were regularly issued to Cathers as such teacher. In fact, no consolidated school was taught or organized in any of the districts now a part of consolidated district No. 8 for the school year 1919-20, but the common schools continued for the year 1919-20 in each of the common school districts, which were subsequently formed and organized as the consolidated school. However, all of the common school district teachers except No. 150 signed additional contracts with the advocates of consolidation for the year 1919-20. After the common school No. 150 was taught by Cathers, the consolidated district took over the taxes collected and other property and assets theretofore held in the name of district No. 150.

¶2 Section 10469, C. O. S. 1921, provides that the assets and property of any disorganized district having an indebtedness shall first be applied in payment of its floating indebtedness, if any.

¶3 Herein Cather was employed by a lawful contract based upon an estimate made made and approved (C.-M. 68)--"I think we will concede that the estimate was made and taxes collected for the purpose of maintaining this particular district for that year."

¶4 The warrants as shown by Exhibit A (C.-M. p. 50) were drawn upon an estimate made and approved in the sum of $ 1,075. The amount of the warrant was $ 150. The balance was shown--$ 970--and the warrants were shown to be directed against the general fund provided for school district No. 150 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1920. They were not shown to have been registered by the clerk of consolidated district No. 8 (60), who had secured the money raised by the tax levy to pay these warrants, but demand was made upon that officer to perform that ministerial act and he refused to comply (60-62), and so stated in writing.

¶5 These warrants were issued to the regularly employed teacher. They were signed by the director, clerk, and member comprising the board of district No. 150. In reference to the contract of Cathers, Mr. Crawford, treasurer of consolidated district No. 8, testified that Cathers had been employed by district No. 150 prior to the time the election on consolidation was held (73); and that they did not question but what his contract was executed prior to the organization of the new district (74). That consolidated school district No. 8 collected all the taxes from district No. 150 for the year 1919, and retained the money (74). That they paid all other teachers who taught in the various districts concerned for that year. That the sinking fund and all other funds of district No. 150 were transferred to the consolidated district (77).

¶6 Now it cannot be reasonably maintained that Cathers, at sometime or other after the performance of his contract, lawful in itself, would not have had a good cause of action as against consolidated district No. 8. That fundamental premise will be admitted by reason of section 10469, supra. Also, Mitsler v. Eye, 107 Okla. 289, 231 P. 1045, where it was held by this court:

"Where a consolidated school district is organized under the provisions of chapter 86, art. 11. C. O. S. 1921, the assets of the disorganized district shall be applied to the payment of the floating indebtedness of the district, if any, then to the bonded indebtedness, any residue to become the property of the consolidated district."

¶7 It is true in Missouri. Thompson v. Abbott, 61 Mo. 107, where it was held:

"A new district is liable for the salary of the teacher of the abolished district."

¶8 It is the rule in Kansas ( Hoffield v. Newton, 33...