Creager v. Wright School Dist. No. 9

• Decision Date: 27 June 1886
• Citation: 62 Mich. 101,28 N.W. 794
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CREAGER

28 N.W. 794

62 Mich. 101

CREAGER v. Supreme Court of Michigan

June 27, 1886

WRIGHT SCHOOL-DIST. NO. 9.

Error to Ottawa.

Arthur Lowell and George A. Farr, for plaintiff and appellant.

V.W Seeley, for defendant.

MORSE, C.J.

The plaintiff brought suit in justice's court to recover the contract price for building a fence around defendant's school site. He recovered a judgment of $30, and costs. Upon appeal to the circuit court for Ottawa county, and trial before Hon. DAN J. ARNOLD, circuit judge, without a jury, the defendant had judgment. The plaintiff brings error to this court; and insists that the finding of facts does not support the judgment, and asks that judgment be entered here for the plaintiff for the same amount rendered by the justice; that being the sum agreed upon in the contract hereinafter mentioned.

The facts are substantially as follows: A school-house was being erected upon the school site in October, 1884, to be completed in December of the same year. On the fourth day of October, 1884, at a special meeting of the electors of the school-district, legally held, it was voted to build a line fence around said site; the kind of fence, and the manner of its erection, being specified. It was also ordered at said meeting that the district board build or cause such fence to be built. Soon afterwards the district board met, all being present, and estimated the cost of the fence at $32. No action was taken, however, in reference to letting the job of building the same, or any steps taken towards building it. Besides the building of this fence, there were other contracts to let; such as building a wood-shed and moving privies. The officers at this meeting had some talk about letting these jobs, and the moderator told the director to negotiate with parties for doing these jobs. The assessor did not hear this, however, and both he and the moderator left the meeting, understanding that the school board would meet again in the near future to let these several contracts. Soon after this meeting, the director, assuming to act in behalf of the district, made an agreement with the plaintiff to build this fence according to the specifications as voted for the sum of $30. The other members of the board did not know of the making of this contract at the time it was made, and never either authorized or ratified it. After the plaintiff had procured the materials for the fence and placed the same upon the ground, and dug the post-holes he was notified by the assessor that he had better have an understanding with the school board, or he might not get his pay. The plaintiff completed the job in accordance with the agreement, and the director drew an order upon the assessor for $30, and delivered it to the plaintiff. He presented it to the moderator, who refused to countersign it. The plaintiff subsequently lost the order. Neither the moderator nor assessor knew that the director intended to let the contract for building the fence until it was in progress of erection. The school board never accepted the fence as built. The matter was brought up at a special meeting of the district electors, who refused to accept the fence, or pay for it. The school was being taught at the time the fence was contracted for, or at the time it was completed. The school-house was finished about December 10, 1884. The evidence fails to show how long after the house was completed before a school was taught therein. The plaintiff claims that this fence is a necessary appendage to the school-house, and that, under the statute, the director had the power and authority to let the contract. The circuit judge thought that the school board only had the power to make such a contract; and, as neither they nor the school-district had accepted the fence, or ratified in any way the director's contract, ruled that the plaintiff could not recover.

There is no dispute but the fence was built just as the district wanted it, and for a less price than the board estimated it would cost to erect it. The plaintiff was not forbidden to build it. The assessor and the moderator, and presumably most of the district, knew that he was building it, and said nothing, except the remark of the assessor that he better have an understanding with the board, or he might not get his pay. This might have been taken by the plaintiff as relating simply to the price of his work. He was not informed, in any manner, by these officers, that the director had no power to make the contract, but that the board alone could let the job or authorize the work. It does not appear that the fence has been removed by anybody, or that the district is unwilling to enjoy the benefits of the plaintiff's money and labor invested in the fence. The defense to his claim is purely technical. There is nothing either to show that the director did not act in good faith believing he had the power, or that the assessor or moderator called his attention to his want of authority until after the work was done. There is no...