Dell Special School District No. 23 v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 21 May 1917
• Docket Number: 388
• Citation: 195 S.W. 373,129 Ark. 211
• Parties: DELL SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23 v. JOHNSON
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

195 S.W. 373

129 Ark. 211

DELL SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23 v. JOHNSON

No. 388

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 21, 1917

Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Chickasawba District; C. D Frierson, Chancellor; affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

R. A Nelson and G. E. Keck, for appellant.

1. The teaching of the school, without a contract required by law did not render the district liable. Kirby's Digest § 7615; Acts 1911, Act 206. A contract was necessary. 87 Ark. 97; 107 Id. 308; 52 Id. 487; 64 Id. 487.

2. The warrant was issued without authority of law. There was no vote of the people at the previous election. The unlawful act could not be ratified. Kirby's Digest, § 7686; 64 Ark. 487; Kirby's Digest, § 7699; Acts 1909, p. 948; 94 Ark. 583. The issuance of the warrant for the purpose of borrowing money was beyond the powers of the board and void. 25 Ark. 261; Throop on Publ. Off., §§ 21, 576; 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp., § 25. There could be no ratification. 94 Ark. 583; 101 U.S. 71; 25 Ia. 451; 67 Mo. 319.

3. The issuance of the warrant was ultra vires. There was no right of subrogation. 99 Ark. 624; 86 Id. 82; 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 234; 67 Id. 236; 21 Id. 551; 81 Id. 143; 110 Id. 262; 43 Ark. Rep. 617. There can be no innocent holder of a school warrant issued without power. or contrary to law. 94 Ark. 583, 588.

4. There was no contract; the warrant was void; there was no vote of the electors; there was no subrogation; the bank took with notice; there could be no subrogation and there was no estoppel.

Baker & Sloan, for appellees.

1. The district is estopped by ratification. None of the acts were ultra vires. The benefits were received. 98 Ark. 38; 108 Id. 1, 7; 67 Id. 236; 81 Id. 143; 81. Ark. 244; 82 Id. 531; 87 Id. 389; 110 Id. 262; 183 S.W. 168; 9 Ark. Law Rep. 617.

2. As to subrogation, see 45 Ark. 149; 77 Id. 282.

3. On the cross-appeal, interest should be allowed as expenses. 95 Ark. 26; 55 Id. 265.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action instituted in the chancery court of Mississippi County against appellant, a single school district, in the town of Dell, to recover the sum of $ 1,100, due under a contract alleged to have been entered into between the school district and one of the appellees, A. S. Johnson, to cover his salary for teaching a term of school for the district and the expenses in operating the school. Appellees were decreed a recovery of the sum of $ 1,000, and have cross-appealed on the ground that the court erred in refusing to decree the full amount claimed. There is no question raised about the suit having been improperly brought in the chancery court. The chancellor was warranted in finding from the testimony the following state of facts:

Appellee A. S. Johnson, was a licensed school teacher in Mississippi County and sought employment from the Dell school district to teach for a term of six months, beginning in the autumn of the year 1914. There were two obstacles in the way--one that the district was out of funds, and the other that there were two factions among the patrons of the school and among the members of the school board, one faction favoring the employment of Johnson and the other faction favoring another school teacher. It was agreed between the two factions that petitions should be circulated among the patrons of the school and that the teacher receiving the highest number of favoring signatures should be employed. It was found that a majority of the patrons of the school favored the employment of Johnson and it was understood among all factions that there should be harmony, and that if any one was employed it should be Johnson. The other obstacle, however, stood in the way--the want of funds. Johnson proposed that for the sum of $ 1,000 he would teach the school for six months, pay the salary of Miss Newcom, an assistant teacher, who was the choice of the school board, and pay the other operating expenses of the school, such as fuel, janitor service and other incidentals, and also to pay the interest coupons on the bonded indebtedness of the district during the period the school was being taught. In the negotiations the fact was recognized that there was no money in the treasury to the credit of the district, and that it would be necessary to get some one to advance the money to defray the expenses of conducting the school, and it was agreed that the contract with Johnson should be for the sum of $ 1,100 in order to enable him to raise the money. The proposition was accepted and a warrant for the sum of $ 1,100 was issued to Johnson, the warrant being signed by the secretary and three others of the directors. Two of the directors refused to sign. The warrant was drawn in due form on the county treasury and was approved by endorsement of the county superintendent of schools, and upon presentation to the treasurer endorsement was made thereon showing that it was not paid for lack of funds.

There was never any formal meeting of the school board, nor was there any written contract entered into between the board and Johnson other than the issuance of the warrant, but the negotiations were conducted at informal interviews between Johnson and the various directors. It is conceded that there was no valid contract entered into between Johnson and the school district. However, it is undisputed that Johnson arranged with the Citizens Bank of Monette for the advancement of the sum of $ 1,000, that he assigned the warrant to the bank and secured the money, taught the school for the period of six months with the assistance of Miss Newcom; that he paid Miss Newcom $ 300, the full amount of salary agreed on, and also paid $ 72.41 for coal and other fuel, $ 30 for janitor services, and $ 80 for discharging interest coupons on the indebtedness of the district.

There was no objection made to the operation of the school. He and his assistant taught the school to the entire satisfaction of the people of the community and the patrons, and it is shown that all of the directors patronized the school by sending their children. The Citizens Bank of Monette and Miss Newcom were joined with appellee Johnson as plaintiffs in the action, and it is conceded that the bank is the real party in interest, Johnson and Miss Newcom both having received out of the funds advanced by the bank all that they expected under their respective contracts. The bank was joined as plaintiff in the action, it is said, on the theory that it was entitled to recover upon the doctrine of subrogation, but since all the parties who had at any time an interest in the controversy have been joined as plaintiffs, it is...