Dorton v. Hearn
| Decision Date | 30 April 1878 |
| Parties | DORTON et al. Appellants v. HEARN |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ray Circuit Court.--HON. GEORGE W. DUNN, Judge.
C. T. Garner & Son and Farris & Bannister for appellants.
A corporation can only exercise such powers as are specially given to it by law, or such as are necessary to carry into effect some specified powers. St. Louis v. Russell, 9 Mo. 507; Blair v. Perpetual Ins. Co., 10 Mo. 559; Ruggles v. Collier, 43 Mo. 353; Matthews v. Skinker, 62 Mo. 329; Bank of Louisville v. Young, 37 Mo. 398; Hannibal & St. Joe. R. R. Co. v. Marion Co., 36 Mo. 294; Dillon on Mun. Corp., p. 32; Wilson v. School District, 32 N. H. 118; Foster v. Lane 10 Foster (N. H.) 305; Giles v. School District, 11 Foster 304; Harris v. School District, 8 Foster 58.
The directors of the school district of the town of Orrick, at a regular meeting of the board, adopted a resolution authorizing the school building put up and furnished under the school law, by a levy of taxes on the people of the district, to be used by defendant for teaching a Sunday school. Objections were made by a minority of the board, and an application was made to one of the judges of the county court for an injunction, which was granted, prohibiting defendant, who was superintendent of the Sunday school, from occupying the school house. The circuit court, on a hearing of the matter, dissolved the injunction and adjudged nominal damages to the defendant, and the only question presented by the plaintiffs, who appealed from this decision, is whether the directors had authority, under the law, to grant the permission given to the superintendent of the Sunday school.
It is doubtless not unusual for these common school buildings to be used for such purposes as this one in Orrick was applied to, and probably by common consent they are used for religious services on Sunday. The question is, however, as to the power of the school directors to appropriate the school building to a use having no connection with the educational purposes for which it was constructed at the expense of the inhabitants of the school district. A corporation, it was observed in Blair v. Perpetual Insurance Company, (10 Mo. 566,) is not only restricted from making contracts forbidden by its charter, but can only make those which are necessary to effectuate the purposes of its creation. It is not pretended that any direct authority is given in the school law justifying or authorizing the action of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Black v. Cornell
...... 21; Chambers v. Board Ed., 60 Mo. 370; Rice v. McClelland, 58 Mo. 116; Dritt v. Snodgrass, 66. Mo. 286; Seibert v. Botts, 57 Mo. 430; Dorton v. Hearn, 67 Mo. 301; Johnson v. School District,. 67 Mo. 319; State v. Powell, 67 Mo. 395; King v. School Board, 71 Mo. 628; Arnold v. School. ......
-
The State v. Bunyard
...... their interest in the school. While not unmindful of the. provisions of section 10784 as construed in Dorton v. Hearn, 67 Mo. 301, regulating the use of public school. buildings, the meeting being in other respects authorized, we. assume, nothing ......
-
State v. Bunyard
...no doubt, to increase their interest in the school. While not unmindful of the provisions of section 10784 as construed in Dorton v. Hearn, 67 Mo. 301, regulating the use of public school buildings, the meeting being in other respects authorized, we assume, nothing appearing to the contrary......
-
Brooks v. Incorporated Town of Brooklyn
...659 (3 N.E. 216); Nerlien v. Brooten, 94 Minn. 361 (102 N.W. 867); Sugar v. Monroe, 108 La. 677 (32 So. 961, 59 L. R. A. 723); Dorton v. Hearn, 67 Mo. 301. rule with reference to public building has thus been stated: The validity of appropriations for the purpose of erecting or repairing pu......