East End School Dist. No. 2 v. Gaiser-Hill Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 110.,110. |
| Citation | 45 S.W.2d 504 |
| Parties | EAST END SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2 v. GAISER-HILL LUMBER CO. et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Saline Chancery Court; W. R. Duffie, Chancellor.
Suit by the Gaiser-Hill Lumber Company, by M. J. Ketcher & Co., and by the Benton Supply Company against the East End School District No. 2 of Saline County. Decrees were entered for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
W. A. Utley, of Benton, for appellant.
Tom Digby, of North Little Rock, Malcolm W. Gannaway, of Little Rock, and McDaniel & Nall, of Benton, for appellees.
The appellant is a school district in Saline county formed by the consolidation of three districts. It became necessary for the appellant to erect and equip a new school building, and arrangements were made for borrowing the money from the revolving loan fund. An election was had and tax voted for the payment of the loan. The amount borrowed was $10,000.
The district undertook to purchase the material and have some person to supervise the work. The directors of appellant agreed with W. H. Rodgers that they would furnish the material and pay the labor, and allow him $55 per week for his services. This agreement was entered into on April 7, 1930.
Rodgers further agreed that he would complete the building in seventy-two working days, and that he would execute an acceptable bond as a guarantee that said building would not exceed in total cash the amount set and agreed to by party of the first part, the expense of said bond to be paid by party of the first part.
On the same date, April 7, 1930, the directors of the district signed the following instrument:
Thereafter the directors of the district concluded that it would be necessary to advertise for bids and to let the contract to the lowest and best bidder. They advertised for bids, and Rodgers made a bid that was accepted, and executed a bond with the Home Accident Insurance Company as surety.
Rodgers' bid was accepted, but no new contract was made with him. The bid was $8,229.73.
The bond was executed by Rodgers as principal and the Home Accident Insurance Company as surety, in the sum of $8,229.73.
The following statement is in the bond: "Whereas, the principal has entered into written contract dated April 7, 1930, and amended by a supplemental agreement dated May 2, 1930, whereby the principal agrees to supervise the construction of a school building in East End School District No. 2 of Saline County, Arkansas; said district agreeing to furnish and pay for all material entering into the construction of said building and to furnish the necessary funds each week to pay the labor employed on it, a copy of which is hereto annexed, and which contract is made a part hereof, as fully as if recited at length herein."
Before the work was completed, Rodgers quit the job, left the country, and the building was completed by agreement between the directors and surety company.
Suit was filed in the Saline chancery court by Gaiser-Hill Lumber Company and M. J. Ketcher, trading as M. J. Ketcher & Co., against the school district, its directors, W. H. Rodgers, and the Home Accident Insurance Company.
The suits brought by Gaiser-Hill Lumber Company and M. J. Ketcher & Co. were brought as separate suits, but were consolidated and tried together. There was also a suit brought by the Benton Supply Company, and this suit was by agreement consolidated here for the purpose of appellant's brief.
The facts and principles of law are the same in each case, and there is therefore no necessity for more than one opinion.
Each of the suits was for material furnished which entered into the construction of the building. There is but little dispute about the facts. It is not contended that the materials were not furnished, and there is no contention that the materials furnished did not go into the building.
The school district, in its answers, denied liability; alleged that the building was erected by Rodgers, and not by the school district; that Rodgers was not merely a supervising contractor. It says that the supplies were sold to Rodgers, and that the bond was a statutory bond, and that the building was a public building, and that appellees knew, or could have known, that it was a public improvement. It also alleged that all of the funds received from the revolving loan fund were expended by the district in accordance with the contract entered into between said district and Rodgers; that, if appellees had any claim for material furnished, it was a claim against the contractor and bonding company, and not against appellant.
The court entered a decree in favor of Gaiser-Hill Lumber Company for $676.96, together with 6 per cent. interest from July 26, 1930, and for costs. It also entered judgment in favor of M. J. Ketcher for the sum of $601.50, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from July 10, 1930, and costs. There was a judgment entered in favor of the Benton Supply Company for $681.48.
The claim for lien upon the school building and land upon which it was located was denied in each case, and the complaints for liens dismissed for want of equity.
The district prosecutes an appeal in each case.
It is contended by the appellant that it is not liable for the payment of these claims, and that appellees should look either to the contractor or to the bonding company for payment, and appellant states that the correctness of the decision of the chancellor, holding the district liable, depends in a great measure on the construction of sections 6913 and 6914, Crawford & Moses' Dig. The sections referred to read as follows:
It is true that school directors are public officers and derive their powers from the statute.
"The law is well settled that school districts are not only authorized to exercise the powers that are expressly granted by statute, but also such powers as may be fairly implied therefrom, and from the duties which were expressly imposed upon them, and such powers are implied when the exercise thereof is clearly necessary to enable them to carry out and perform the duties legally imposed upon them." American Exchange Trust Co. v. Trumann Special School Dist., 183 Ark. 1041, 40 S.W.(2d) 770, 771; A. H. Andrews Co. v. Delight Special School Dist., 95 Ark. 26, 128 S. W. 361.
School directors are expressly authorized by statute to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
East End School District No. 2 v. Gaiser-Hill Lumber Co.
... ... upon them, and such powers are implied when the exercise ... thereof is clearly necessary to enable them to carry out and ... perform the duties legally imposed upon them." ... American Exchange Trust Co. v. Truman Special ... School Dist., 183 Ark. 1041, 40 S.W.2d 770; A ... H. Andrews Co. v. Delight Special School ... Dist., 95 Ark. 26, 128 S.W. 361 ... School ... directors are expressly authorized by statute to build, hire, ... or purchase school houses, and to furnish the same with ... necessary seats, ... ...