Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank of Valley City v. Sch.-Dist. No. 53

Decision Date03 June 1889
Citation6 Dak. 255,42 N.W. 767
PartiesFarmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank of Valley City v. School-Dist. No. 53.
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from district court, Barnes county; Francis, Judge.John W. Scott, White & Hewit, and C. K. Davis, for appellant. Frederick H. Remington, for respondent.

SPENCER, J.

The action was brought to enforce the payment of certain school warrants alleged to have been issued by the defendant through its school board. A jury having been waived, the cause was tried by the court, and findings of fact made that the inhabitants of the district did not direct the making of or make the contract under which the school-house was erected, did not consent to it, did not select or authorize the selection of the site upon which it was erected, and had never in any way ratified the acts of the school board in issuing such warrants or constructing such school-house; and, as matters of law, that such warrants were issued without authority of law, and were fraudulent and void. Judgment upon such findings was duly entered in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Upon a careful examination of the facts in this case, and the law of this territory defining how and under what circumstances school-districts and school boards may erect school-houses, and issue orders or warrants binding upon the districts in payment thereof, we are of opinion that the orders upon which this action was brought are invalid, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. The defendant was organized, if ever, under and in pursuance of chapter 14 of the Laws of 1879. By section 29 of said chapter, subd. 4, it is provided that the inhabitants qualified to vote at a school-district meeting, lawfully assembled, shall have power to designate by vote a site for a district school-house; and, by subdivision 5 of said section, to vote a tax annually, not exceeding 1 per cent., on the taxable property in the district, as the meeting shall deem sufficient, to purchase or lease a site for a school building. This section, and the subdivisions referred to, embrace all the law of this territory upon the subject of selecting sites for school-houses for the several districts. By section 56 of said chapter 14 it is made the duty of the district board of such school-district “to purchase or lease such site for a school-house as shall have been designated by the voters at a district meeting, in the corporate name thereof, and to build such school-house as the voters of the district in a district meeting shall have agreed upon, out of the funds provided for that purpose.” School-districts are corporations created for special purposes, and have only such powers as are specially granted by legislative enactment, and those that are necessarily implied to accomplish the objects for which they are created. The specification of these powers by the statute under which they are organized restrains them from the exercise of other powers than those granted and such as must be implied to enable them to effect the object of the grant, and operates to restrain them from the exercise of other powers, and, in the discharge of their duties and the exercise of the powers granted, they are governed and restrained by the provisions of the law under which they are created. When the law specially defines their powers, the legal presumption is that they are prohibited from the exercise of any others than those absolutely essential to enable them to accomplish the purposes of the grant. People v. Insurance Co., 15 Johns. 383; Insurance Co. v. Ely, 2 Cow. 699;School-Dist. v. Stone, 106 U. S. 183, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 84;School-Dist. v. Thompson, 5 Minn. 280, (Gil. 221.)

Under this interpretation of the law upon this subject, what powers had this school-district under the statute aforesaid? The inhabitants of the district qualified to vote at a school meeting, when lawfully assembled for that purpose, had the right and power to select a site for a school-house, and to agree upon such plans as they could for a school building, and provide funds within the limits fixed by the legislature for purchasing or leasing such site, and the erection of such school-house. This law also provides for the election by the inhabitants of such school-district of a board of officers, and specifies the duties of each. Such officers, as a district board, are to purchase or lease such site for a school-house “as shall have been designated by the voters at a district meeting.” From the provisions of this statute it is very clear that the intent of the legislature was that the inhabitants-the legal voters of the school-district, as contradistinguished from the district board-should alone have the power and right to select a site for a school-house, and that until they had exercised that right the district board were powerless in the premises; else it would not have used the language: “The district shall purchase or lease such site as shall have been designated by the voters at a district meeting, and erect such school-house as the voters of the district in a district meeting shall have agreed upon.” This is the reasonable and natural construction of the statute, and the only one which will give effect to all its provisions. The site having been selected, and the plan of school-house agreed upon, then, and not until then, did it become the duty or could the district board exercise legally the right to purchase a site or erect a school-house. The prime object of the creation of the district board was to enable the district to carry out the wishes of the inhabitants of the district as expressed at its meetings, and to consummate such bargains for the purchase of a school-house site and the building of a school-house as the legal voters of the district should direct. The statute does not mention any instance in which the district board may select a site...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Flagg v. Sch. Dist. No. 70, Barnes Cnty.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 19 Marzo 1894
    ...bonds were void, under the decision of the territorial supreme court and of this court in the cases of Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. School Dist. No. 53, 6 Dak. 265, 42 N. W. 767, and Capital Bank of St. Paul v. School Dist. No. 53, 1 N. D. 479, 48 N. W. 363. But it would not follow from th......
  • Roberts v. City of Fargo
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 25 Abril 1901
    ... ... Dinnie, 8 N.D ... 11; Goose River Bank v. Township, 1 N.D. 28; ... State v. Getchell, 3 N.D. 243; Farmers' Bank ... v. School District, 6 Dak. 255; ... ...
  • Van Eaton v. Town of Sidney
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 23 Junio 1930
    ...15 Johns. (N. Y.) 358, 8 Am. Dec. 243; Wilfong et al. v. Ontario Land Co. (C. C. A.) 171 F. 51; Farmers' & Merchants' National Bank of Valley City v. School District, 6 Dak. 255, 42 N. W. 767; City of Chicago v. M. & M. Hotel Co., supra; City of South Bend v. Chicago, S. B. & N. I. Ry. Co.,......
  • Scott v. City of La Porte
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 27 Enero 1904
    ...243;New York, etc., Co. v. Ely, 2 Cow. 678;City of Ft. Scott v. Eads Brokerage Co., 117 Fed. 51, 54 C. C. A. 437;Farmers, etc., Bank v. School District, 6 Dak. 255, 42 N. W. 767. And see City of Logansport v. Dykeman, 116 Ind. 15, 17 N. E. 587;Woodford v. Hamilton, 139 Ind. 481, 39 N. E. 47......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT