Gehling v. Sch. Dist. No. 57, Richardson Cnty.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1880 |
| Citation | 4 N.W. 1023,10 Neb. 239 |
| Parties | GEHLING v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 57, RICHARDSON COUNTY. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error from Richardson county.
Schoenheit & Thomas, for plaintiff.
George P Uhl, for defendant.
Our decision in this case must turn upon the power of the school board to make the contract with Gehling for the work done by him, and for which the order in question was issued.
In School District v. Stough, 4 Neb 357, it was held that a school board could not bind the district by drawing, accepting and issuing orders against a proposed building fund, which, although duly voted, had not yet been raised. In that case, however, the district had received nothing of value for the orders thus improperly issued by its officers, while here it is shown that the one issued to Gehling was for work actually performed on the school-house, under a contract with the district board.
In this case it appears that the district had voted to expend a certain sum of money in the erection of a school-house, according to a plan and specifications duly adopted, and steps were accordingly taken to raise the required means.
Whether the course pursued by the district and the extent of the proposed expenditure were such as the law upheld it is not important here to know. At all events, it is clear that, subject to certain restrictions imposed by the legislature, it was competent for the qualified electors of the district, when lawfully assembled, to decide upon what sort of school-house should be built, and also the extent of the expenditure thereupon; and, having done so, that decision could not legally be interfered with by the school board. If, in the opinion of the board, changes were advisable, or an increased expenditure desirable, a meeting of the electors should have been called, and their direction in the matter obtained.
It is true that the change made in this instance was not very important, and increased the cost of the work only $80, and the building may have been that much more valuable to the district; but these are matters not to be considered in determining the power of the board to make it. In principle it is just the same as if the increase had been $800 instead of $80. As showing the policy of our legislature respecting this sort of expenditures, we refer to the following provisions of the general school law: In section 29 it is provided that “ the said qualified voters shall also have power, at any regular or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gehling v. School Dist. No. 57
...4 N.W. 1023 10 Neb. 239 JOHN GEHLING, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 56, RICHARDSON COUNTY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR Supreme Court of NebraskaMarch 19, 1880 . ERROR. to ......