Grabe v. Lamro Ind. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 09 November 1928
• Docket Number: 5599
• Citation: 221 N.W. 697,53 S.D. 579
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE GRABE, et al., dba Grabe & Helleberg, Plaintiff and Appellants, v. LAMRO INDEPENDENT CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 20, TRIPP COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent.

53 S.D. 579

221 N.W. 697

GEORGE GRABE, et al., dba Grabe & Helleberg, Plaintiff and Appellants,

v.

LAMRO INDEPENDENT CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 20, TRIPP COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent. South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from Circuit Court, Tripp County, SD Hon. N. D. Burch, Judge File No. 5599—Affirmed Garlow & Long, Columbus, Neb., Doherty & Talbott, Winner, SD Attorneys for Appellants. P. A. Hosford, Winner, SD Attorneys for Respondent. Opinion filed November 9, 1928

MORIARTY, C.

This action was brought by the appellants to recover from the respondent school district a balance alleged to be due to them for services as architects. The evidence was taken before a jury, but, after both parties had rested, each moved the court for the direction of a verdict, and the jury was excused. The court made findings and conclusions favorable to respondent’s contentions and entered judgment for respondent. From said judgment and an order denying a new trial, this appeal is taken.

The record shows that in the year 1919 the board of the respondent district was contemplating the erection of a new schoolhouse.

On December 15, 1919, appellants submitted to said board a written proposal of the terms upon which they would render services as architects of a proposed building. At a meeting held on December 15, 1919, the board voted to accept this proposal and authorized the president and clerk to sign an acceptance thereof. Thereafter the written acceptance was signed by said officers. This agreement, in so far as it affects the issues herein, is as follows:

“Proposal.

“To the Board of Education of Lamro Independent Consolidated School District of Tripp County, South Dakota.

“Art. 1. We the undersigned propose and agree to prepare preliminary sketches including water color perspective and in other ways assist in creating public interest in the project of erecting another school building in your city. The above services to be rendered gratis in case the bond issue fails to carry and to be deemed a part of our services to be covered by the fees stipulated below in the event that the bond election shall be successful.”

The proposal then goes on to provide for the preparation of ten sets of working plans and specifications according to the dictations of the board, or its building committee, and for a fee of 3 per cent on the cost of labor and materials shown and specified.

The appellants prepared the preliminary sketches and water color perspective provided for in article 1, above quoted. On March 9, 1920, the proposition of issuing bonds was submitted to the vote of the electors of the district. The board, on canvassing the results of the election, found that 173 votes were cast, of which 161 votes were for the issuance of the bonds and 12 were against the issuance, and the canvassing board declared that the proposition for the issuance of the bonds in the sum of $75,000 had been duly and legally carried. Thereafter appellants proceeded to prepare the ten sets of working plans and specifications provided for in their proposal. But when the board attempted to sell the bonds they were unable to do so, and no part of the bonds mentioned in the election of March 9, 1920, were ever issued.

It is admitted that this bond election is the one contemplated in the proposal.

Counsel in their briefs discuss several questions which we do not find it necessary to consider.

In order to recover under the contract sued upon, the plaintiffs must show that the proposition of issuing the bonds was submitted in a lawful manner to the electors of the defendant district. Plaintiffs’ own evidence shows that the ballot used; in the election of March 9, 1920, was in the following form:

“Shall the Board of Education of Lamro Independent Consolidated District No. 20, Tripp County, South Dakota, be authorized to issue bonds in a total amount not exceeding $75,000.00 payable in twenty years, or less, from date, and bearing a rate of interest not exceeding six per cent per annum, payable semi-annually, for the purpose of purchasing a site and erecting and equipping a new school house in and for said district.”

This was followed by the usual instructions as to the proper manner of marking the ballot.

Section 7592, Revised Code of 1919, provides that whenever the electors of a common school district shall vote to issue bonds for the purpose of building and furnishing a schoolhouse, purchasing grounds on which to locate the same, or to fund an outstanding indebtedness, the school district board may lawfully issue such bonds.

But section 7602, R. C., is the only statute authorizing the issuance of bonds by districts of the class of the defendant herein. Said section 7602 provides as follows:

“Boards of education of independent school districts are authorized and empowered to issue negotiable bonds in the manner hereinafter provided for the following purposes:

1. To refund bonds that may be outstanding.

2. To fund outstanding warrants.

3. To raise money for the purpose of a site or sites and the erection of suitable buildings for school purposes.”

And section 7605, which provides the form for ballots to be used in voting upon the issuance of bonds in districts of this class, provides that:

“Such proposition or propositions so printed on the...