Indep. Sch.-Dist. of Ctr. ex rel. Holmes v. Gookin

• Decision Date: 05 October 1887
• Citation: 72 Iowa 387,34 N.W. 174
• Parties: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL-DIST. OF CENTER EX REL. HOLMES v. GOOKIN AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

72 Iowa 387

34 N.W. 174

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL-DIST. OF CENTER EX REL. HOLMES

v.GOOKIN AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 5, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Lucas county; DELL STUART, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Dungan & Liech, for appellant.

T. M. Stuart, for appellee.

SEEVERS, J.

1. The defendants constitute the board of directors of the independent school-district of Center, and the relator is a resident and tax-payer of such district. The petition states that at a meeting of the board in March, 1886, a resolution was adopted by a majority vote changing the site of a school-house in said district; that the defendant Myres was a member of said board, and he and his co-defendant Gookin voted for such resolution. The said Myres, at the time, was the owner of the land on which the board located the house, and that, by reason of such ownership, he was so interested therein as to make him incompetent to act or vote for said resolution, and, as the same was adopted by his vote, the act of relocation was illegal and void; that the defendants afterwards, by a similar vote, contracted and paid for the erection of a school-house on said land the sum of $420; that the defendants, by a similar vote, purchased and paid said Myres $30 for one acre of land, on which the house was erected,--all of which acts are illegal and void, for the reason the said Myres was so interested, as above stated, that he could not legally vote for the erection of said house, or purchase of said land; and therefore the money so paid was an illegal appropriation of the money of the district; that, as plaintiff is informed and believes, the said board is about to erect a fence on said land so purchased, and incur other expenses, and will appropriate in payment thereof the money of said district. It is also stated in the petition that said house was so located in “utter disregard of the geographical center of the district, and in disregard of the convenience of the patrons of each portion of the district, either present or prospective.” The relief asked is that the defendants “Gookin and Myres may be compelled to repay the plaintiff, the independent school-district of Center, the sum of $450.75, * * * and that they be enjoined from spending any more of the plaintiff's funds in and upon said pretended school-house site;” and it is further asked that said defendants, as such board of directors, may be required to hold a meeting, and relocate said school-house. The defendants demurred to the...