Inhabitants of Town of Farmington v. Miner

• Decision Date: 27 October 1934
• Citation: Inhabitants of Town of Farmington v. Miner, 133 Me. 162, 175 A. 219 (Me. 1934)
• Court: Maine Supreme Court
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF FARMINGTON v. MINER (two cases). SAME v. BLAKE.

175 A. 219

INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF FARMINGTON

v. MINER (two cases).

SAME

v. BLAKE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Oct. 27, 1934.

Report from Superior Court, Franklin County.

Actions by the Inhabitants of the Town of Farmington against William F. Miner and against J. A. Blake.On report from the superior court.

Judgment for defendants.

Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, and HUDSON, JJ.

Frank W. & Benj.Butler, of Farmington, for plaintiff.

Berman & Berman, of Lewiston, for defendants.

STURGIS, Justice.

In these actions, the inhabitants of the town of Farmington seek the restitution of public funds used and disbursed by the defendantWilliam F. Miner, while acting as superintendent of schools.The actions are brought in assumpsit on account annexed with the general money counts attached, and, with the consent of the parties, are reported on an agreed statement of facts.In accordance with the general rule, all technical questions of pleading must be deemed to be waived.

The case states that the public schools of Farmington are under the direct control of a school committee of five members who perform the duties and have the powers prescribed in chapter 206 of the Private and Special Laws of 1891, except as the same have been further defined and modified by subsequent general legislation.Originally, this school committee elected the superintendent of schools of the town, fixed his compensation, and directed and supervised the performance of his duties.Pursuant, however, to the provisions of chapter 188 of the Public Laws of 1917 and acts amendatory thereof, the town of Farmington was combined with the towns of New Vineyard and Temple into a school union, and a joint committee made up of the school committees of the several towns was organized as required by law.Since that time, the schools of Farmington have been under the supervision of the superintendent elected by the joint supervisory committee of the union.On June 29, 1927, the defendantWilliam F. Miner, who had been superintendent of the schools of Farmington since 1923, was elected superintendent of this union for a term of five years, and on June 2, 1932, he was reelected for a further term of two years.The instant suits concern his expenditures during these terms of office.

The first action reported, which is docketed in the trial court as two actions numbered 116 and 118 but argued here as one case, is assumpsit to recover moneys expended in the years 1928 to 1932, inclusive, for taking a census of persons of school age in the town of Farmington.Under the general statutes then in force, superintendents of schools in the state were required to annually return to the school committees of the towns under their supervision and to the state commissioner of education a certified list of the names and ages of all persons in each of the towns between the ages of five and twenty-one years, corrected to the 1st day of April.P. L. 1919, c. 83, P. L. 1911, c. 121, Rev. St. c. 19, §§ 56 and 57.Following the practice of former years, the defendant Miner, in making the school census of Farmington, employed one Frank Heminway to make a canvass of all persons of school age in the town and upon this census based his certified returns.The wages paid were the same as in previous years and the same person was employed.The claim now made is that it was the duty of the superintendent, under the statute, to personally make the annual school canvass and census, and the employment of another for that purpose at the expense of the town was unauthorized.

This contention cannot be sustained.The school census is the basis of a large annual apportionment of state school funds to the several towns and cities.Rev. Stc. 19, § 213.All superintendents of schools in the state, union, or otherwise, and regardless of the school population under their supervision, are required to certify these returns annually in order that the apportionment of state funds may be made as provided by law.To the end that this school census may be accurate and complete, it is provided that, if it appear that the census returns of any town have been inaccurately taken, the Governor and council may require the census of such town to be retaken and returned and appoint persons to perform that service, "and such persons so appointed shall take the same oath, perform the same service and receive the same compensation out of the same funds as the person or persons who took the school census in the first instance."Rev. Stc. 19, § 57.In this provision we find a legislative recognition of the well-known fact that in larger cities and towns, and in some of the school unions, it is entirely impractical, if not impossible, for the superintendents of schools to personally canvass the school population and attend to their other necessary...