Judd v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 3 of Platte County
| Decision Date | 03 April 1933 |
| Citation | 58 S.W.2d 783,227 Mo.App. 921 |
| Parties | RAY A. JUDD, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 OF PLATTE COUNTY, APPELLANT |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Platte County.--Hon. Guy B. Park Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Brown Douglas & Brown for respondent.
James H. Hill for appellant.
This is an action instituted by the plaintiff, the respondent herein, against the defendant, appellant herein, to recover for an alleged balance for the furnishing and installing of the heating and plumbing system for a new school building, erected at Dearborn, Missouri.
The defendant is a consolidated school district, organized and existing under the laws of Missouri.
The facts of the case are shown by agreed statements, by documents and by oral testimony.
In the trial court, this case was considered in connection with a case, wherein G. A. Rector was plaintiff and wherein this defendant was also defendant. The Rector suit is an action for alleged balance due to him as the general contractor for the erection and building of the schoolhouse, wherein this plaintiff installed heating and plumbing herein in issue. By stipulation, it is agreed that any testimony in one of these cases, that may be pertinent to the issues in the other, may be considered as evidence in the other.
The evidence discloses that in February, 1930, there was a written contract entered into between the plaintiff and the school board, wherein and whereby the installation of a heating and plumbing system was based upon a consideration of six thousand three hundred and twenty-four dollars ($ 6,324). It is shown, that there is an unpaid balance of two thousand twenty-eight dollars ($ 2,028) on this contract. There is no contention that the installment was not in compliance with the contract. A jury was waived and trial was by the judge. The plaintiff was given judgment for two thousand twenty-eight dollars ($ 2,028) from which the defendant duly appealed.
It appears from the record, that the Consolidated School District Number Three (3) of Platte county, Missouri, a corporation, defendant below and appellant herein, voted a bond issue to the amount of forty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 42,500) for the purchasing of a site and the erection of a building thereon. It appears that for this project, there was available the sum of two thousand dollars ($ 2,000) from the State for purchase of a site. It also appears, that there was available four hundred dollars ($ 400) from the sale of the old building.
The defendant makes the contention that the above amounts, totaling forty-four thousand nine hundred dollars ($ 44,900), in so far as the evidence shows, was the only available funds that could be used to pay for all that was contracted to be paid by three contracts, of which the one in controversy is one, entered into on February 6, 1930.
The contracts of said date are as follows: The Judd contract for plumbing and heating $ 6,324, the Rector contract, the general contract for the erection of the building, $ 37,750, and for the electrical wiring and appliances $ 2,600, which totals $ 46,674.
As it is shown, that the $ 2,000 State money purchased the site, this item can be eliminated from consideration. The evidence shows a credit item to the district, by way of interest collected on bond money, in the sum of $ 419. It appears, that this item of $ 419 was credited to the building fund. However, the right to so credit is controverted.
It is admitted, that an item of $ 770 for an electric clock is not chargeable to the building fund.
From the admitted facts, the amount in what was termed the building fund, when the $ 2,000 for the site is eliminated, amounted to $ 42,900. It, therefore, appears that the three contracts amount to $ 3,774, in excess of the above fund.
The defendant school district is contending, based upon the above showing, that the three contracts are in excess of money available for purposes for which the contracts call for and that therefore, the contracts are null and void, because in contravention of law and contravention of section 12 of Article 10 of the Constitution.
The plaintiff, on the other hand, makes a contention that the three contracts include many items and things, other than for the purpose of a site and the erection of a building, and that therefore, these other items and things were properly payable out of other funds on hand and within the revenue provided for the year, that could be properly expended for these items and things.
It is shown that there was raised from the levy for incidentals for the year, wherein the contracts were made, the sum of $ 4,000 and that there was a balance in the incidental fund, at the time the levy was made. Gathered from the evidence, it can be inferred that the levy and balance on hand amounted to $ 5,900. There is no evidence, as to the expectancy of revenue other than some evidence comparing with other years.
The case was tried by the judge, jury having been waived, and judgment was for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 2,028. The judgment and decree of the court was in words and figures as follows, to-wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial