Lamb v. Redding

• Decision Date: 02 January 1912
• Docket Number: 233
• Parties: Lamb v. Redding, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

83 A. 362

234 Pa. 481

Lamb v. Redding, Appellant

No. 233

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 2, 1912

Argued November 2, 1911

Appeal, No. 233, Oct. T., 1911, by defendants, from decree of C.P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July Term, 1911, No. 29, awarding injunction in case of William Lamb et al. v. D. L. Redding et al., School Board of the School District of McKees Rocks Borough. Affirmed.

Bill in equity for an injunction. Before MILLER, J., specially presiding.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Error assigned was decree awarding injunction.

R. S Martin, with him Edward F. Duffy, for appellants. -- In the exercise of sound discretion an honest judgment reached after due consideration by a board of school directors with reasonable ground on which to base it, though wrong or mistaken, cannot be regarded as abuse of discretion or from which fraud or bad faith can be inferred: Roth v Marshall, 158 Pa. 272; Com. v. Wenner, 211 Pa. 637; Butz v. Romig, 17 Pa. D.R. 1; Rittenhouse v. Creasy, 2 Kulp 241; Witherop v. Titusville School Board, 7 Pa. C.C.R. 451; Wharton v. Cass Twp. School Directors, 42 Pa. 358; Cooney v. Gardner, 43 Pitts. Leg. J. 190; Gaston v. Meadville School, 5 Pa. D.R. 549.

James Balph, with him R. A. Balph and Albert B. Schultz, for appellees. -- The court had jurisdiction: Kitchel v. Board of Commissioners, 123 Ind. 540 (24 N.E. Repr. 366); Crow v. Board of Commissioners, 118 Indiana 51 (20 N.E. Repr. 642); Sheidley v. Lynch, 95 Mo. 487 (8 S.W. Repr. 434).

Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE STEWART:

Appellants constitute the present school board of the school district of McKees Rocks in Allegheny county. Their immediate predecessors purchased at a cost of $17,500 a lot of ground on which to erect a new and additional school building. In preparing the ground for the proposed new building, laying the foundation, and erecting the superstructure to the height of the first floor, they expended of the public money the further sum of $52,000, making in all an expenditure of about $70,000. The building has remained in that unfinished condition. Appellants now propose to abandon the site so chosen and improved, purchase another at a cost of $27,000 and erect thereon a school building estimated to cost when completed $125,000. The appellees, tax payers of the district, filed their bill complaining of this proposed action and asking that the board be restrained from carrying out their purpose. In the answer filed appellants seek to justify their action by the following considerations: first, that it is doubtful whether the foundations constructed on the present site are sufficient to support the contemplated structure, second, that to complete the building on which work has been begun, would open the door for claims now pending, or which may be made, for work and material employed and furnished in and about the uncompleted building, which in equity and good conscience ought not to be paid; and third, that it rests wholly in the discretion of the board to say whether the proposed change shall be made. The sixth finding of the learned chancellor who heard the case, relates to the first of these considerations, and is as follows: "From the weight of the evidence the fact is found, that the foundations of the May Avenue site, as reinforced with the walls thereon, and the superstructure as now existing, are entirely safe, and will admit with safety of the completion of the superstructure originally contemplated, or of any part thereof; or of adaptation to or modification thereof; it further appeared, not only from the weight of the evidence, but from personal examination of both places, that this particular site is commodious, elevated, quiet, one block distant from street car lines, with abundant opportunity for light and air. The further fact appears, that it is feasible to erect upon any one of the two wings of the present superstructure, a building in accordance with the original plans, or a modification thereof on new plans, containing eight rooms with all the necessary conveniences, at a cost of from $22,000 to $25,000, for each wing; and it would appear that these wings could be erected and completed...