Loomis v. Fifth School Dist.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1929
• Citation: 145 A. 571,109 Conn. 700
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LOOMIS v. FIFTH SCHOOL DIST. DEMARS v. FIFTH SCHOOL DIST.

145 A. 571

109 Conn. 700

LOOMIS v. FIFTH SCHOOL DIST.

DEMARS v. FIFTH SCHOOL DIST.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 6, 1929

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Thomas J Molloy, Judge.

Two actions, one by Arthur E. Loomis, the other by Aime Demars against the Fifth School District, for labor and materials furnished. From judgment for plaintiff in each case defendant appeals. No error.

School district, by using improvements installed under unauthorized contract, when it could have continued school without using them, held estopped to deny liability.

Noble E. Pierce and Frederick R. Manning, both of Hartford, for appellant.

William S. Hyde and Raymond R. Bowers, both of South Manchester, for appellees.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS, JJ.

BANKS J.

The plaintiff Loomis was the committeeman of the defendant school district in the town of Manchester and performed labor and furnished materials in the installation of water and toilet facilities in the defendant's schoolhouse. He also as such committeeman employed the plaintiff Demars to erect an addition to the schoolhouse for the purpose of housing the toilet facilities, and the latter furnished labor and materials in the erection of such addition. These actions were brought to recover in each case for the labor and materials furnished and were argued together. The issues are the same, the defense in each case being that the plaintiff Loomis had no authority to perform the work for which he is seeking to recover, or to employ the plaintiff Demars to build the addition to the schoolhouse.

The plaintiff was the duly elected committeeman of the defendant whose corporate existence as a legally constituted school district is not questioned. At a special meeting of the school district held on September 11, 1925, the question of installing modern sanitary improvements in the schoolhouse was tabled, and the meeting adjourned to the third Friday of June, 1926. On September 12, 1925, the plaintiff Loomis as district committeeman requested the board of school visitors of the town to make an investigation of the sanitary conditions at the school and that it make recommendations to remedy these conditions. Two of the school visitors inspected the premises in accordance with a vote of the board, which, at a meeting held on September 17, 1925, voted that the school district be directed to immediately install modern sanitary closets and lavatories together with running water, and on the same day notified the plaintiff that it found that different sanitary arrangements were required at the schoolhouse and could be provided without unreasonable expense, and recommended to him as committeeman of the district that modern closets and lavatories and running water be installed immediately. At a special meeting of the district held on October 6, 1925, a committee was raised to make an investigation of the conditions in connection with the premises of the school and to report at an adjourned meeting to be held on December 7, 1925. The committee made no report at this adjourned meeting and no action of any kind was taken regarding the installation of sanitary improvements. The minutes of the meeting of October 6th contained the following: " The voters being agreed that the committeeman install bubblers in the schoolhouse, otherwise to let the question of any more improvements stand for two months." Immediately after that meeting, the plaintiff Loomis caused to be installed in the schoolhouse running water and a lavatory, and shortly after the meeting of December 7th caused to be erected an addition to the schoolhouse one story in height and about 20 feet square, which was built by the plaintiff Demars, and installed therein sanitary and improved toilets, including septic tank and heating apparatus. The district took no steps to stop the work as it progressed, and ever since its completion has been using the result of the work of both the plaintiffs, which has increased the value of the schoolhouse and been beneficial to the children attending the school.

The trial court held that the defendant having taken no steps to stop the work as it progressed, and having accepted and used the sanitary improvements installed by the plaintiff, was estopped from denying liability therefor. That it was within the power of the defendant district to contract for the installation of sanitary improvements in the schoolhouse is not questioned. It could therefore ratify the action of the plaintiff Loomis in making such installation, though he had no original authority in the premises. The question is whether the record...