Markey v. School District No. 18 of Sheridan County
| Decision Date | 19 April 1899 |
| Docket Number | 8847 |
| Citation | 78 N.W. 932,58 Neb. 479 |
| Parties | J. B. MARKEY v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 18 OF SHERIDAN COUNTY |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR from the district court of Sheridan county. Tried below before WESTOVER, J. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
W. W Wood, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas L. Redlon and C. Patterson, contra.
It appears from the averments of the petition filed in the court below that the defendant School District No. 18 of Sheridan County, on August 5, 1886, entered into a written contract with the Union School Furniture Company whereby it agreed to furnish the defendant with certain school furniture of the stipulated value of $ 150, payment to be made, at the option of the defendant, in cash on the delivery of the furniture or an order on the treasurer of the school district for said amount payable on September 25, 1890; that the furniture was received by defendant and placed in the schoolhouse, and pursuant to the terms and conditions of said contract, on October 18, 1886, the defendant issued to said Union School Furniture Company a warrant for $ 150, bearing interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum from the date thereof, payable September 25, 1890, and the plaintiff J. B. Markey is the present owner of said contract and order. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained by the district court, and the action dismissed. Plaintiff brings error.
The contract and order in question each required the amount therein specified to be paid at a date which had not then arrived. School district officers can contract for the furnishing of schoolhouses only with reference to money on hand and at the time available for that purpose. The officers of the school district possessed no authority to make a contract or give a district order payable at a future time. This principle has been frequently stated and applied by this court. (School District v. Stough, 4 Neb. 357; State v. Sabin, 39 Neb. 570, 58 N.W. 178; Andrews v. School District of McCook, 49 Neb. 420, 68 N.W. 631; Pomerene v. School District, 56 Neb. 126, 76 N.W. 414.) It follows that the contract and order in question, at their inception, were illegal and void.
It is argued that the contract is enforceable, because the same was subsequently ratified by the voters of the district. The averment in the petition, on that point, is "that at a meeting of the voters of said defendant school district, held on the 4th day of October, 1887, the buying of said bill of school furniture, thereinbefore described, was ratified by said legal voters." This is the statement of a mere conclusion, and not an allegation of an ultimate or issuable fact, and therefore a ratification of the contract was not sufficiently pleaded. There is also in the petition an averment to the effect that at a meeting of the legal voters of the district a proposition was unanimously carried to issue bonds to pay the debt sued for in the present action and it is insisted, in argument, by counsel for plaintiff that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial