McCavick v. Florence Ind. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1910 |
| Citation | 25 S.D. 449,127 N.W. 476 |
| Parties | P. J. McCAVICK, Plaintiff and respondent, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF FLORENCE, Defendant and appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Codington County, SD
Affirmed
Seward & McFarland
Attorneys for appellant.
Hanten & Hanten, Sherin & Sherin
Attorneys for respondent.
The plaintiff's complaint, omitting formal matters, in substance, shows the following facts: That defendant is an independent school district corporation which includes the incorporated town of Florence, in Codington county; that the assessed valuation of all the taxable property in said school district for the year 1906 was $154,975; that the said school district had net assets to the amount of $427.80; that on the 12th day of August, 1907, the board of education made a tax levy of $2,000 for general fund purposes; that on the 8th day of June, 1907, the question of issuing bonds to the amount of $7,000 was submitted to the voters of said district and a majority of the electors thereof declared in favor of issuing such bonds to purchase the school site and erect buildings, and that the school site was thereafter purchased at a cost of $650; that on the 27th day of August, 1907, the board of education entered into a contract with plaintiff whereby plaintiff agreed to furnish the materials and construct the schoolhouse for said district at the agreed contract price of $8,985, final payment to be made 30 days after its completion; that, by reason of mutual change in construction in said schoolhouse, the said contract price was reduced to $8,939.50; that thereafter, on the 29th day of August, 1908, plaintiff fully performed his said contract by furnishing said materials and constructing said schoolhouse and that thereafter the defendant duly accepted the said building; that defendant has paid to plaintiff the sum of $7,102.76 of said contract price, leaving a balance of $1,836.74 still unpaid, which defendant still refuses and neglects to pay to plaintiff, to which complaint the defendant demurred on the ground that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant. Upon the said demurrer being overruled, defendant appealed, assigning as error the overruling of said demurrer.
The first contention of appellant is that said complaint shows on its face that the contract in question was...
To continue reading
Request your trial