Nuckols v. Lyle

Decision Date15 September 1902
Citation8 Idaho 589,70 P. 401
PartiesNUCKOLS v. LYLE
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

SCHOOL TRUSTEE-VOID CONTRACT-HUSBAND AND WIFE.-A contract made with the wife of one member of the board of school trustees employing her to teach in the school over which such board has supervision, is contrary to public policy, and is void by the terms of the statute, the husband being pecuniarily interested in the contract.

REMEDY-WRIT OF REVIEW-ADMINISTRATIVE ACT-INJUNCTION.-Administrative acts of school boards cannot be reviewed in the courts on proceedings by writ of review, but payment under a void contract made by a board of trustees may be enjoined in an action commenced by any taxpayer of the school district.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Shoshone County.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions. Costs of appeal awarded to appellant.

Charles E. Miller, for Appellant.

This is primarily an action to declare a contract of hiring null and void, and, incidentally, to enjoin carrying out the same under subdivision 1 of section 4288 of the Revised Statutes of 1887. The remedy adopted by the plaintiff was the proper one. If the board, in exercising judicial functions, had exceeded its jurisdiction, a writ reviewing such action would have been the appropriate remedy. (Rev. Stats. 1887, sec 4962.) But the making of the contract of employment was purely administrative and did not, in any sense, partake of the judicial character contemplated by the statute. (Adleman v. Pierce, 6 Idaho 294, 55 P. 658; Dunbar v. Board of Commrs. of Canyon County, 5 Idaho 407, 49 P. 409.) The status of the plaintiff was ample to enable him to bring the action. "The complaint alleges that plaintiff was a resident, a duly qualified citizen and elector and a bona fide taxpayer of the said county," and that he was a member of the board. Every citizen and taxpayer of the state has the right to bring the proper suit to determine whether any board or officer has performed his duties as the law requires. (Orr v. Board of Equalization, 3 Idaho 190, 28 P. 416; Dunn v. Sharp, 4 Idaho 98, 35 P. 842.)

W. W. Woods, for Respondent.

The demurrer to the complaint was general, and if sustained upon any valid ground, the judgment herein should be affirmed. The appellant is shown to be a member of the school board. If the contract he seeks to enjoin was void, he should not have allowed the defendant, Helen L. Young, to proceed under said contract and bestow her service, without immediate steps on his part to prevent, as an officer, such services being rendered, and then enjoin the payment for such services. (1 High on Injunctions, 7.) The remedy of appellant, if any remedy he had, was by writ of review. (2 High on Injunctions, sec. 1311, also secs. 1309, 1321, 1255, which cites Normand v. Otoe Co., 8 Neb. 18, and Carruthers v. Hartnett, 67 Tex. 127; Fitzhugh v. Orton, 12 Tex. 4; Musgrove v. Chambers, 12 Tex. 32; Smith v. Ryan, 20 Tex. 661; Manney v. Hunt, 36 Tex. 118; Jordan v. Cooley, 42 Tex. 284; Morgan v. Board of Commrs., 4 Idaho 418, 39 P. 1118; Packard v. Board of Commrs., 2 Colo. 338; Lawrence v. Leidigh, 58 Kan. 676, 50 P. 889; 16 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 377, and notes; Texas-Mexican R. Co. v. Wright, 88 Tex. 346, 31 S.W. 613, 31 L. R. A. 200.)

QUARLES, C. J. Sullivan and Stockslager, JJ., concur.

OPINION

The facts are stated in the opinion.

QUARLES, C. J.

This action was commenced by the appellant, who was at the time a member of the board of trustees for school district No. 15 in Shoshone county, to enjoin the payment of salary to the respondent Helen L. Young--compensation to her as teacher under a contract made with her by a majority of the said board. The complaint shows that the said board of trustees consisted of the appellant, Anderson W. Nuckols, James Lyle and Orville R. Young, husband of said Helen L. Young; that on September 1, 1900, said James Lyle and Orville R. Young constituting a majority of said board, made and entered into a contract with the said Helen L. Young employing her to teach the school in said school district, at the stated compensation of seventy dollars per month, for the school year beginning September 1, 1900; that immediately thereafter said Helen L. Young entered upon the duties of such teacher; that the compensation so agreed upon will be, if collected, the community property of said Orville R. and Helen L. Young; that said contract was made over the protest of appellant; and that the same is void because the said trustee, Orville R. Young, is interested financially in said contract. The respondents demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and which demurrer was sustained by the court. The appellant elected to stand on his complaint, and judgment was entered in favor of respondents, dismissing the action, from which appellant has appealed. The said complaint was filed in the district court on the sixth day of October, 1900, and it is also alleged therein that the salary for the month of September, 1900, had become due by the terms of the contract; and appellant asked for a temporary injunction restraining...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Frazier v. State By and Through Pittman
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 4 Marzo 1987
    ...his mother); McElhinney v. City of Superior, 33 Neb. 744, 49 N.W. 705 (1891) (city contract with brother of councilman; Nuckols v. Lyle, 8 Idaho 589, 70 P. 401 (1902) (community property state; school trustee was interested in teaching contract between the school district and his wife); Nie......
  • Zeyen ex rel. & Dist. ex rel. & v. Pocatello/Chubbuck Sch. Dist. No. 25, Corp.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 23 Octubre 2019
    ...e.g., Orr v. State Bd. of Equalization, 2 Idaho 923, 28 P. 416 (1891) ; Dunn v. Sharp, 4 Idaho 98, 35 P. 842 (1894) ; Nuckols v. Lyle, 8 Idaho 589, 70 P. 401 (1902) ; McConnell v. State Bd. of Equalization, 11 Idaho 652, 83 P. 494 (1905) ; Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 5 ex rel Moore & Richcreek v.......
  • Independent School District No. 5 ex rel. Moore v. Collins
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 8 Diciembre 1908
    ...sec. 1647a; Dillon on Municipal Corp., sec. 915; Orr v. State Board, 3 Idaho 190, 28 P. 416; Dunn v. Sharp, 4 Idaho 98, 35 P. 842; Nuckols v. Lyle, supra; Quaw Paff, 98 Wis. 586, 74 N.W. 369; Land, Log & L. Co. v. McIntyre, 100 Wis. 245, 258, 69 Am. St. Rep. 915, 925, 75 N.W. 964; Webster v......
  • Low v. Town Of Madison
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 14 Julio 1948
    ...445, 67 A. 1059; Haislip v. White, 124 W.Va. 633, 641, 22 S.E.2d 361; Githens v. Butler County, 350 Mo. 295, 165 S.W.2d 650; Nuckols v. Lyle, 8 Idaho 589, 70 P. 401; Clark v. Utah Construction Co., 51 Idaho 587, 593, 8 P.2d 454; Thompson v. School District No. 1, 252 Mich. 629, 233 N.W. 439......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT