Oberdorfer v. Louisville School Board

• Citation: 85 S.W. 696,120 Ky. 112
• Parties: OBERDORFER v. LOUISVILLE SCHOOL BOARD.
• Decision Date: 10 March 1905
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

85 S.W. 696

120 Ky. 112

OBERDORFER v. LOUISVILLE SCHOOL BOARD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 10, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Division.

"To be officially reported."

Action by L. Oberdorfer against the Louisville school board. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Caruth Chatterson & Blitz, for appellant.

Randolph H. Blain, for appellee.

PAYNTER J.

From the averments of the petition, the Louisville school board employed John T. Bell as a janitor, and was indebted to him for wages which were past due. Bell assigned the claims to appellant, who instituted this action against the school board to recover them. The court sustained the demurrer to the petition.

By section 2949, Ky. St. 1903, the Louisville school board is a corporation, with the power to contract, sue, and be sued. It had the right to employ a janitor and fix his compensation under section 2956, Ky. St. 1903, for it is there provided that it may elect principals, teachers, and employés, and fix their salaries. This being true, it was the school board's duty to pay the salaries thus fixed out of the funds which annually come into its hands for educational purposes. Section 2954, Ky. St. 1903.

The objections to the right to maintain the suit will appear in order.

It is insisted that the school board is an agent of the state, and can only be sued for school purposes. Under the law the board of education has control of funds to pay the expenses of the public schools, which includes principals, teachers, and employés. The payment of any of these salaries is one of the duties imposed upon the school board. A suit against a school board for an employé's salary relates to the business for which the school board was organized.

It is insisted that the school board, as an agent of the state, is not subject to be sued, on the grounds of public policy. This is answered by the statement that the Legislature has given its consent that the school board may be sued.

Counsel for appellee again says that funds in the hands of the school board "cannot be diverted by the Legislature, processes of court, or individual assignment." The purpose of this action is not to divert funds in the hands of the school board, but to enforce the payment of it for school purposes. If it had been paid to the janitor or his assignee, it is quite certain that it would have been paid for school...