Peck-Williamson Heating & Ventilating Co. v. Steen Sch. Tp. of Knox Cnty.

• Decision Date: 19 March 1903
• Citation: 66 N.E. 909,30 Ind.App. 637
• Parties: PECK-WILLIAMSON HEATING & VENTILATING CO. v. STEEN SCHOOL TP. OF KNOX COUNTY et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

30 Ind.App. 637

66 N.E. 909

PECK-WILLIAMSON HEATING & VENTILATING CO.

v.STEEN SCHOOL TP. OF KNOX COUNTY et al.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

March 19, 1903.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Knox County; O. H. Cobb, Judge.

Action by the Peck-Williamson Heating & Ventilating Company against the Steen school township of Knox county. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. M. McClure and C. B. Kessinger, for appellant. B. M. Willoughby and James M. House, for appellee.

ROBY, C. J.

Appellant's complaint sets up three notes executed in the name of the township, by its trustee, to Manson U. Johnson, in consideration of three heaters and “10 sets of the People's Standard History of the United States and Biography of South Africa,” all of which are averred to have been necessary for the use of the township in its schoolhouses and schools, to have been accepted and retained by it, and to be of the fair cash value shown by the notes, which are for $500, $360, and $135, respectively. Johnson is made a party, and an assignment by him to appellant averred. It is also averred that the advisory board levied a tax for the purpose of making all necessary improvements and purchases, and that it had made an order granting the trustee authority to make necessary purchases for the township prior to the purchases of the articles named.

The pleading states facts which, prior to the act of 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 150, c. 105), would have entitled the appellant to recover the reasonable value of the goods. Oppenheimer v. Jackson School Tp., 22 Ind. App. 521, 54 N. E. 145;Clark School Tp. v. Home Ins. Co., 20 Ind. App. 543, 51 N. E. 107;Helms v. State ex rel., 19 Ind. App. 360, 48 N. E. 264;Clark School Tp. v. Grossius, 20 Ind. App. 322, 50 N. E. 771. The trustee had authority to purchase articles necessary for the use of his township when the line of cases indicated by the above citations was decided. He had no power to incur debts, except under conditions unnecessary to specify. The evidences of indebtedness in each of said cases was not, therefore, sufficient to justify a judgment upon it, but the township was held liable for the reasonable value of the articles received by it. Section 9 of the act of 1899, supra, limits the power of the trustee to buy. He can erect a new schoolhouse, purchase school furniture, fixtures, maps, charts, or other school supplies, and make repairs on and about schoolhouses, by making an itemized statement of what is wanted, for the use of bidders, and letting contracts therefor after giving certain specific notice. Bids must be in writing, opened and read publicly, at the time fixed by the notice. The advisory board must attend the letting, and is empowered to reject any and all bids. When a bid is accepted a written contract must be made, and a bond given for its execution. Section 8085i, Burns' Rev. St. 1901 (Horner's Ann. St. 1901, § 6000i). These provisions do not limit the authority of the trustee to incur debt. They limit his power to purchase. He is a special agent, possessing statutory power only, and is without general authority to bind the township. He can bind it when he does what the statute authorizes, and does it in the manner prescribed. Clinton School Tp. v. Bank, 18 Ind. App. 42, 47 N. E. 349;First Nat. Bank v. Adams School Tp., 17 Ind. App. 375, 46 N. E. 832;Bridge Co. v. Board of Com'rs Hendricks Co., 19 Ind. App. 672, 48 N. E. 1050. A claim against a township is not valid unless it is founded upon a statute, or upon a contract entered into with the proper person in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Sherfey & Kidd Co. v. Board, 26 Ind. App. 66, 59 N. E. 941;Martin v. Board, 27 Ind. App. 98, 60 N. E. 998. The complaint contains no averment tending to show a compliance by the trustee with the statute. Section 11 is therefore applicable. “All contracts made in violation of this act shall be null and void.” Section 8085k, Burns' Rev. St. 1901.

There can be no recovery upon the notes. Neither can there be a recovery upon the quantum meruit. It is common knowledge that, under the law as it formerly stood, extravagant and fraudulent purchases by trustees were frequently made. The...