Rector v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 3

• Decision Date: 03 April 1933
• Docket Number: No. 17478.,17478.
• Citation: 58 S.W.2d 785
• Parties: RECTOR v. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 OF PLATTE COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

58 S.W.2d 785

RECTOR v. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 OF PLATTE COUNTY.

No. 17478.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 3, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Platte County; Guy B. Park, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Action by G. A. Rector against Consolidated School District No. 3 of Platte County, Mo. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

James H. Hull, of Platte City, for appellant.

Brown, Douglas & Brown, of St. Joseph, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, Judge.

This is a companion case to Judd v. Consolidated School District No. 3 of Platte County, Missouri (Mo. App.) 58 S.W.(2d) 783, argued and submitted in this court on the same day, March 7, 1933, and decided in an opinion handed down by Judge Shain at the present sitting.

It is an action by plaintiff to recover a balance of $4,045 due from the defendant school district on a written contract, the execution and performance of which are admitted. There is, furthermore, no controversy over the amount of the balance claimed, if the contract is valid.

The contract was entered into on the 6th of February, 1930, for the furnishing of the materials and erection of a new school building at Dearborn, Mo. (except the plumbing and heating system and the electrical wiring and appliances), for the sum of $37,750. Plaintiff fully completed the building on September 8, 1930, and same was duly accepted, and defendant paid therefor, except the sum of $4,045, the sum herein sued for.

The answer, after making the various admissions referred to hereinabove, and that defendant had made the payment alleged, denied every other allegation in the petition, and then set up that prior to the execution of said contract, to wit, on December 20, 1929, a special election was held in said district submitting to the qualified voters a proposition to incur an indebtedness of $42,500 and issue bonds for that amount to provide funds "for the erection of a school building and the purchase of a site," at which said proposition was duly carried, and thereafter bonds in that sum were duly issued.

The answer further set up that the school directors, "in the execution of said contract with plaintiff, acted without authority and in violation of law, for the reason that this contract together with other contracts executed by said directors, for the erection of a school building and the purchase of a site were far in excess of the amount of $42,500.00 authorized by the said qualified voters at the said school election and exceeded their authority and were expressly forbidden to make by the constitution and it is therefore wholly invalid and cannot be enforced." (Italics ours.)

By agreement of parties a jury was dispensed with, and the case was tried by the court. After hearing the evidence, considering the facts agreed to by both sides, together with the relevant documentary evidence, the court took the case under advisement, and at the September, 1931, term rendered judgment, in which it found that defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $4,045 sued for, of which amount $3,026.49 is due under the contract sued on for the erection of the school building described therein, and $1,018.51 is for furnishings for said building and for facilities on the schoolhouse site furnished and installed under said contract, but which, under the law, are payable out of the incidental fund. Judgment was therefore accordingly rendered against defendant for said sum of $4,045, of which $3,026.49 is against the building fund, and $1,018.51 is against the incidental fund, together with costs herein.

Thereupon the defendant appealed.

The judgment was general, except that it specifies $3,026.49 as being due for the erection of the building and $1,018.51 for furnishings and facilities, and these amounts were charged against the respective funds above mentioned. No instructions or declarations of law were asked or given. If, therefore, there is any evidence to support the findings as to the respective purposes for which the two above amounts were used, the judgment must be affirmed, unless the judgment shows on its face that it is invalid. Nothing appears to show that, and there is evidence to support the two findings as to the object and purpose for which the sums respectively found were used. Hence the judgment should be affirmed. Koller v. Shannon County (Mo. Sup.) 19 S.W.(2d) 865; Bond v. Williams, 279 Mo. 215, 214 S. W. 202, 16 A. L. R. 755; Sutter v. Raeder, 149 Mo. 297, 50 S....