Reeve School Township v. Dodson

• Decision Date: 24 November 1884
• Docket Number: 11,837
• Citation: 98 Ind. 497
• Parties: Reeve School Township v. Dodson
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

98 Ind. 497

Reeve School Township v. Dodson

No. 11,837

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 24, 1884

From the Daviess Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.

W. R Gardiner, S. H. Taylor, J. C. Billheimer and J. M. Barr, for appellant.

J. H O'Neall and D. J. Hefron, for appellee.

OPINION

Elliott J.

The appellee's complaint counts on two promissory notes executed by the trustee of the school township. The notes recite that they were given for eleven of the G. McBride Tellurians, purchased for the benefit of the schools of said township. There is no averment in the body of the complaint that the articles furnished were necessary for the schools nor suitable for use therein, nor is there any averment that they were delivered to or accepted by the school corporation.

The trustee of a school township is a special agent, with very limited authority. His authority is purely statutory in so far as concerns the financial affairs of the school corporation, and, as his authority is prescribed by a public statute, all who deal with him are charged with notice of the scope of his authority.

A trustee of a school corporation has no authority to borrow money, nor to incur any indebtedness except for school purposes, and then only in the cases contemplated by statute.

A trustee of a school corporation has no general authority to execute promissory notes; his authority in this respect is a special one, and can only be exercised in conformity to the statute creating the corporation. The authority to execute promissory notes is confined to cases where the debt which the note evidences is for legitimate school purposes. In the case of Sheffield School Tp. v. Andress, 56 Ind. 157, the complaint set forth the note, which showed upon its face that it was executed for work done in erecting a school-house, and it therefore appeared that the township had received the consideration of the note for a legitimate corporate purpose. In the case of Bicknell v. Widner School Tp., 73 Ind. 501, it was held that no recovery could be had upon a note executed for borrowed money, but that where the money was rightfully and actually used in constructing a school-house, and the trustee had no corporate funds that could be devoted to that purpose, a recovery might be had as upon an implied promise. In Wallis v. Johnson School Tp., 75 Ind. 368, the question was fully...