Sch. Directors v. First Nat'l Bank of Greenville.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1879 |
| Citation | 3 Ill.App. 349,3 Bradw. 349 |
| Parties | SCHOOL DIRECTORS, etc.v.FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GREENVILLE. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Bond county; the Hon. WILLIAM H. SNYDER, Judge, presiding.
Mr. WILLIAM H. DAWDY and Mr. EDWARD Y. RICE, for appellant; as to the power of school directors to draw orders on the treasurer, cited Rev. Stat. 1874, 965, § 53; Newell v. School Directors, 68 Ill. 514; Glidden et al. v. Hopkins, 47 Ill. 525.
If the order is to be regarded as an inland bill, it should have been presented within a reasonable time: 1 Parsons on Contracts, 265; Cayuga Bank v. Hunt, 2 Hill, 635; Wiseman v. Chiapella, 23 How. 368.
As to effect of failure to give notice of non-payment: 1 Parsons on Contracts, 277; Goldenau v. Davis, 23 Cal. 256.
Judgment should be reversed because it awarded execution against the school district. Rev. Stat. 1874, 963, § 49; Botkin v. Osborne, 39 Ill. 101
Messrs. PHELPS & PHELPS and Mr. D. H. KINGSBURY, for appellee; that the order was drawn and issued in accordan??e with the statute, cited Rev. Stat 1874, 966, §§ 54, 67.
The treasurer became personally liable to t??e district for paying out money without an order therefor: Rev. Stat. 1874, 970, § 67.
Delay in presenting the order will not prejudice the holder, there being no intervening loss of funds by bankruptcy or otherwise: Howes v. Austin, 35 Ill. 396; Willetts v. Paine, 43 Ill. 432; Murray v. Judah, 6 Cow. 484.
The consideration of a school order may be inquired into, even after assignment: Newell v. School Directors, 68 Ill. 514.
This cause was tried in the Circuit Court of Bond County, on appeal from a justice of the peace, and was brought upon an order drawn by the school directors of District 6, T. 7, R. 3, under the provisions of section 54, chapter 122, R. S. 1874. The order was drawn in the form prescribed in section 67 of same chapter. The cause was heard by the court without a jury, and verdict was found for the plaintiff. The defendants asked, but were denied a new trial, and the court rendered judgment for the amount of the order with costs. The appellants bring the cause to this court, and allege as error, the refusal of the court to grant a new trial, and the rendition of judgment for appellee. The facts briefly stated are, that a female teacher taught school in said district for one month; sent her schedule by her husband to the directors of the district, for examination and a certificate, as required by law. One director was found, who having examined and finding it correct, signs it and returns it to the husband to carry to the other directors. He also signed an order for the amount due the teacher, as per schedule, and also handed the order to the husband to carry to the other directors. The same papers are, on the same day, presented to another director, who al??o examines, signs, and returns them to the husband, and instructs him to give the schedule to the township treasurer, and the order to the teacher. The order was three days afterwards purchased by and assigned to the appellee for full value; and, not being paid, suit is brought against the directors. The order was drawn and the schedule certified on the 23d of November, 1875, and about the 20th of December following, the husband of the teacher presented the schedule to the treasurer of said town, who examined and found the certificate upon the schedule in proper form. He inquired whether an order had been drawn on him or the amount due, and was told by the husband that the directors had drawn no order for the amount, but he wanted the money; the treasurer informed him that there was no money in the treasury belonging to town 6. On the 17th day of April following, the husband of the teacher returned to the treasurer, and upon stating that no order had ever been given by the directors for the amount due on the schedule, the treasurer paid the money, and took receipt for the same. The treasurer had been authorized by the teacher to make payment to her husband. Some three weeks after the payment of the money, the cashier of the appellee presented to the treasurer the order in suit, and demanded payment. Up to this date, the treasurer had received no notice that the order was in existence. The foregoing are substantially all the facts developed by the record, which can be invoked to sustain the judgment of the court. In Glidden v. Hopkins, 47 Ill. 525, the court, in speaking of the powers and duties of school directors, uses this language:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial