Sch.-Dist. No. 16 v. Sch.-Dist. No. 9

• Decision Date: 05 January 1882
• Citation: 11 N.W. 311,12 Neb. 241
• Parties: SCHOOL-DISTRICT NO. 16 AND OTHERS v. SCHOOL-DISTRICT NO. 9.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

12 Neb. 241

11 N.W. 311

SCHOOL-DISTRICT NO. 16 AND OTHERS

v.SCHOOL-DISTRICT NO. 9.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed January 5, 1882.

Error from Hamilton county.

Abbott & Caldwell, for plaintiff.

A. W. Agee, for defendant.

LAKE, J.

The error complained of was in sustaining a general demurrer to the petition. The action was brought by school-districts Nos. 16, 32, 37, 39, and 64, of Hamilton county, against district No. 9, to recover a sum of money alleged to be due, in these words, viz.: “That the said defendant was, on the fourteenth day of January, A. D. 1878, indebted to the said plaintiffs in the sum of $700.96 for so much money before that time by the said plaintiffs paid, laid out, and expended to and for the use of the said defendant, and at its request, and which said sum of money the plaintiffs aver was then due and payable; yet the said defendant, though often requested, hath not paid said sum of money or any part thereof, or any interest thereon. Wherefore, the said plaintiffs pray judgment,” etc.

If the parties to this action were private persons, probably this statement would support a judgment for the amount demanded, and therefore withstand the demurrer. But, being school-districts,--mere creatures of statute,--and possessing no powers whatever beyond those given by the legislature, they are unable to contract ad libitum, as individuals may do, but only respecting objects, and to the extent which the laws permit, and more definite statement is required. Enough should be stated to show that the alleged indebtedness was one which the district could incur. In this petition very clearly there is not. We have no right to infer, from the fact that money was paid, laid out, and expended to and for the use of a school-district, and at its request, that the expenditure was a lawful one. While it is true that under the Code great liberality is required in construing pleadings, still this general rule must not be lost sight of, that when presumptions are indulged they must be taken most strongly against the pleader. With no facts alleged showing the character of the supposed indebtedness, this rule requires us to infer that it was not such as the district could lawfully incur.

We think that the demurrer was properly sustained, and the judgment must be affirmed.