Sch. Dist. of Lincoln v. Fiske

• Citation: 84 N.W. 401,61 Neb. 3
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LINCOLN v. FISKE.
• Decision Date: 05 December 1900
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

61 Neb. 3

84 N.W. 401

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LINCOLN

v.FISKE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Dec. 5, 1900.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Ordinarily this court will not re-examine questions of law presented and determined on a prior appeal of the same cause.

2. Taxes levied to create a general fund of a school district constitute a fund against which warrants may be drawn within the amount of such levy, although the money may not have been collected and on hand in the fund, with which to pay the same.

3. Rulings of the trial court on the admissior of testimony upheld.

Error to district court, Lancaster county; Cornish, Judge.

Action by F. C. Fiske against the school district of Lincoln. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.A. C. Ricketts and H. H. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

Stewart & Munger, for defendant in error.

NORVAL, C. J.

This case is before us for the second time. A statement of the facts will be found in the opinion as reported in 58 Neb. 163, 78 N. W. 392, and need not be repeated here. On the former hearing it was decided that architectural plans, specifications, and detail drawings provided by Fiske were not parts of a building, and therefore did not fall within the provisions of the school law which require school officers to have the authority of the voters of the district before erecting school buildings, etc., but that the board might use money out of the general fund to procure plans and specifications, as an aid either to the legal voters in voting on the question of bonds for the purpose of raising money for a school building, or as a preliminary to determine what kind of buildings should be constructed, had the voters already authorized them to erect such a structure. On the last trial of the case in the district court, plaintiff was successful, and the school district brings error here, claiming that the evidence below establishes the fact that bonds had already been voted for the erection of the building, which bonds were afterwards found to be illegal; that the plans in question were prepared with the intention of erecting a building previously determined on, but which was abandoned because of the illegality of the bonds; and that these facts make these plans a part of the building. It does not occur to this court that it is material whether these plans were prepared before or after the bonds were voted, or whether they were made with a view to be used in the building of a structure already determined upon, or not. We are satisfied with the doctrine declared on the former hearing, and upon the rehearing of the same (59 Neb. 51, 80 N. W. 265), and do not think the facts proved or sought to be proved by defendant take the case out of that rule. Further, the principle therein laid down is the law of the case, and for that reason will not be made a subject for re-examination. Leavitt v. Bell, 59 Neb. 595, 81 N. W. 614;Todd v. Houghton, 59 Neb. 538, 81 N. W. 508;State v. Commissioners of Cass Co. (Neb.) 83 N. W. 733;Ripp v. Hale, 45 Neb. 567, 64 N. W. 454;Coburn v. Watson, 48 Neb. 257, 67 N. W. 171;Fuller v. Cunningham, 48 Neb. 857, 67 N. W. 879;Association v. Kettenbach, 55 Neb. 330, 75 N. W. 827. We have examined the arguments of counsel wherein it is sought to take this case out of the doctrine of the law of the case, but we are convinced that the...