Scribner v. Smith

• Decision Date: 16 February 1904
• Citation: 79 S.W. 181,104 Mo.App. 542
• Parties: SCRIBNER et al., Respondents, v. SMITH, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

79 S.W. 181

104 Mo.App. 542

SCRIBNER et al., Respondents, v. SMITH, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

February 16, 1904

Appeal from Douglas Circuit Court.--Hon. G. W. Thornsberry, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Boone & Orr for appellant.

The school district being the real party in interest the suit should have been instituted in its name, and the respondents can not maintain this action. School District v Smith, 90 Mo.App. 215; State to use of Public Schools v. Crumb, 157 Mo. 545. The government in control of a school district is vested in the board of directors, and they have the sole power to act in behalf of the district. R S. 1899, sec. 9759.

GOODE J. Bland, P. J., and Reyburn, J., concur.

OPINION

GOODE, J.

School District No. 104 is in Douglas county adjoining the Christian county line. The citizens of the neighborhood, residing both in Douglas and in Christian counties were accustomed to the use of the school house for prayer meeting, singing school and other assemblies, after the manner of the country side. They were inconvenienced at those meetings by a lack of lights, heat and a bell. The house was lighted by lamps the people took from their homes to the school house. To provide the school house with a stove, lamps and a bell, an entertainment was organized by the citizens called a "box supper," at which a fund amounting to $ 14.45 was raised by the sale of refreshments. By a vote of the meeting the fund was devoted to the purchase of the articles mentioned and these plaintiffs were appointed, by a vote, a committee to take charge of it and look after the purchases. The money was put into the hands of the defendant Smith, who is a merchant of the vicinity. Smith was to hold it as "treasureman," one of the witnesses swore; but it was to be subject to the order of the plaintiffs and spent by them for the specified articles, as Smith himself testified. When the plaintiffs demanded the money of him to make the purchases, he refused to give it up on the ground that it ought to be spent in providing the articles for a new school house which had been contemplated, instead of the old one. This action was brought by the plaintiffs to recover the fund.

We find but little conflict in the testimony; none in fact, except Smith's version that the money was to be used to buy articles for a new schoolhouse; which had been thought of but as we gather, is not to be built soon. The only point made for a reversal of the judgment is that ...