Street v. School District of St. Joseph

• Decision Date: 29 June 1909
• Citation: 221 Mo. 663,120 S.W. 1159
• Parties: STREET v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ST. JOSEPH.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

120 S.W. 1159

221 Mo. 663

STREET v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ST. JOSEPH.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 29, 1909.

1. COURTS (§ 231)—SUPREME COURT—JURISDICTION —AMOUNT INVOLVED.

Where the amount in controversy in an action on contract is only $482.55, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of an appeal therein.

2. COURTS (§ 231)—SUPREME COURT—JURISDICTION — OBJECTIONS—NECESSITY—CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS.

In an action against defendant school district on contracts, where the only contention below as to the validity of the contract was the allegation in the answer that it was void because the district had not provided any income or revenue for the fiscal year in which the contracts were made, and no objection to their validity under the Constitution was raised by declarations of law, objections to testimony, or in defendant's motion for a new trial, the only errors assigned therein being as to rulings on evidence, and that the verdict was against the law and evidence, and the construction of the provision of the Constitution now relied on was not necessary to the decision, the invalidity of the contract under Const. art. 10, § 12 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 287), prohibiting any school district from becoming indebted in any year in any amount exceeding the income provided for that year without the assent of two-thirds of the voters thereof, was not raised, so that the Supreme Court would not take jurisdiction of the appeal on that ground.

3. COURTS (§ 231)—JURISDICTION—SUPREME COURT — CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS — NECESSITY OF RAISING QUESTION BELOW.

In order to raise a constitutional question in the trial court so as to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction on appeal, the particular provision of the Constitution infringed must be pointed out.

4. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 281)—PROCEEDINGS BELOW—MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.

Unless error is complained of or pointed out in the motion for new trial, it will not be considered for the first time on appeal, unless it goes to the jurisdiction of the court or to the total failure to show a cause of action.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; Henry M. Ramey, Judge.

Action by J. N. Street against the School District of St. Joseph. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed. Appeal transferred to Kansas City Court of Appeals.

With this action are heard in this court actions by Mary G. McCarthy, by Charles B. Abler, and by William Drowns against the above-named defendant, in each of which the same order is entered.

William H. Sherman and James W. Boyd, for appellant. H. K. White, for appellee.

GANTT, P. J.

The above four cases have been submitted under one brief. Each of the said plaintiffs sought to recover in the circuit court of Buchanan county from the defendant, school district of St. Joseph, damages for failure to perform certain contracts alleged to have been made by the plaintiffs severally with school district No. 7, township 57, range 35 of Buchanan county. Each of the petitions allege the corporate capacity of the two districts as school districts, and that on the 9th day of September, 1904, the voters of No. 7 voted in favor of becoming incorporated with the defendant and on September 15, 1904, the directors of the St. Joseph school district voted to accept district No. 7 and receive all of its property, real and personal, and assumed its debts. The petitions then alleged that before the above vote said school district No. 7 entered into separate contracts with plaintiffs for performance by them of work for it during the next ensuing year. Two of the plaintiffs, Street and Abler, claim to have been employed as janitors, and the other two, Drowns and Miss McCarthy, as teachers. The janitors claim that they had entered upon their duties under their contracts and worked a few days prior to September 19, 1904, but except as to these few days of service they were not permitted by the defendant to carry out their contracts, although willing to do so; and each severally claims damages accordingly. Miss McCarthy and Drowns did not teach under their contracts, but claim damages for being denied the right to teach, although they were willing and offered their services.

The answers of defendant in the Street and Abler cases admitted the corporate capacity of the two school districts, the merger of district No. 7 with the defendant district on the date specified, and denied the other allegations of the petition. These answers also set forth that the only property the St. Joseph district received from district No. 7 was the McKinley School and the sum of $2,072, which had been collected by tax levies for interest and sinking fund on bonds theretofore issued by district No. 7. The defendant further alleged that the pretended contracts relied upon by the plaintiffs were void because district No. 7 had not provided any income and revenue for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1904, and had failed to make any levy of any taxes upon the property within its limits for the expenses of the fiscal year, and had failed to make any estimate of the amount needed for sustaining the schools and the rate required to raise such amount needed, and had failed to make any enumeration of children of school age within the limits of the district, so that it was not entitled to any portion of the public school funds required to be apportioned by the county clerk of the county court of Buchanan county, including the moneys received by the county of Buchanan in the treasury of the state of Missouri, and including moneys arising from the interest on funds derived from the sale of school lands, and moneys arising from the county school fund, and moneys arising from the payment of railroad and bridge corporations of the taxes levied on their property. It was also alleged that district No. 7 had no other funds or sources of income whatever at the time of making the alleged contracts. The answers in the McCarthy and Drowns cases tendered the identical defenses above set forth, but alleged, in addition, that the plaintiff had not at the time of making the alleged contract any license to teach in the schools of Buchanan county. In each of the four cases the defendant alleged that the plaintiffs might have earned during the term of exclusion all that said district No. 7 had agreed to pay them. The plaintiff filed replies in the nature of general denials of these answers. By agreement all four cases were treated at thesame time, and were submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury.

Nearly all the evidence was applicable to all four of the cases, but a part was applicable only to each case. By the record of district No. 7 it was shown that at a meeting of the directors of said...