Thompson v. Sch. Dist. No. 4, Twp. 29, Range 22

Decision Date30 April 1880
Citation71 Mo. 495
PartiesTHOMPSON v. SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 4, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Greene Circuit Court.--HON. W. F. GEIGER, Judge.

REVERSED.

In the year 1867 the board of directors of sub-district No. 3, school township 13, range 22, employed plaintiff to teach their district school and also rented a house from him for a school house. Before he had been fully paid the debt thus created, the sub-district was disorganized and a portion of the territory embraced in it was attached to the city of Springfield and passed under the control of the Board of Education of the city of Springfield, and the residue was reorganized as district No. 4, school township 13, in township 29, range 22. Plaintiff then brought this suit to recover the balance due him. As originally instituted, the suit was against the Board of Education of the city of Springfield alone. In its answer, that board alleged that said district No. 4, the present appellant, was a necessary party defendant. At a term of the circuit court of Greene county held in July, 1876, J. H. Show, Joseph Kirchegraber and S. N. Ingram, as directors of said school district No. 4, presented to the judge the following paper:

F. M. THOMPSON,
)
V.
)
In Greene Circuit Court
SPRINGFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION,

)

Judge Geiger:

If, in your judgment, it is necessary to make district No. 4, school township No. 13, Greene county, Mo., in order to determine the rights of all the parties, a party to the above entitled suit, I am willing to waive the necessity of summons and enter our appearance in order to save costs.

J. H. SHOW, Director, &c.

JOSEPH KIRCHEGRABER, Director.

S. N. INGRAM, Director.

On the 25th day of July, 1876, plaintiff filed an amended petition making the present appellant a party defendant, which petition was substantially as follows:

Plaintiff states that in the year 1867, he was employed as school teacher by sub-district No. 3, of school township 13, township 29, range 22, Greene county, Mo., by the directors of the Board of Education of said sub-district No. 3, for a monthly salary of $75 per month; and plaintiff rented said sub-district a house for the purpose of a school house for the sum of $25 per month. Plaintiff states he taught school in said sub-district No. 3, for the period of twelve months in the years 1867, 1868, 1869; and that said sub-district occupied his house so rented for school purposes, for the same time; all of which will more fully appear by the orders hereto attached, marked exhibit “A,” “B” and “C,” which were issued to plaintiff by the school directors of said sub-district No. 3, and directed to the school township clerk, and now made a part of this petition. And further states, that said teaching and rent of house was well worth the amount sued for and agreed on; further states, that in the year 1869, said sub-district was composed of sections 25, 26, 35 and 36; and all that portion of sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, then lying outside of the then limits of the city of Springfield, Mo., all in township 29, range 22, Greene county, Mo., were disorganized; and all that portion of said sub-district lying in sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, was, at that time, and is now, merged into and attached to the defendant, the Board of Education of Springfield, for school purposes, and is organized and established as a single school district; and further states, that the defendant, the Board of Education of Springfield, Mo., are the successors of the Board of Education of said sub-district No. 3, as far as the territory was so taken. And further states, that in 1869, at the time of said disorganization, all that portion of said sub-district No. 3 lying in sections 25, 26, 35 and 36, township 29, range 22, was, at said time and is now, merged into the other defendant, district No. 4, township 29, range 22, of Greene county.

Plaintiff avers that he received on said orders hereto attached as aforesaid, the sum of $612, and the balance due of $580, with interest thereon, is yet due plaintiff; that he demanded payment of defendant's township clerk, township 13, range 22, and was refused; that he is now unable to state the proportionate liability of defendants, who are the successors of said sub-district No. 3, but expects to be able to establish the same by proofs on trial. Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment for the sum of $580 and interest thereon.

Upon the filing of this petition J. H. Show, one of the above named directors, entered the appearance of appellant and for her filed a demurrer, which, being overruled, he filed an answer substantially as follows: That district No. 4 had paid off all liabilities incurred by said sub-district No. 3, mentioned in the petition; that over five years had elapsed since plaintiff's claim accrued; that the Board of Education of the city of Springfield, and her predecessor in office, issued the orders here sued upon; that said city Board of Education of Springfield are the successors of district No. 3, if it ever existed; that district No. 3 constitutes, or did constitute, what is now known as the Board of Education of Springfield, and that all the territory district No. 4 ever acquired or that ever did belong to district No. 3, was first acquired by the city board by an act of the legislature extending said city board's boundary, and after contracting the same, by another act of the legislature, thereby leaving a portion of her territory disorganized; that district No. 4 never had any organized existence as a school district until 1874--eight years after said indebtedness was created, if any ever existed.

The reply was a general denial of all the averments of the answer. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, and against district No. 4, for the full amount of plaintiff's demand, with interest, and in favor of defendant the Board of Education of Springfield for costs.

J. C. Cravens for appellant.

F. S. Heffernan for respondent.

SHERWOOD, C. J.

This case was here before, and is reported in 61 Mo. 176, at which time the principles controlling cases of this sort were discussed. On return of the cause to the circuit court, an amended petition was filed July 25th, 1876, and the present defendant was at its request, made a party, and the suit then proceeded against the Board of Education of Springfield, Mo., as well as the present defendant.

1. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT AS DEFENDANT.

1. There is no merit in the point that the entry of the appearance of the defendant was unauthorized. It was not necessary that a formal meeting of the defendant's school board should have been had authorizing, of record, the appearance of defendant to the action. J. H. Show and the other directors signed the request that defendant, if necessary, be made party to the suit, and J. H. Show appeared and filed a demurrer, and upon that being overruled, filed, as attorney, the answer of the district. In addition to that, all the directors were present as witnesses during the trial of the cause. In such circumstances, it is quite too late for them to raise such an objection as was attempted in the lower court. Managing officers of other corporations may engage the services of attorneys without express delegation of power or formal resolutions to that effect. Western Bank v. Gilstrap, 45 Mo. 419; Turner v. C. & D. M. C. R. R., 51 Mo. 501; Southgate v. A. & P. R. R., 61 Mo. 89, and no good reason is perceived why the same rule should not obtain in instances like the present one....

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Coleman v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 7 Junio 1943
    ...Sacramento, 110 Pac. (2d) 530; Griffin v. County Clay, 63 Iowa, 413, 19 N.W. 327; Coleman v. Kansas City, 156 S.W. (2d) 644; Thompson v. School District, 71 Mo. 495; State ex rel. Rothrum v. Darby, 345 Mo. 1002, 137 S.W. (2d) 532. (6) Matthew S. Murray, assignor in Count 103, in May, 1935, ......
  • Coleman v. Kansas City, 39027.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 Julio 1944
    ...Pac. (2d) 530; Griffin v. County Clay, 63 Iowa, 413, 19 N.W. 327; Coleman v. Kansas City, 156 S.W. (2d) 644; Thompson v. School District, 71 Mo. 495; State ex rel. Rothrum v. Darby, 345 Mo. 1002, 137 S.W. (2d) Reed & Ingraham and Burr S. Stottle for appellee-appellant, Burr S. Stottle, Trus......
  • Coleman v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 Julio 1944
    ...City of Sacramento, 110 P.2d 530; Griffin v. County Clay, 63 Iowa 413, 19 N.W. 327; Coleman v. Kansas City, 156 S.W.2d 644; Thompson v. School District, 71 Mo. 495; State rel. Rothrum v. Darby, 345 Mo. 1002, 137 S.W.2d 532. Reed & Ingraham and Burr S. Stottle for appellee-appellant, Burr S.......
  • Coleman v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 7 Junio 1943
    ...... Co., 148 S.W.2d 581; Moul v. Thompson, 14 P.2d. 1004. (4) Plaintiff, by his ...394; King v. Riverland Levy. Dist., 218 Mo.App. 490, 279 S.W. 195; 1 Words & ...185; Collins v. United States, 15 Ct. Cl. 22. (7) The charter contemplates that revenue ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT