Tuttle v. Beem
| Decision Date | 18 July 1933 |
| Parties | TUTTLE et al. v. BEEM et al. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County; J. W. Knowles, Judge.
Action by Jeanette Tuttle and others against Jake Beem and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs who are taxpayers in school district No. 41 of Union county, instituted for the purpose of securing an injunction to restrain the defendants (the school district, its officials and two individuals who are well drillers) from expending the school district's funds in payment of a claim asserted by the two well drillers.
R. J. Green, of La Grande (Green & Hess and Charles J. Shelton, all of La Grande, on the brief), for appellants.
Colon R. Eberhard, of La Grande (Cochran & Eberhard, of La Grande on the brief), for respondents Jake Beem, Verne Hug, Wilford Duncan, and Mrs. Sam. Knight.
George R. Lewis, of Pendleton (Peterson & Lewis, of Pendleton, on the brief), for respondents Billups and Edwards.
School district No. 41, one of the defendants, is a school district of Union county, and, due to the fact that it serves only eight or nine pupils, is a third class district. Section 35-902, Oregon Code 1930. Defendants Beem, Hug, and Duncan are the directors of the district. Defendants Edwards and Billups are partners engaged in the business of well drilling. In 1931 they deepened the well upon the school premises, and the claim which they assert for their services rendered in so doing constitutes the subject-matter of this suit.
In 1923 the school district, for the purpose of securing a water supply for the school, drilled a well 90 feet deep upon the school premises. Several witnesses testified that the well in the years immediately following 1923 provided the school with an adequate supply of pure water. Witnesses also testified that the water in any well which is not in constant use becomes foul. Since this well was idle during the summer vacation period, the taste and color of its water, in the course of time, became the source of complaint. The teachers who served the school in the years 1928-1929 and 1929-1930 and others testified that in a part of each school year the water had a bad taste, took upon itself a strong odor, and had a yellowish color. During a part of each of those two school years water was secured from other sources. The unsatisfactory condition of the well aroused the interest of the directors, and they sought a remedy. The testimony indicates that, whenever a well in the vicinity of the school becomes foul from insufficient use, the owner cleans it. One process is constant pumping extending over a period of two or three days; another is the removal of the mud from the bottom of the well; and still another is to sink the casing a short distance farther. In their efforts to find a remedy, two of the directors spoke to three well drillers; one of the three being the defendant Edwards. In the budget submitted to the voters at the 1930 annual school meeting (aggregating $1,332.50), there is no mention of the well. The notice of the election, however, stated: ***" The 1931 budget, aggregating $2,220.40, also made no mention of the well. The notice, if given, of the 1931 election to which that budget was submitted was not introduced in evidence, and was not mentioned by the witnesses. The 1931 budget included an emergency item of $100. Both budgets were adopted. The testimony does not indicate directly how many voters attended those two meetings, but warrants the inference that possibly only the three directors and the clerk were present. The 1930 and 1931 budgets were composed of the following items:
1930 1931
Clerk .............................................. $ 50.00 $ 50.00
Legal service (clerk's bond, audit, etc.) ............ 12.50 12.50
Teachers ............................................ 900.00 990.00
Supplies (chalk, paper, etc.) ........................ 10.00 10.00
Text books (desk copies and indigents) ........................ 15.00
Janitors and other employees ......................... 45.00 45.00
Janitor's supplies .................................... 5.00 20.00
Fuel ................................................. 50.00 30.00
Repair and replacement of furniture and equipment .... 25.00
Repair and maintenance of buildings and grounds ...... 25.00 25.00
Insurance ............................................ 10.00 5.20
Principal on warrants ........................................ 850.00
Interest on warrants .......................................... 67.70
Total emergency ..................................... 400.00
Emergency .................................................... 100.00
The clerk's minutes of the annual meeting held June 16, 1930 stated: The minutes of the annual meeting held June 15, 1931, stated: "A discussion about what to do with the school well was held and it was thought best to have the board meet in La Grande some time and go see the man who does that work and try and make some arrangement about getting it cleaned out before next school term."
Shortly after the 1931 meeting, two of the directors conferred with the defendant Edwards concerning the well. September 23 1931, these two directors and Edwards again met and signed the contract with which we are now concerned. In it Edwards and Billups agreed to drill the well deeper, and the board promised to pay them for their services $3 for every foot drilled, supply the casings, and provide board and lodging for Edwards and his helper. The contract stipulated that the minimum sum paid for drilling should be not less than $150. After 206 feet had been drilled, a flow of water satisfactory to the board was reached, and the work then stopped. Edwards and Billups thereupon presented a claim to the board for $618. The district incurred an expense of $249 for casings, and the defendant Beem presented a charge for $67.50 for the board and lodging which he had supplied to Edwards and his helper. The total of these items is $934.50. When these claims were presented, the board possessed less than $100 cash. October 26, 1931, at a meeting of all three of the school directors, two of them cast votes in favor of a resolution which recited the execution of the above-mentioned contract, its performance by the drillers, and a necessity for deepening the well, and concluded: "Resolved by the directors of school district No. 41 that the said contract between said district and said A. L. Edwards and George Billups and its execution be and the same be hereby in all things ratified and confirmed."
When the board proposed to issue warrants in payment of the above-mentioned charges, the plaintiffs brought this suit to restrain them from so doing. They contend among other things that the board lacked authority to sign it on behalf of the district.
School districts of the third class, by virtue of section 35-908, Oregon Code 1930, are bodies corporate "competent to transact all business coming under their jurisdiction." The officers of the district are three directors and a clerk. Section 35-923. All regular and special meetings of the school district are convened by written call signed by the chairman of the board of directors and the clerk or by a majority of the board, stating the objects of the proposed meeting. The clerk is required to post written notices of the call in three public places ten days before the meeting. Both of these requirements are imposed by section 35-1002. District meetings have the power, by virtue of section 35-1009, to levy a tax upon all property within the district for the support of the schools and to make any necessary appropriations. This same section of our laws follows the grant of that power with these limitations: ***"
Section 35-1008 requires the directors to prepare annually and deliver to the clerk "an itemized statement of the amount of revenues which may be required for the purpose of carrying on the district schools for the ensuing year." This same section of our laws also provides: "It shall be the duty of the district clerk of any district before a meeting is held for the purpose of levying taxes to publish once a week for two successive weeks within thirty days immediately preceding such meeting in one or more newspapers published in the district and...
To continue reading
Request your trial