Wright v. Kinney
| Decision Date | 23 December 1898 |
| Citation | 31 S.E. 874,123 N.C. 618 |
| Parties | WRIGHT . v. KINNEY, Treasurer, et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Schools and School Districts—Orders—Negotiability—Authentication—Powers of County Board—Justice of the Peace—Jurisdiction-Appeal—Misjoinder—Review.
1. Sup. Ct. Rule 27 (27 S. E. viii.), providing that no exceptions shall be considered other than those set out or filed and made part of the case on record, precludes consideration of objections for misjoinder of parties or causes of action without exceptions reserved from rulings below.
2. The remedy against a county treasurer for refusal to pay a school order is either by mandamus or action on the treasurer's official bond, of which a justice has no jurisdiction.
3. A school order being nonnegotiable, in the sense of the law merchant, is open, in the hands of assignees by indorsement, to defenses against the original holder.
4. Under Laws 1897, c. 108, § 15, requiring school orders to be signed first by at least three members of the district committee, and then by the county, supervisor of schools, who shall place his seal upon it, without which no order shall be a valid voucher in the hands of the county treasurer, a person who, without authority, indorsed such an order, which had been signed by only two members of the committee, is not personally liable to one who bought the order on the faith of such indorsement, because, even if it were authorized, the order would still be invalid.
5. Under Laws 1897, c. 108, § 15, requiring school orders to be signed first by at least three members of the district committee, and then by the county supervisor of schools, who shall place his seal upon it, without which no order shall be a valid voucher in the hands of the county treasurer, an order of the county board of education to the county treasurer to pay an order drawn by a district is a nullity, that board having no control over such orders.
Appeal from superior court, Davidson county; Allen, Judge.
Action by R. L. Wright against W. N. Kinney, treasurer, and others. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Walser & Walser and R. L. Wright, for appellant.
E. E. Raper, for appellees.
This action was begun before a justice of the peace against Kinney, astreasurer of Davidson county, and Ed. L. Greene, upon an order for $22.50, dated May 28, 1897, and signed by Amos Smith and Joe Miller, as committee of district No. 23 (colored) of that county, reciting therein that it was for the purchase of school charts. It was payable to W. W. Tutwiler, or bearer, who sold it to plaintiff, and indorsed it. Before the order was indorsed to plaintiff, the following was written thereon: but the board of county commissioners never approved the order, nor did it authorize Greene to do so. On January 3, 1898, the board of education ordered the county treasurer to pay, out of the funds apportioned to the several districts, the orders held by the Lexington and Salisbury banks, of which number this check was one, with a proviso that no district pay for more than one chart. This order was presented to defendant Kinney, as treasurer, and he refused to pay it, or recognize it in any way as valid.
No exception on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action or misjoinder of parties was made below, and, of course, cannot be considered here. Rule 27 of this court (27 S. E. viii.). As to the defendant Kinney, treasurer, the plaintiff had two remedies, — either to sue him on his bond, or to apply for a mandamus; and of neither of these actions did the justice of the peace have jurisdiction. Robinson v. Howard, 84 N. C. 151; Taylor v. School Committee, 50 N. C. 98.
Orders or warrants issued by a municipal corporation are not negotiable, and carry with them none of the privileges of negotiable paper, except to pass by delivery upon indorsement. Daniel, Neg. Inst. § 427; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 487. In Wall v. Monroe Co., 103 U. S. 71, Field, J., says: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
London v. Board of Com'rs for Yancey County
...law. Hearne v. Commissioners, 188 N.C. 45, 123 S.E. 641; Fore v. Feimster, 171 N.C. 551, 88 S.E. 977, L. R. A. 1916F, 481; Wright v. Kinney, 123 N.C. 618, 31 S.E. 874. Did commissioners act in their official capacity upon the question of this supplemental contract? The plaintiff testified: ......
-
Spruill v. Davenport
... ... a teacher. Parties must keep within the law, when making ... their contracts. This view is sustained by Wright v ... Kinney, 123 N.C. 619, 31 S.E. 874, though our case is ... stronger for defendant here. We mention this matter, though ... not strictly ... ...
-
London v. Bd. Of Com'rs For Yancey County, (No. 533.)
...Hearne v. Commissioners, 188 N. C. 45, 123 S. E. 641; Fore v. Feimster, 171 N. C. 551, 88 S. E. 977, L. R. A. 1916F, 481; Wright, v. Kinney, 123 N. C. 618, 31 S. E. 874. Did the commissioners not in their official capacity upon the question of this supplemental contract? The plaintiff testi......
-
First Nat. Bank v. Warlick
...plaintiff, it is admitted, cannot recover against the county, for such orders are not negotiable, under the law merchant ( Wright v. Kinney, 123 N.C. 618, 31 S.E. 874; Indiana v. Glover, 155 U.S. 513, 15 S.Ct. 186, L.Ed. 243); and the assignee, though taking without notice, cannot recover (......